What’s in a name?

There seems to be a lot of debate on what is the appropriate description of the violence in Iraq. Is it simply sectarian violence as the Bush administration is calling it, or is it a civil war as the press has now labeled it? In my opinion, both labels do not accurately describe the mess that is Iraq. The Bush administration seems keen on using the former label as it sounds less threatening. The media has been itching to use the term civil war for quite some time and my guess as to why they decided to start now is that they just could not wait any longer to use it. In American society, the term civil war conjures up painful reminders to our own brush with civil war and the mere thought of it only serves to further erode support of the war. I believe this is exactly what the media wants. They have been against the president since the contested election of 2000 and have not let up since. This hatred is detrimental to our efforts and undermines what we are trying to accomplish in fighting the war on terror. However, that is not to say that this administration does not deserve some media scrutiny, because it most certainly does, and it is important to understand what we have gotten ourselves into.

Let’s start with the term “sectarian violence”. Sectarian is defined as “religion relating to or involving relations between religious groups or denominations” (Encarta Dictionary). So sectarian violence is simply violence between various religions groups. If only it were that simple here. This definition does not take into account the strong influences of Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. It is a fact that Iran is providing Shia militias with weapons (http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501). Al Qaeda, if I am not mistaken, is supporting the Sunni factions. So as we see this is not as simple a situation as warring factions by themselves. Here we have an already volatile situation made worse by the outside influences of Iran and Al Qaeda.

The term “civil war” also is misleading as it too does not take into account the external factors previously mentioned. Wikipedia defines civil war as “A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war). I admit, you would probably be able to find many definitions of “civil war”, the reason why I do not think Iraq qualifies is that in Iraq you do have a unified, albeit weak, government comprised of all sects. The Sunnis and Shia are not so much as fighting for control of this government as they are fighting to eradicate the other from existence. Essentially you have a potential genocide problem on our hands.
So what do we have in Iraq? I would describe it as “gang warfare”, where you have various factions fighting for control of territory and neighborhoods, much like two gangs fighting for control of Los Angles streets. Or even Mafia like fighting, with the various religious leaders acting like crime bosses. One of our biggest mistakes is that we underestimated the tribal bonds if Iraqis. I have read that Sunni police only want to go after Shias and that Shias only want to pursue Sunnis. How do we combat that?

Recently a veteran of the Iraq war came to speak at my place of employment on how life is in Iraq. I forget the rank of this gentleman; I think he was a Major. I do remember he is currently attending the Fletcher school of diplomacy, not exactly your local community college and not exactly your knuckle dragger type, as John Kerry would suggest. Two things he told us really struck a chord with me. The first is that it is considered an insult to make contact with another mans wife, daughter, or sister. More than a mere glance can start a “blood feud”. So as our troops patrol the streets, this is the type of detail they need to keep in mind, something that is a direct opposite to our extraverted nature. The second story has to do with our use of force in civilian populations. To us, the killing of civilians is strictly found upon. I do believe we take great care in trying to minimize civilian causalities. However, to the common Iraqi, this is seen as a weakness. This officer told us that Iraqis refer to the US military as “soft as cake” because we would NOT consider killing a group of civilians for the CHANCE of killing a terrorist.
Their value of human life is so much different than ours and for that reason alone, we are not succeeding. As long as the various sects, propped up by Iran and Al Qaeda continue to kill each other, there is really nothing we can do. So, do I think this is a civil war? I say, does it really matter? Until we address the real issues, it does not make an ounce of difference as to what we call it.