home > by publication type > daily analysis > What ‘Civil War’ Means for Iraq
Email
| Prepared by: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
Many say Iraq now qualifies as a civil war, but the White House disagrees. (AP)
The current debate over how to label the bloodshed in Iraq—set off by a number of news outlets’ decisions to describe it as a “civil war”—is nothing new. John F. Burns wrote in the New York Times back in July 2005 of violence “ever more centered on sectarian killings, with Sunni insurgents targeting hundreds of Shiite and Kurdish civilians” and reports of Shiite death squads “retaliating by abducting and killing Sunni clerics and community leaders.”
In September of last year, CFR.org asked a number of experts whether Iraq qualified as a civil war. Most responded that it was approaching one. Violence in the country has since taken on a new ferocity and an intensified sectarian nature, as the number of bodies in Baghdad’s morgue pile up. Also, defeatism has set in among some officials, both American and Iraqi, which stands in marked contrast to the higher hopes last year at this time ahead of permanent elections.
But in Washington there remains little consensus (Newsweek) on what kind of war is underway in Iraq. White House officials say it is too fluid and amorphous to be a civil war. After all, there is still an insurgency raging; Shiites are feuding among themselves in southern Iraq; and Sunnis hardly constitute a unified camp. Most civil wars, moreover, are ideological in nature, not sectarian, historians say. Domestic politics also plays an important role. Donald Kagan of Yale University says use of the term “civil war” is a ploy (PBS) by those favoring a U.S. pullout from Iraq.
Yet others say Iraq qualifies as a civil war. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck,” says CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot, in this new Backgrounder. Outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraq was "much worse" (al-Jazeera) than civil wars in Lebanon and elsewhere. Military analysts say there are important implications if Iraq has graduated from sectarian strife or an insurgency to civil war. Some analysts say the Pentagon should throw out its counterinsurgency playbook and choose one of two options: Pick a side (and make sure it wins out militarily) or mediate a power-sharing settlement.
In the midst of this debate, President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan. The timing of his trip coincided with a leaked memo that questioned the Iraqi leader’s competence. Bush reaffirmed his faith in the prime minister, while Maliki in turn promised his forces would be able to secure Iraq by next June. Anthony H. Cordesman, an expert on Middle East military affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes that effective security forces may not be enough to avert a split-up of Iraq or a larger civil war; a “lasting political compromise” is also required.
The viability of Iraqi security forces will also factor into whether Bush adopts the recommendations put forth by the upcoming Iraq Study Group. The bipartisan commission’s report, due out December 6, is expected to recommend pulling back fifteen combat brigades (NYT) (without setting a fixed date for withdrawal) and opening dialogue with the Iranians and Syrians. National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley told Meet The Press the president will review recommendations by the commission and suggested there “are going to be significant changes” (Video) in Iraq. Another leaked memo, sent to the White House by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld two days before his departure, called for a "major adjustment" of the Iraq strategy and admitted slow progress.
Criticisms of the commission are already surfacing. Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsch says its report will be a “bust” because of its call for consensus-building. Fred Kaplan of Slate agrees, adding that U.S. leverage over events in Iraq is “miniscule.”
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.