Who says it's wrong to take sides in a civil war?

[Snowden]

Who says it's wrong to take sides in a civil war?

By Jonah Goldberg


Without much notice and even less discussion, "civil war" has become the new abracadabra phrase for American foreign policy.

Sen. Joe Biden leads the magicians who've seemed to convince everybody that it never makes sense to get involved in a civil war. In March, he screamed from the Senate floor: "I'm so tired of hearing on this floor about courage. Have the courage to tell the administration, 'Stop this ridiculous policy you have.' We're taking sides in a civil war."

Biden's not alone. It's become a standard talking point for most major opponents of the Iraq war. The Democrats' Iraq-withdrawal point man in the House, John Murtha, says we're "caught in a civil war" in almost every interview, as if this is the geopolitical equivalent of "I've fallen and can't get up." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week that, "We stand united ... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war."

The assumption behind this gambit is obvious: Declaring it a civil war is like blowing a whistle at the end of the game. There's nothing left to do but pack up the equipment and go home.

Al-Qaida in Iraq (and perhaps the Iranians) have clearly figured this out. That's why they consistently try to stoke sectarian passions by, for example, bombing the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq's holiest Shia shrine. That 2006 attack prompted the formation of Shiite militias and death squads, which in turn provided fresh evidence that Iraq was heading toward civil war.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been desperate to keep the press from describing the situation in Iraq as a "civil war," for the obvious reason that the administration will lose its remaining support if the American public thinks this is just a civil war.

OK, but here's what I don't get: Why? Why is it obvious that intervening in a civil war is not only wrong but so self-evidently wrong that merely calling the Iraqi conflict a civil war closes off discussion?

Surely it can't be a moral argument. Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill Clinton's intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. If we can violate the prime directive of no civil wars for Darfur and Kosovo, why not for Kirkuk and Basra?

If your answer is that those calls for intervention were "humanitarian," that just confuses me more. Advocates of a pullout mostly concede that Iraq will become a genocidal, humanitarian disaster if we leave. Is the prospect of Iraqi genocide more tolerable for some reason?

Then there are those who take the fatalist's cop-out: Civil wars have no good guys and bad guys. They're just dogfights, and we should stay out of them and see who comes out on top. But that's also confusing, because not only is it not true, but liberals have been saying the opposite for generations. They cheered for the Reds against the Whites in the Russian civil war, for the Communists against the Fascists in the Spanish civil war, and for the victims of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and Sudan. Surely liberals believe there was a good side and a bad side in the American Civil War?

Ah, but I'm missing the point, they might say. It's not that there aren't good guys and bad guys, it's that we can't do anything about it and therefore it's not in our interests to try. Then they point to, say, the civil wars in Lebanon or, closer to their hearts, Vietnam.

Let's stipulate Vietnam was a civil war. So what? There were certainly good guys and bad guys, and let the record show the bad guys won, which was not in our interests. This in turn led to many humanitarian calamities. And, recall, another superpower intervened in that civil war, and it worked out pretty well for the Soviets.

More to the point, it's ludicrous to believe America has no interest in who wins or loses various civil wars, including Iraq's. The 20th century would have been a lot more pleasant if the Bolsheviks had lost the Russian civil war, and the 21st will be a lot more ugly if Sunni Salafists or Iranian pawns win in Iraq.
I'm not saying a civil war is a desirable environment for anybody. But nor is it a geopolitical black box absolving all concerned from moral and strategic discrimination. And yet that is exactly what advocates for withdrawal from Iraq want everyone to believe, but only when it comes to Iraq.

Jonah Goldberg

[Woodmonkey]

Let's stipulate Vietnam was a civil war. So what? There were certainly good guys and bad guys, and let the record show the bad guys won, which was not in our interests. This in turn led to many humanitarian calamities. And, recall, another superpower intervened in that civil war, and it worked out pretty well for the Soviets.

Let's not stipulate that 'cause it's a damn lie! The good guys did not lose, the bad guys were handed victory by the American polilticians and media.

[RAMESES the Great]

My ladies, two of my five Trackpads queens and wives, it is not seemly to argue over such as issue! Both of you are right! The bad guys did win, and it was because we (and our Vietnamese allies) were failed at home politically.

Neferteri I understand and approve your point that too many are willing to blame the American military for the failure that was Vietnam. Now be nice and harmoneous, Please!

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by RAMESES the Great

Neferteri I understand and approve your point that too many are willing to blame the American military for the failure that was Vietnam. Now be nice and harmoneous, Please!

Anything for you, dear RAMESES. However, it is still a lie that the American military lost in Vietnam and to stipulate to that is wrong.

The politicians and the media handed that "victory" to North Vietnam.

Wasn't it Giap who said they were ready to surrender when they saw what our media and what the war protestors were doing?

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Let's not stipulate that 'cause it's a damn lie! The good guys did not lose, the bad guys were handed victory by the American polilticians and media.

Exactly, and if our current lot of liberal, cowardly media continue to carry on this way, it will happen again. Our Congress and the media are both the same now; they are liberals and they are working to make the US look like it cannot win a war any more. This creates a great danger to us; they are convincing a terrible enemy that we cannot stand against it.

Originally Posted by RAMESES the Great

My ladies, two of my five Trackpads queens and wives, it is not seemly to argue over such as issue! Both of you are right! The bad guys did win, and it was because we (and our Vietnamese allies) were failed at home politically.

Neferteri I understand and approve your point that too many are willing to blame the American military for the failure that was Vietnam. Now be nice and harmoneous, Please!

Dear Rameses, the bad guys won in Vietnam after our troops beat them, because of the government's lack of honesty and courage. Neferteri and I are in accord about it, dear Great One. We are just both passionate women ... as you know. We are passionate about this country, too. It cannot be seen as cowardly unless we want to fight right here at home. If al Qaeda, Iran and the rest of the Islamic fanatics see us as weakened in fact or in spirit, they will be encouraged to continue attacks against us here and abroad.

Goldberg is right. We must not just pick up and go home, as much as we all would like to do that.

[RAMESES the Great]

Thank you my ladies, harmony and Maat, is restored! Thank you again!