What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
Special Investigation:
Have Journalist Been Deliberately Murdered in Iraq by the US
Military?
Our new
CounterPunch newsletter, just out, Christopher Reed examines
the growing body count of journalists in Iraq and documents numerous
incidents where US troops have deliberately targeted reporters.
Charles Glass offers a
stark comparison of the uprooting of Palestians in the Galilee
during the 1948 war to the lush compensation of Israeli's living
on the same land who were displaced by the war on Lebanon. Remember, we are funded
solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
"Men will ever distinguish
war from mere bloodshed."
Frederick William Robertson,
19th Century English Preacher
Listening to the radio and watching
television, one can only marvel at the accuracy of Preacher Robertson's
observation.
As a simple matter of morality,
it is an unconscionable waste of time and energy for policy makers
to be sidetracked by the debate as to whether Iraq is or is not
a civil war. In this case, George Bush is right. Iraq is not
in a civil war; it is in a most Un-civil war, just as all wars
are uncivil.
That said, however, in the
broader context of propaganda and manipulation of language to
manipulate the public--standard practice of this and other administrations--the
argument on whether Iraq has descended into an uncivil civil
war is important, as events of the past few days attest.
November 29 in Baghdad: The
Council of Representatives (a.k.a. the Iraqi Parliament) voted
to extend the country's 25 month-old state of emergency for another
30 days. The action allows the security forces to arrest and
detain Iraqis without warrants and to impose curfews. This gives
near carte blanche to Shi'ite and Sunni death squads that
have infiltrated the police and army. Moreover, some U.S. trainers
are voicing concern that too much specialized training (e.g.,
sniper tactics) for Iraqis, whose ultimate allegiance is to sect,
not nation, could, in the next weeks and months, be used against
"other" Iraqis and even the U.S. trainers.
A day earlier, the UN Security
Council, at the request of Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
and acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed
Resolution 1723 (2006) extending the mandate of the 160,000 "multinational"
troops (almost all U.S. and about to become moreso) now in Iraq
to December 31, 2007. As in past resolutions, the Security Council
retained the provisions giving the Iraqi government the option
to ask that the mandate be revoked before the end of 2007 and
requiring that the mandate be reviewed not later than June 15,
2007, if it is not revoked earlier. Yet what many experts, in
and outside the UN and elsewhere, continue to warn is that the
very presence of the multinational force feeds into the general
war frenzy and fear that have gripped one quarter of the population
of Iraq.
In Tallinn, Estonia en route
to a two day meeting of NATO heads of state, President Bush conceded
that Iraq is "tough." Still, he steadfastly ignored
a question as to whether the situation in Iraq is a "civil
war." White House Press Secretary Tony Snow rejected the
term, saying there are not yet "two clearly defined and
opposing groups vying not only for power but for territory."
Bush and Snow's remarks came
on the heels of evaluations by other public figures such as King
Abdullah II of Jordan and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who
said Iraq was nearly in or on the brink of civil war. More direct
were Bush's first-term Secretary of State and former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell, the NBC network,
and the Los Angeles Times, who all unambiguously labeled the
fighting "civil war."
Now it is somewhat curious
that the Pentagon's Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms (as amended through April 2006)--also known as Joint
Publication 01 or JP-01--defines insurgency, guerrilla warfare,
and unconventional warfare, but does not have a definition for
civil war. For the military, a concept or an event not officially
defined does not exist, and thus it does not require resources,
planning, or further consideration. So, if the first Joint
Publication has no definition, then that can only mean that the
U.S. "doesn't do civil wars." (This also sets the Pentagon
in a position to deny any and all accusations that it even thinks
of inciting or otherwise getting involved in such conflicts.
The CIA doesn't reveal how it operates under civil war situations,
let alone that it does, so it doesn't have to bother with denials.)
Not quite. Recognizing that
words are important in shaping the parameters for policy and
programs, the Pentagon inserted an interesting disclaimer in
the preface to the Dictionary of Military Terms stating
that only terms "inadequately covered in standard commonly
accepted dictionaries" are included. This undoubtedly would
be cited as the reason "civil war" is not in JP-01,
although "insurgency," "unconventional warfare,"
and "guerrilla warfare" are. This raises a question
about which of these words are in a civilian dictionary and yet
are also in JP-01. Webster's New World College Edition Dictionary
(2005) was chosen as the test bed, because the 20 volume, 21,728
page Oxford English Dictionary, while certainly "standard,"
is not portable enough to be "common." Webster's
defines "insurgence," "guerrilla," and "civil
war" but not "unconventional warfare."
How do the definitions compare?
In the military dictionary,
"insurgency" is defined as "an organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use
of subversion and armed conflict"--with an "insurgent"
being "a member of a political party." Webster's
defines "insurgence" as "a rising in revolt, an
uprising, an insurrection"--with the latter word adding
"a rising against governmental or political authority, a
rebellion, a revolt."
The Pentagon defines "guerrilla
warfare" as "military and paramilitary operations conducted
in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly
indigenous forces." This folds, virtually verbatim, within
the definition of unconventional warfare (UW), which differs
in noting that UWs normally last for a long time and at least
one side receives aid from an outside source.
In defining "guerrilla,"
Webster's includes the archaic definition of "warfare
carried on by guerrillas"--that is, both the actions of
armed conflict and the characterization of one who participates
in this type of warfare.
Finally, Webster's defines
"civil war" as "a war between geographical sections
or political factions of the same nation."
Compressing the military dictionary
definitions into a single statement centered on the common term
"insurgency/insurgence" gives a composite definition
of "a lengthy effort by opponents using guerrilla methods
against a political authority currently in power." This
parallels the Webster's "civil war" definition
only in terms of a contest for political control.
After all that, it would seem
simpler to take the Webster's definition and be done with
it.
But there is another word missing
from JP-01, the three-letter word that encompasses all that the
Pentagon represents: WAR. Should this omission be attributed
to the disclaimer in JP-01, could one not infer that the message
from the Pentagon to the general public is that the people, individually
and collectively, are quite able--paraphrasing Justice Potter
Stewart--to recognize war when they see it.?
That same logic applies to
civil war. One count indicates that the world has seen and vast
populations have endured more than 100 civil wars since the end
of the Cold War 15 years ago. Little wonder that more than 65
percent of the U.S. public thinks Iraq is a civil war.
The White House ought to listen
to its own advice, stop wasting energy playing semantic games,
and start pulling together regional security and economic reconstruction
conferences as the alternative to war in Iraq. As these become
operational, hope might begin to return to Iraq, and U.S and
other coalition soldiers can return to their homes.
Anything less is "staying
the course" of more casualties, more destruction, more hatred.
Col. Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for
Foreign Policy In Focus ,
a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military
affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Email
at dan@fcnl.org.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
