The editors of National Review, mindful of what penumbral discussion they are choosing to enter, define sectarian gang killings centered in Baghdad with a diagnostic compromise. Supporters of the Iraqi campaign are unwilling to concede anything to oppositionists for whom the phrase "civil war" is mnemonic for "Tet Offensive," and National Review splits the difference: No civil war, but one that menaces, and internecine strife "violent enough to qualify."
National Review's editors are fair to the Bush administration and Iraq's elected leaders, and offer reasonable suggestions. But that advice could be delivered apart from the antecedent; entertaining the idea of civil war, the editors commit two errors in their sociopolitical calculus. First, for the violence to cause a civil war, religious and ethnic groups must be taken to be unanimous; second, collective blame must be laid for the actions, however disproportionately destructive, of a very few. Civil wars, even nominal ones, require some kind of popular participation, and if that were the case it would be obvious. Lacking this the editors appear to rely on conjecture, and that leads to overbroad conclusions. The Badr militias claim to be Shiite? Well then, Shiites must be Badr. Al Qaeda, Ba'athists and violent tribes are Sunni? These groups must be cadres around which Sunnis rally.
A weak association is made between Iraq and misjoinder federations. Bedlam in Iraq, the editors write, could be managed like "the wars of the Balkans." Yugoslavia's aftermath? It was eventuated by secessions and populated by standing armies and militias. Those leading Slovenians, Croatians and others away from Belgrade sought political independence, not — as is the case in Iraq — wanton murder in the streets. Who, precisely, leads each faction? From where? To what end? Why is most of the slaughter occurring in Baghdad, for no other reason than an abundance of civilian targets? Why are Kurds, who would be best equipped for secession, not involved in the carnage? What is the significance of Iran's direction of one criminal menagerie, and Syria the other? Has anybody stopped to ask why — after thousands of deaths from car bombs and alleyway murders, dozens of incursions on religious sites — all that was needed was a brief series of well-publicized mosque bombings before "death squads" materialized as if on cue?
Declared enemies of freedom are attempting to frighten Western patrons of Iraq with the factious dysfunction of a former police state. It's a clever little travesty, and National Review, which at certain times during Iraqi reconstruction has gone docile, is willing to suspend disbelief. Civil war? The finest answer to this question came in one sentence from the steps of a bus: "By my definition of a civil war, which is a collapse of government and warring factions taking control of the country, there is not a civil war." The source of it is also one of irony, Joe Lieberman.