Not Your Great-Great-Great Grandfather's Civil War
The Hidden Columnists--David Brooks Edition (18 Dec)

Taking the Long View of the Iraq Conflict (link requires subscription to Times Select) finds Mr. Brooks contemplating civil wars, and noting that most do not resemble our own Civil War (or, as Mrs. F likes to point out, the War of Northern Aggression as it's referred to in the South) based on his readings of materials from the Journal of Peace Research:

It's interesting to know, for example, that the median civil war lasts about six years. It's also interesting to know that most civil wars start, as Iraq's did, because of a power vacuum at the top. When a country's central government becomes ineffective, as Iraq's did after the toppling of Saddam, groups begin to grab for power and resources. (Civil wars are much more likely in countries with oil or other mineral wealth.)

The leaders of insurgent armies certainly magnify ethnic grievances as part of their grab for spoils, but sectarian hatred usually isn't sufficient to start civil wars. These wars are started by local elites that are essentially making an investment. They decide to commit violence now in the hopes of grabbing great wealth later. The people who do the killing might be whipped up by ethnic grievances, but the people who lead civil wars are usually rational and greedy.

Once a war starts, the length of the war is influenced by how strong and effective the central government is. If the central government is strong enough to fight back against insurgents, demonstrate resolve in the face of setbacks and also bribe insurgent leaders into joining the establishment, then the war can be cut short. If the central government is weak or corrupt, or if it reacts to the insurgency with excessive brutality, then the war drags on.

This is why it is essential that the U.S. remain in Iraq until we are sure the central government is strong.

Oh, I see where this is going now...

There are three ways civil wars end. In countries where ethnic hatreds have been whipped to fever pitch, there may be no answer but partition - separating the two groups. In countries where one side will settle for nothing less than total victory, then the war rages until one side suffers a crushing defeat.

But the best news out of Iraq last week was that the Sunnis voted joyfully and in large numbers. In what they said and the way they acted, both the Sunnis and Shiites made it clear that while they are engaged in a fierce rivalry, they fervently believe in a democratic and unified Iraq. This is not yet a to-the-death struggle.

That makes the third option for ending a civil war - a joint governing agreement - more likely. The difficulty in ending a civil war via compromise is that neither side can trust the other enough to lay down its arms. That's why it is necessary to have a third party - in Iraq, the United States - to cajole the two sides toward the settlement, to enforce the agreement afterward, to nurture a functioning social contract after that, and to prevent hostile outside powers from spoiling the deal.

That's why, again, it is essential that the U.S. remain in Iraq long enough to de-escalate the conflict.

I'm very happy that the elections turned out so well and so bloodless this last week. And I'm hoping that this will become the basis for more civil (pun intended) discussions between the three major players.