Letters to the Editor

• What do you mean "prevent a civil war?"

  [Read the article: And who says we don't have a plan for victory?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Thank you, Tim. I’ve been waiting for this topic to come up. Well, not Donald Rumsfeld; I’ll save him for a special screed on military leaders who’ve gone as mad as a March hare. I was waiting for someone in the media to once again say or refer to a “pending” civil war.

  To Salon and any other media outlet reading this: please stop. You are doing your readers/listeners a great disservice by pretending Iraq is not already mired in civil war. If there is any debate it should be when the civil war began (my opinion below). That debate should then be thrust aside to each media’s version of 60 Minutes Tuesday or Scarborough Country, while the main debate focuses on what role, if any, should the US have in Iraq’s civil war? This screed shall be divided into three parts: Part 1 my opinion on when the civil war began. I start this first not because it is relevant to this piece (it isn’t) but because I am a writer by egotistical desire and, like any writer worth his whiskey shot, it is really all about me. Part 2, the part you should skip to, is about why it is important to acknowledge the fact Iraq is in a civil war (for once, media, you will not be debating semantics or counting angels on a pin. This really is important.) and Part 3 will cover what America’s continuing involvement in Iraq can do to effect or end this civil war (it can’t, at least not unless it wants to be even more brutal than Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined).

  Part One: Years from now (or maybe months in Bob Woodward years) historians will write of the Iraq conflict claiming the civil war started the day George Bush stepped out onto the deck of the aircraft carrier under a banner of “Mission Accomplished” to proclaim the end of hostilities. They will point to a small item in the New York Times about a terrorist explosion, which killed several Americans and numerous Iraqis. They will do this not because there is any historical basis to this being the official start of the civil war (like say, bombarding Fort Sumter), but it makes for a great literary trope,( and they can cite the New York Times, a major plus in an historical book). Here you have Bush at the height of his myopic arrogance strutting across the deck of the Navy’s monument to power, under a banner as foolhardy as a sign welcoming all to the Tower of Babel. You have great contrast; a lone bomb exploding among a crowd of Iraqis like the musket fire of minutemen repelling redcoats at Concord. The civil war is on. No basis in truth, but a great opening for any future book written by Doris Kearns Woodward McCullough.

  Truth is, the civil war began when George H.W. Bush (the older George) called for the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. Everyone knew who he was talking to, particularly the Shia and Kurds who answered that call and resulted in the ten years of “no fly zones.” What Americans didn’t realize is that the call heard by these Kurds and Shias wasn’t just directed at Saddam, but at the Sunni minority. To explain in a way most Americans can understand, consider the star belly Sneetches and the Sneetches without star bellies. If George I had issued a call for the starless Sneetches to rise up against Sadstar HussSneetch, the leader of the starbelly sneetches, do you honestly think the starless Sneetches would have said “Yeah! Lets man the barricades and give our lives to replace Sadstar HussSneetch with his starbelly neighbor! Maybe he will be nice to us!” George I knew or should have known better. Bush I’s call to arms was received by Kurds and Shias as a call to overthrow the Sunnis, not just Saddam. They tried. They were getting slaughtered. The US stepped in with a no fly zone that effectively maintained an uneasy truce in a civil war incited by the US.

  Now others better informed than me may take the civil war all the way back to Sykes Picot agreement corralling these three ethnic groups into one country, or to Saddam’s ascension to power, or to the rebellions in the 1980’s which led to the mass executions of Shia’s and the gassing of the Kurds. I assert 1991 is the proper date because that is the first time both Kurds and Shia’s arose in large enough numbers to create a military conflict and divide (with US support) the nation. No matter which date you choose, Iraq has been in a civil war prior to the 2003 invasion. Years from now, when the debate over whether what is going on is a civil war is no longer an issue that threatens the political standing of the current administration, I guarantee all historians will agree the civil war preceded whatever day you are currently reading this letter.

  Part 2 continued in next post due to limited word count

  Permalink Thursday, March 9, 2006 06:17 PM