A civil war in Islam?

[JD]

Marc,

One last question while I think of it. Why does the concept of a civil war in Islam raise hysteria against all Muslims? I would have thought it would allow the general population to better differentiate the potential enemy from potential freinds and develop empahty for those opposed to radical Islam?

JD

[JD]

Marc,
Thanks for your reply.

You state theat characterising current conflicts limits options. I was hoping you could expand on this.

My personal beleif is that to characterise something as a war brings with it the connotation of how it is to be fought - there is 'us' and there is 'them' and kinetic effects are used until 'they' don't want to fight anymore. Alternatively, we call everthing a war which is confusing for the lay person who makes up a democratic society and devalues the word for the time we need it to mobilise the entire population.

The 'war on drugs' is a case in point that backs both your and goesh's point about adressing broader societal ills. The 'war on drugs' is a coordinated campaign utilising education, community support, infrastructure, intelligence, direct action, border security, international cooperation and a transparent and accountable justice system. If it is a war, it is war going on within a society amoung those that enjoy the benefits of the drag trade against those that bear the cost - if it is a war, it is a civil war. But how quickly would the war on drugs be over if our children had the support and self beleif to simply rejuect drugs? How quickly would the war on terror be over if potential Jihadist footsoldiers simply rejected radical idealogies?

Why not characterise global conflict as a struggle within Islam? The vast majority of violnce in the middle east would appear to back this assertion? Such a definition would allow potential protagonists to define themselves not in terms of East and West but instead as moderate or radical and having done so, they are likely to act accordingly. It presents the target audience with a palatable and culturrally accepatable choice that is also in the interests of the west. It also allows the west to diferentiate between Muslims as a group and identify potential freinds and potetial enemies. Having done so, the strategy then changes to supporting Muslim allies to the hilt in a culturally sensitive manner that builds trust and works toward an enduring peace. In a civil war, you tend to pci a side and help it win.

Your thoughts?

[goesh]

"Supporting Muslims to the hilt in a culturally sensitive manner" would require reciprocity on the part of our new partners, the moderate Islamic entities, namely in expecting the new partners to treat our allies as we ourselves would be treated in the new partnership. That would involve acknowledging Israel's right to exist for starters, to boldly go where few Islamic entities have gone before. Are you sure you want to turn that kind of a new page in human history? Rather, I should ask, are you capable of this? Prepare your camp then to shake hands with little Israel so that we may all proceed to trample the graves of the Salafists togather as one.

[JD]

What I said was supporting Muslim allies to the hilt as we should support any allies to the hilt. Should Islamic cultures be sesitive to the west - certainly but the west must also be sensitive to Islamic cultures and in doing so foster understaning and engender cultural exchange to soften the appeal of fundamentalisim in any form from any religion. There are many aspects of any culture that are praisworthy just as there are usually many aspects that are repugnant.

We are better to win over support with acts of kindness than acts of violence. This is not to rule out kinetics where it is going t have a strategically advantageous effect but to quote Roman's from the Bible.

12:20. But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

12:21. Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.

[marct]

Hi JD,

One last question while I think of it. Why does the concept of a civil war in Islam raise hysteria against all Muslims? I would have thought it would allow the general population to better differentiate the potential enemy from potential freinds and develop empahty for those opposed to radical Islam?

Sorry about the delay - I started to answer this morning, but had to run out for a choir practice.

I think the reason why using the concept of a "civil war" is so dangerous is that, as with any civil war, it is hard to tell who the players are. It is even more difficult when we are speaking about a civil war inside a religion rather than amongst an ethnic group. Differentiation amongst populations is hard unless there are some prhotypical or linguistic characteristics that can be used to differentiate, and they just aren't in existence here.

This war inside Islam, and, yes, it is a civil war, is not really along hard and fast lines which have had time to differentiate as, for example, the Sunni Shia split. So, while we can name and identify the broad schools of thought, Wahabi, Safali, etc., there aren't recognizable orthopraxic differences that would allow us to say "a Safali would do X and will not do Y", where Y is part of any fundamentalist (in the non-pejorative sense) Muslim's belief.

My fear with labeling it a civil war is that 99.9% of the non-Muslim population will not be able to identify an allies from an opponent and will, as a result, say "a pox on all their houses".

Marc

[JD]

Marc,
I appreciate the response and I am going to keep asking you questions because I am looking to have any of my ideas challnged.

My follow up question is this: Isn't it very often the case that for internal conflict there is often few overt distinguisig characteristics between freinds and enemies and the dnager comes not when this is recognised but when this is ignored and people are treated as a homogenous group. I use the war in Vietnam as an example. I am concerned that the 'war on terror' is morphing in peoplels minds into the 'war on Islam', in both the west and east. This has a historical precendent in the cold war where 'communism' became byword not for all persons giving equally in a society but instead for totalitarianism and repression. By using the phrase civil war in Islam, it immediately recognises that there are at least two sides and Islam is not a homogenous enemy.

Your thoughts?

[marct]

Hi JD,

My follow up question is this: Isn't it very often the case that for internal conflict there is often few overt distinguisig characteristics between freinds and enemies and the dnager comes not when this is recognised but when this is ignored and people are treated as a homogenous group. I use the war in Vietnam as an example. I am concerned that the 'war on terror' is morphing in peoplels minds into the 'war on Islam', in both the west and east. This has a historical precendent in the cold war where 'communism' became byword not for all persons giving equally in a society but instead for totalitarianism and repression. By using the phrase civil war in Islam, it immediately recognises that there are at least two sides and Islam is not a homogenous enemy.

I suspect that the GWOT is, indeed, morphing into a War on Islam in many people's minds. Calling it a civil war may change some perceptions, and I think that it might be advantageous, but one of the problems I see with calling it that is identifying the players (back to my last post) and the basic propositions. Let me go off on what might seem a tangent.

WARNING: The following post contains many broad generalizations

Most Westerners tend to be "orthopraxic" (orthodoxy is determined by what you do, not what you believe, i.e. going to church is "good") if they are religious at all. With some notable exceptions, mainly in North America, we don't have much of an integrated "practice" with a tradition of study and experience (the major exceptions are the various evangelical and charismatic movements, plus the Eastern Orthodox churches in Christianity). Even worse, there is very little mysticism integrated into our practices. What this means is, that for most people, "religion" is a matter of choice not "reality". The same is not true for most Muslims: religion is "reality" and not "choice".

How this situation came about is worth a couple of dissertations in and of itself, but I would put the key to it in the shattering of the ecclesiam in the wars of religion which ended with the Peace of Westphalia and the rise of the modern nation state. The core theological position s one that goes something like this: no one can "know" the mind of God, therefore any interpretation of God's will will be inherently flawed and biased. As a result, "Good" may be found in any religious tradition. BTW, this position is actually held within Islam but in a radically different form - it's why it is quite possible to have competing and contradictory schools of sharia which recognize each other as valid. What is missing from most of them, however, is the devolution of responsibility for this position to the individual.

The second thing that is different is that Islam has not gone through the equivalent of the West's Wars of Religion. The Sunni - Shiite split is closer, in institutional terms, to Christianity's split between the Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity. What we are seeing now is, to my mind, closer to the opening shots of the reformation (for example, I tend to view AQ as an analog of the fraticelli - their positions, actions and tactics are quite similar). In effect, this is not so much a "civil war" with clearly defined sides as it is a religious fracturing and an attempt to reconstruct the ulama along variant lines. In Christianity, this was fought out using black powder weapons and cold steel in a limited geographic area. In Islam, it is being fought out using modern weapons globally.

So, here are the problems with labeling it a civil war as I see them:

1. For some people, it will help but I suspect that the world view of most non-Muslims in the West is so radically different from most Muslims, that the issues involved will be incomprehensible.
2. Calling it a civil war detracts isolates the "problem" as being solely within Islam. As I mentioned earlier, the mind set (actually, I should be using the term weltanscuung from phenomenology - think of it as a basic perceptual stance towards "reality) is actually shared by a number of non-Islamic groups. Calling it a civil war in Islam may well lead to an "Us good, Them bad" mentality in popular culture.
3. Most of "our" religious practice / belief is radically different from "theirs". This means that our "experiential knowledge" of "reality" is radically different. By way of example, try explaining "red to someone who is colour blind.

At the same time, for the past 40+ years in the West, we have seen the rise of new religious movements and revitalization movements in Christianity, Judaism, etc. Indeed, before 9/11, Islam was the fastest growing religion in North America. Why? Because all of the movements fill a perceived need in giving people "meaning" in a life increasingly dominated by spiritual nihilism, shopping malls and consumerism. This sets up a situation where there are a lot of potential problems.

What I believe we have to do at the symbolic level is to reinforce groups and belief systems that will support the position of "religious doubt" and oppose groups that do not support this position.

Marc

ps. Sorry it's a bit rambling, but I'm trying to do three things at once

[tequila]

A few quibbles.

Generally Christianity is identified as "orthodoxic" while Judaism and Islam are "orthopraxic" --- what one "believes" identifies one as a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Methodist, etc. Contrast with Judaic and Islamic focus on a set of religious "laws" or "rules" prescribing proper social behavior --- the focus is on how one practices the faith in daily life, not so much on whether or not one buys into the totality of what is preached at the masjid. Obviously there are a ton of shadings into one another --- every religion has basic proscriptions which must be followed in order to be regarded as a proper follower, while every religion also has certain core beliefs.

I also have difficulties finding much mysticism in Islam outside of Sufism. Indeed, mysticism has been a far greater part of the Christian tradition (especially Catholic and Orthodox varieties, and with certain "ecstatic" Protestant traditions) than ever in Islam.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

A few quibbles.

Always welcome .

Generally Christianity is identified as "orthodoxic" while Judaism and Islam are "orthopraxic" --- what one "believes" identifies one as a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Methodist, etc.

I agree that Christianity is usually classified as orthodoxic. When I said that it was generally orthopraxic, I was referring to the social reality rather than the idealized form. Generally speaking, the number of people who truly examine the beliefs is about 10% of he total attendance - at least that's he rough figures from Canada (I believe it's about twice that in the US). This even shows up in certain absolutely core areas such as, for example, the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiaton. As a case in point, one of my students considers himself to be a devout Roman Catholic, but has almost no concept f what that means other than basic practices.

You're absolutely right about the shadings, ad they happen in every religion.

Contrast with Judaic and Islamic focus on a set of religious "laws" or "rules" prescribing proper social behavior --- the focus is on how one practices the faith in daily life, not so much on whether or not one buys into the totality of what is preached at the masjid. Obviously there are a ton of shadings into one another --- every religion has basic proscriptions which must be followed in order to be regarded as a proper follower, while every religion also has certain core beliefs.

This is where it gets interesting in a lot of ways. Yes, both Judaism and Islam concentrate on the practice, but they also both have a very strong tradition of study and knowledge (and debate) built in - hence the lessened need to be blind followers. I do agree tha Islam is primarily orthopraxic as is Judaism - in both the idealized and the social sense. Where it gets interesting, for me, is in the goal of the practice, and that was why I brought up mysticism.

I also have difficulties finding much mysticism in Islam outside of Sufism. Indeed, mysticism has been a far greater part of the Christian tradition (especially Catholic and Orthodox varieties, and with certain "ecstatic" Protestant traditions) than ever in Islam.

In general, I would argue that the English term "mysticism" is somewhat inadequate, but it's the one we have . Within the Western Churches, "mystics" have tended to be isolated and controlled by the dominant institutions - the exceptions being the ecstatic protestant sects (praxic descendants of the 2nd century Marcionites). In the Orthodox Churches, however, "mysticism", in the sense of a stylized and routinized "path" for achieving a personal experience with the Divine, was integrated into the exoteric form of the religion. The same is true in both Judaism and Islam.

You mentioned Sufism, but have you looked at the works of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (12th century ce)? I would argue that his Ihya 'Ulum ad-Din served to integrate Sufism and orthopraxic Islam into a unified whole in part by providing the logic that links exoteric practice with mystical experience. At the minimum, it set up the legitimacy of such a linkage, something that is, in general lacking in the Western Churches.

The reason I said the term "mysticism" is inadequate is that, to many Westerners, it brings to mind people like Teresa of Avila or Meister Eckhardt. However, i would argue n(and this is just fairly accepted belief in comparative religion) that "mysticism" covers a whole variety of pathways to the Divine; some ecstatic, some trance / visioning, some "just ordinary".

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Marct,

Kudos to you for all the knowledge and trying to explain that problem from scientific side, but don’t you find just a little paradox in bunch of westerners (Christians I dare to say) talking about Islam and “civil war” in it when none of Islamic scholars mention such a thing!?

Reading this posts, and some others (sometimes riddle with small incorrect terms and assumptions), I am left with one (I think very important) question: When one talking about dividing Muslims on “friends” and “enemies”, how that one see “Muslim friends” in today’s surroundings?!

Meaning, when West talking about Muslims friends and allies-while they killing they innocent brothers and sisters on the streets and villages, raping, invading countries and imprisoning them-who are those friends!? And how honest and loyal they can be toward someone who is doing such acts against them?

How one can support those who are hating and killing his family and neighbors!? That’s questions that bothering me these days…

[JD]

Marc,
As usual, excellent and much appreciated response.

I do have a couple of questions for the general forum.

1. If we are not fighting a 'war on terror' or an Islamic civil war, what are we fighting? The biggest problem in finding a solution is often defining the problem and no-body seems to have done that sucessfully.

2. Do you see parallels between the draconian reaction of the Christian chuch to the Enlightenment and the rise of fundamentalism in East and West as a response to globalisation, the internet and the attendant wave of secualrism and diverse cultural influences. Is the search for 'traditional values' and 'meaning' a response to the bewildering amount of information, infuences and choice or is it a form of tribalism that feeds of the growing fundamentalism of 'others'. If there is a historical precedent it may imply a useful way forward.

Look forward to your response.

JD

[JD]

Sarajevo,
Glad to get your responses.

A question for you and other readers:

What do you see as a path toward a sustainable peace? Would you advocate the division of Iraq into three separate states or the amalgamation of the Sunni and Shiite areas into neighboring states? Should the coalition simply pull out and wait to see who wins? Is Israel inexorably linked to this and other conflict?

Comments from the forum? Any idea is valid and I think the time has come to think as laterally and inventively as possible.

JD

[Sarajevo071]

Sarajevo,
Glad to get your responses.

A question for you and other readers:

What do you see as a path toward a sustainable peace? Would you advocate the division of Iraq into three separate states or the amalgamation of the Sunni and Shiite areas into neighboring states? Should the coalition simply pull out and wait to see who wins? Is Israel inexorably linked to this and other conflict?

Definitely. This is American war for oil and dominance over the Middle East (falling back on words of Ret. U.S. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf) and over securing the Israel. Iraq was never and will never be treat to U.S.A. but it was to Israel. Now, why would American sons and daughters fight and die for Israel while they sitting home, I can’t tell you.

IMHO, division of Iraq would be disastrous… For almost everyone. Not to mention that idea have no support in Iraqi people. It will create new, small Iran, small extremists Sunni state and even smaller, rich but so vulnerable Kurd state.

About pulling out… Coalition certainly can do that (and somehow I see them doing it) but that would be so low and cynical. First going in, start all the mess, killings and then pulling out!? What is message there?

Obviously, no peace will be possible if people are not ready for it and if they don’t came by some idea what they wish and how to go there… Major problems are big, opposite currents and wishes by U.S.A., Iran, Shiite and Sunnis in Iraq and in other states.

“Balkan solution” is not solution at all… Nothing is finish there and hate will came out in next war. Now and from here, I cannot see any fair and tangible solutions in Iraq.

I think, real question is, would U.S. accept and respect they fishes and solution!? U.S. seams to have poor record with that.

Many said this and I can only repeat… U.S. is stuck in something they started and no one sees any solutions. May God help us all !

[marct]

Hi JD,

Marc,
As usual, excellent and much appreciated response.

Thanks, but without Sarajevo and Tequila (and others ), it wouldn't have happened - it's a collective response as always.

I do have a couple of questions for the general forum.

JD, you woldn't by any chance be looking for an academic position where you get to assign dissertation topics, would you ?

1. If we are not fighting a 'war on terror' or an Islamic civil war, what are we fighting? The biggest problem in finding a solution is often defining the problem and no-body seems to have done that sucessfully.

2. Do you see parallels between the draconian reaction of the Christian chuch to the Enlightenment and the rise of fundamentalism in East and West as a response to globalisation, the internet and the attendant wave of secualrism and diverse cultural influences. Is the search for 'traditional values' and 'meaning' a response to the bewildering amount of information, infuences and choice or is it a form of tribalism that feeds of the growing fundamentalism of 'others'. If there is a historical precedent it may imply a useful way forward.

These two questions are, in my mind, inextricably linked together. I honestly believe that the "greater war" we are fighting is philosophical (not "religious") - a result of the macro-social "phase change" that is being called "globalization" or the shift to the network society. Personally, I don't like the term "globalization" since we have been globalized, in the sense of globally inter-connected for over 200 years. I have a tendency to use the term "phase shift" to the Information Age (which has its own conceptual baggage). BTW, I apologize in advance for a very long post - I wrote about this in my dissertation where it took over 25 pages.

I said that I thought the root cause was philosophical, and I should expand on that, but it needs some background first. Ever since we started forming sedentary communities and getting involved in horticulture, we have based our social organizations around the concept of finite resources which are scarce, and this holds true today for most of our current forms of social organization. "Power", in many ways, has been socially defined as he ability to control the supply and distribution of specific resources (land, labour, raw materials, geographic placement, etc. - it varies with the culture and technology).

Over the past, say, 400 years, the key "resource" has not been a finite resource in the sense of grain or wood or coal but, rather, has been "knowledge". For most of these 400 years, the "finiteness" of knowledge has been bound up with the communicative media that spread the knowledge (books, newspapers, magazines, telegraph, etc.), the availability of access to these media (e.g. going to school, having the time to read, cheap radios and/or TVs, etc.), and the speed of transmission of this knowledge (years -> "real time").

At he same time as we are seeing all of these changes in communicative media, we have also seen a similar trend in "transformational technologies" (i.e. technologies that allow for the transformation of material goods including both agricultural technologies and manufacturing technologies). This trend (it's actually a vector) intensifies in the late 18th century with the introduction of cheap, stand alone power sources (e.g. the Watts engine), gets another boost in the late 19th-early 20th with the Fordist revolution, and a final one in the past 50 years with NPC and robotics. The effect of this trend has been to create material abundance rather than scarcity while, at the same time, becoming much more efficient in the transformation processes.

The effects of these two trends started to become apparent in the broader social context around 1968 or so in North America where the produced, amongst other things, a complete shift in employment patterns, career paths and the entire cultural concept of "employment". At the cultural level, again in North America, this shift took the form of a basic change in social organization from a hierarchical system to a networked system (I have some papers on this at http://marctyrrell.com/research/papers/ if anyone is fealing masochistic ), and we have been seeing similar shifts in other parts of the globe.

I said this was a philosophical "war", so let's get back to that. I would argue that each broad form of social organization produces a set of philosophies that are loosely connected. For example, fascism, communism and social democracy all place a particular value and role on the State as a major agent in social life, where the emphasis is not on whether or not the State should intervene in private lives but, rather, on the degree of such intervention - intervention itself is seem as "right and proper". In part, the justification for such intervention is that the State will act as an arbitrator in the distribution of scarce, finite resources.

But what happens when the "important" resources are neither scarce or finite? Over the past 50 years or so, we have increasingly seen states of all political stripes ensuring that certain resources remain "scarce" - consider, by way of example, agricultural policies in the US and Canada which artificially control the supply of food that reaches the market. In Canada, for example, we have seen farmers dumping thousands of tons of meat, milk, and eggs (often in front of Parliament Hill) because they are not allowed to sell it (it meets the standards for sale but exceeds the quotas). On a personal note, I used to buy eggs from one farmer who was harassed by the government into bankruptcy because he didn't follow al of the approved forms (great eggs, too!).

This isn't (quite) incoherent rambling . As the older social contract started to disappear, many people started to develop a new one based around network loyalties to self-selected "communities" (SWC is an example of that as is, although I hate to mention it in the same phrase, AQ). The ideologies that come out of network based cultures and societies (technically, societies based on reciprocity), are radically different from those based a hierarchical form (technically, a "redistributive" system). "Tribalism" (loosely construed) can be seen as arising from a network society, but it may take totally different forms than what we normally think of as "tribalism" such as para-kinship networks (e.g. the Masons, self-defined "communities", situational communities, etc.).

So then, back to the philosophical root of the argument...

Network societies and cultures have a number of problem areas they have to deal with, and he most pressing one, historically at least, is the question of how you deal with "outsiders". Do you define an outsider as someone who you can never interact with? Someone you can only interact with if they become "you" (i.e. part of your network)? Or do you define them as potential allies in some settings and competitors in other? How a network defines the "other" becomes crucial and, I would argue, that that definition is at the root of this war.

Sorry about the long diatribe / lecture...

Marc

[jcustis]

Marc,
As usual, excellent and much appreciated response.

I do have a couple of questions for the general forum.

1. If we are not fighting a 'war on terror' or an Islamic civil war, what are we fighting? The biggest problem in finding a solution is often defining the problem and no-body seems to have done that sucessfully.

2. Do you see parallels between the draconian reaction of the Christian chuch to the Enlightenment and the rise of fundamentalism in East and West as a response to globalisation, the internet and the attendant wave of secualrism and diverse cultural influences. Is the search for 'traditional values' and 'meaning' a response to the bewildering amount of information, infuences and choice or is it a form of tribalism that feeds of the growing fundamentalism of 'others'. If there is a historical precedent it may imply a useful way forward.

Look forward to your response.

JD

I'll offer that we are fighting to set the conditions for democracy to take root and grow throughout a traditonally turbulent region. The other side, be they fundamentalists, insurgents, jihadists, or whatever moniker you like, see us as trying to impose democracy, not merely set the conditions.

I honestly think it is that black and white. In Saddam we had a madman, but he was smart enough (for a time - say pre 1991) to selectively choose allies and financial/development interests that suited him. His goal was the acendence of Iraq as the regional power, thus making him wealthier and more powerful. It took a despot to contain that cauldron of tensions between the various forces within Iraq, and he did it well (albeit ruthlessly).

In our endeavours to set conditions, I think we will routinely be viewed as the pair of clownshoes that doesn't know how to tread lightly enough, or leave well enough alone. Unfortunately, it will always be the little things that take away a hundred attaboys. Your taxi cab and only source of livelihood was run over by a tank? Evil Americans. Your sister and brother-in-law were shot to death as they drove up to a checkpoint, trying to rush to a famly gathering? Evil Americans. The canal that sustans your crops was destroyed by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle that crushed a critical culvert? Evil Americans. See the trend? It's not at all about how we view ourselves, no matter how noble the cause or how much of a sacrifice we make for that cause.

I think it would be dangerous to characterize the current events as a civil war within Islam. We are Americans after all, so who are we to lay blame and attempt to judge? I think we need to avoid using all catch phrases that make sound bites more palatable to Joe and Mary Six-Pack, because it is absolutely kicking our ass in the Arab media...yes, kicking our ass. I wish we had a PSYOP TPT leader in here, because I'd lay a month's salary down that he has probably cringed more times than he can remember when he saw the alternate message that the man on the street saw.

I'll end this with a subtle observation that I think is salient. Sure, Sunnis may think that the Shi'a are a little off their rocker and maybe not be correct Muslims. I would offer that the sectarian violence isn't about that, so there cannot be a civil war within the Islamic elements. We're trying to define a problem by cultural constructs, when in fact it may be more economic, akin to the Protestant-Catholic "Troubles" of Northern Ireland. Once the blood is let, it morphs into something tribal and honor-based.

Even the late King Hussein of Jordan probably sucked his teeth on numerous occasions and sighed, "stupid Americans," to himself.

[JD]

I guess the fundamental question is - why are we fighting? A dictator is overthrown, the people are handed the chance of building a great democracy and there is a chance to be prosperous and free. And yet there is daily incidents of sadistic barbarism and the liberators are portrayed as evil doers.

Why? Do the violent men reject democracy because they know the people, given the choice, would never support them? Is this all just a political power grab and religion is simply used to motivate the cannon fodder. And if so, would simply including the radicals in the political process - requiring them to act responsibly - could that ease tension? Idealistically, this appears repugnant but it may be time for pragmatism.

jcustis makes a good point about the over-simplification of messages for consumption by domestic audiences. In a democracy, what the population thinks is important. Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, they are generally only capable of absorbing a simplified version of events and labels become very important. That is why I am trying to define the conflict with the help of the SWC. Most agree that 'war on terror' is not a particularly useful term and may in fact, be nonsensical as you can't make war on a technique. Insurgency is close but may fail to recognize the ingrained sectarian divide within communities. Is this something new that defies current definitions?

A critical question, related to the nature of the conflict, is why radical Islamic groups attack the west. Is it because they are the mortal enemy or is it simply to remove western influence so they can get on with their own agenda? Or is it an advertising campaign to get their brand better known and draw more support for their political agenda. Is it an effort to be seen as the defender of Islam against the great Satan, in turn marginalizing the influence of the moderates? The answer to these questions is important because it influences the nature of the prosecution and I'm keen to get a broad range of opinions.

A question to the American readers. Sarajevo raises the issue of the relationship between Israel and the US. How strong is the relationship and is it unduly influenced by lobby groups?

Sarajevo defines the conflict as a war for oil, mid-eastern domination and the defence of Israel and I can see why he does so but I personally don’t believe this is the case for two reasons. Firstly, having dealt with many Americans, they appear usually to have good intentions although their apparent preference for idealism over pragmatism seems to get them in trouble. Secondly, to invade a nation to secure their resource is almost unbelievably stupid and ignores the lessons of Germany in Russia, and Japan in SE Asia (WWII). JCUSTIS I think is pretty right when he talks about establishing the conditions for a democracy. I personally believe America wanted a strong and prosperous democracy to act as an example in the region and become a firm ally as other alliances waned. Most would believe this dream is dead but I am not so sure although the path may be unpalatable as it involves discussing the possibility of partition.

Partitioning?

My understanding is the borders of Iraq are largely the arbitrary construct of the colonial powers therefore division of Iraq is not in contravention of any ancient concept of nationhood. Indeed, I (tentatively) believe that most Iraqi’s probably define themselves more in terms of their Islamic nation and possibly tribal alliances rather than the post-Westphalian concept of a nation state.

Partition has advantages for the west. Presumably, the newly formed nations would either remain independent or amalgamate with larger nations of similar outlook. Either way, responsibility for stabilization of the region passes from coalition forces to the forces of the region. Nations currently accused of destabilizing the situation would have to become actively involved in stabilization if they did not want to inherit displaced persons and insurgents. Such operations would incur inevitable financial cost and that cost must either be offset through the provision of fewer services – a destabilizing influence – or the acquisition of more income, presumably through trade with industrialized nations. This trade may create an economic relationship that eases tensions. There may be some antagonism between the nations of the regions but this surely has to be better than the continuation of the simplistic west vs. Islam rhetoric - the Iran/Iraq war didn't seem to harm the west too much but hopefully it would never come to open warfare. Regardless, tensions between nation states in the region may leave them looking for allies in the industrialized world and that can't be too bad although China may be seen as a new best friend. Whatever the final arrangement, the nations of the regions will need to become involved in a more responsible manner if they do not want a disaster in their midst.

Presumably the Kurdish regions would become a sovereign state. This may be welcomed by Turkey as it provides a Kurdish homeland outside Turkey’s borders and may ease issues with displaced persons and Kurdish political agitations. A Kurdish state may feel threatened by its neighbors and may welcome western influence and forces on its territory. So while the goal of a united, democratic, western leaning Iraq may be out of reach, it may be possible though reduced expectations to achieve many of the same goals with a partitioned Kurdistan.

It is sad to think people of different sects cannot live together but there are several nations divided on this basis – Pakistan being one of them. There are many small nations that are affluent and independent, quite a number in the Gulf alone, so the economic viability of the partitioned elements should not preclude such a course of action.

I know there are a lot of holes in the argument and I include the suggestion mainly to generate comment but I still think it needs to be discussed and I think it is an idea gaining traction as every other effort appears to fail. The thought of partition may be unpalatable but so is the current situation. Pride and idealism alone should not determine policy.

Look forward to your comments.

JD