The Daily Background

Continuing my ongoing series of posts discussing those who are honest- and those who refuse to label the conflict in Iraq a ‘civil war,’ check out this piece in today’s NYT:

The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that 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 says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq’s conflict is a civil war.

[…]
But in fact, many scholars say the bloodshed here already puts Iraq in the top ranks of the civil wars of the last half-century. The carnage of recent days — beginning with bombings on Thursday in a Shiite district of Baghdad that killed more than 200 people — reinforces their assertion.

Clearly, there is an academic consensus on this issue. It’s also important to note the political considerations of those unwilling to use the term:

In the United States, the debate over the term rages because many politicians, especially those who support the war, believe there would be domestic political implications to declaring it a civil war. They fear that an acknowledgment by the White House and its allies would be seen as an admission of a failure of President Bush’s Iraq policy.

They also worry that the American people might not see a role for American troops in an Iraqi civil war and would more loudly demand a withdrawal.

That’s as stupid as calling insurgents “a couple of dead-enders” for political reasons when they clearly weren’t. Or, as stupid as calling the insurgency “in its last throes” for political reasons when it clearly wasn’t.

Filed under: Iraq Related, Z-TDB Blog