There has been a lot of debate lately over whether or not Iraq has entered a state of civil war. Some question why, given the level of sectarian violence in which hundreds of Iraqis are dying every week, the President and others, including those of us in the media, still refuse to use the expression "civil war" to describe what is happening there.
The reason why we at the eXile, along with our colleagues at the New York Times and Washington Post, are resisting using this term is quite simple: there is no civil war in Iraq. Instead what is happening there is what we call "sectarian violence." And that's a damn good thing, because "sectarian violence," as the name implies, is not only different, it's also a lot less serious than "civil war."
In a civil war, as everyone knows, each side chooses a color, such as blue and gray. Thus far, neither Shiites nor Sunnis have chosen to wear either blue or gray uniforms. Perhaps they will at some point, and we will be the first to report it when that happens, but for now, we don't see any signs of the two sides choosing uniform colors. Instead, the Shia Mehdi Army prefers to wear black, other militias wear camouflage, still others wear Interior Ministry uniforms, and meanwhile, many Sunni insurgents wear indistinct polyester button-down shirts and eitherfake denims or polyester slacks. How can anyone reasonably call that a uniform? Or more to the point: what kind of a civil war is this! Please, enlighten us.
Another feature of civil wars is set battles between opposing armies. Even the most enthusiastic members of the "civil war" choir will admit that so far, there have been no set battles in Iraq between the two sects. So it's pretty clear: no set battle formations, no civil war. Until we see significant formations of Sunnis and Shiites squaring off on a large field of battle, with command structures and leaders who pen long, lyrical, heavy-hearted letters to their wives and brothers about the horrors of war, we can't call it a civil war, can we?
Tactically, what makes this "sectarian violence" is the fact that the Sunni insurgents are using car bombs and suicide bombers, while the Shiites are using government cover and widespread torture, including electric drills. It is a well-known fact that true civil wars are followed in peacetime by civil war battle reenactments. But it is impossible to imagine Sunni and Shia gathering yearly for reenactments of huge car bombings and suicide bombings, or mass kidnappings, tortures and executions. How can you stage those events? Furthermore, what if the bombing of the sacred Golden Mosque in Samarra were reenacted every year by Iraqi Civil War buffs? It would mean that the real civil war would start anew every year. Which obviously cannot happen, because those are not the rules. So therefore, there will be no civil war reenactments in Iraq, and if there are no reenactments, then it follows ipso facto that there is no civil war.
Here we must ask ourselves why some have been clamoring to label the sectarian violence in Iraq a "civil war." We'd tell you why. But if we did, then we'd have to kill you. However, before killing you, we'd put on a blue uniform, blow a bugle, write long ponderous letters to our fiancees about the horrors of killing our readers while they're reading our editorials, employing an archaic language that makes us seem more noble than we really are. And we wouldn't kill you while you're reading this alone somewhere. No, we'd draw you out into battle somewhere on an open field. Like say Kolomenskoe park. Yeah, that's where we'll face down you, readers. Just us against you. Today, after work. 7pm.
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com