• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Semantics of Civil War

“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.

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 21, 2019
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
stclair
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
Arshad Khan
The Turkish Gambit
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Rare Wildflower vs. Mining Company
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail