Is Lebanon in a Civil War?
Abu Muqawama's friend and colleague Bech has taken issue with the assertion that yesterday's events in Lebanon can be described as "civil war." (See the third comment in this post.) Hizbollah, he argues, had clear and limited objectives it was seeking to accomplish. They were also very careful in who they targeted and disarmed. But how do social scientists define civil war? Two leading scholars of conflict -- James Fearon of Stanford and Stathis Kalyvas of Yale -- define civil war as, respectively:
"violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies" ("Iraq's Civil War," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007)
"armed conflict within the boundaries of a recognized sovereign entity between parties subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities" (The Logic of Violence in Civil War)
Now yesterday's violence -- and the ongoing clashes -- in Lebanon certainly fit both of those descriptions. But both of those definitions are pretty broad, prompting one of this blog's readers to define civil war along the lines of pornography -- we know it when we see it. Along the same lines, as Fearon notes, political scientists sometimes use the threshold of 1,000 dead to determine whether or not it's a civil war. (Only a dozen or so were killed in yesterday's fighting, right?) This figure strikes Abu Muqawama as completely arbitrary, perhaps underlining just how difficult it is to determine whether or not fighting merits description as a "civil war."
What Abu Muqawama does know is that neither Hizbollah's limited political objectives nor the skill with which they accomplished those objectives have anything to do with whether or not their actions yesterday can be described as civil war. (Sorry, Bech.) We assume most state and non-state actors who seek to achieve a political aim through violence -- which Hizbollah did yesterday, successfully -- are pursuing limited goals. And as the Clausewitz running through that last sentence typed hits Abu Muqawama on the top of his head, he comes to the conclusion that a) yesterday was war as it was an act of force designed to achieve a political end and that b) since it took place within Lebanon's boundaries it constitutes a civil war.
Thoughts and disagreements? That's why we have the comments section.
Update: Nicholas reports from de Prague (by the HSBC, in Hamra) that Sukleen is out picking up trash and normalcy seems to have returned to the neighborhood. Any other first-hand reports are welcome. Meanwhile, a quick glimpse at headlines from rival perspectives: as-Safir asks "What's Next?" following yesterday's fighting while L'Orient-Le Jour talks of yesterday's victory for Hizbollah as Pyrrhic.
31 comments:
Apologies for repeating this comment, but I think it is relevant. And it should be noted that while the main topic of the book was the Israeli invasion, and not Lebanon's civil wars, they are very powerfully addressed:
I'm no Lebanon expert, but have been following things a bit since the 82 war. Some of the history is worth revisiting I think. Academic definitions of civil war are all very well, in the academy, for whatever that is worth. But the images in Tony Clifton's and Catherine Leroy's _God Cried_ depict something which is, well, different. Not the last few days, to put it mildly.
Tony Clifton and Catherine Leroy, _God Cried_, Quartet Books, 1983.
Tony Clifton had been the London Bureau Chief of Newsweek, and Catherine LeRoy was one of the great war photographers.
I will soon answer to you abu muqawama, you make good points. Disagreements are probably on accuracy of description. I don't agree with the definition of these two guys to tell you the truth. And as you know, social science is an experimental environment that always questions the validity and usefulness of its definitions.
I just have one question to you though while I work on my answer: Why isn't engaging Hizbullah, (Syria, and Iran) a possible alternative US foreign policy. Please think of that and answer in a separate post.
Andrew --
Well, it depends. 72 hours of fighting and 18 dead, by last count, does not a civil war make. On the other hand, the competing visions of Lebanon's future defended by Hezbollah on one side, and the Sunni/Druze/Christian communities on the other, doesn't leave me with a lot of hope that this conflict can be resolved peacefully.
Really, at this stage there isn't much middle ground. The March 14 people want a strong central government with control over its territory. Hezbollah and its allies want to continue to operate autonomously. Their occupation of Sunni areas of West Beirut is also not winning many hearts and minds, so to speak.
It is this ideological split, rather than the past violence, that is a more worrisome indicator for Lebanon's future. Hezbollah may be able to maintain its autonomy through brute force for some time yet, perhaps indefinitely, but I am hard-pressed to see how the non-Shia Lebanese are going to give it to them voluntarily, ever again.
Keep up the good work!
"social science is an experimental environment that always questions the validity and usefulness of its definitions."
I'm not sure you want to bring usefulness into this.
I seem to recall a 6-12 month protracted debate in the US about whether there was a civil war going on in Iraq. At the end of which, no policy or response to the violence changed one iota.
Its usefulness did seem to extend to nothing more than avoiding a more meaningful discussion.
Will this debate be any more useful than that one ?
What happens if we call it a civil war but it isn't, or we don't and it is ?
Here's something you haven't considered... these are military lads here. If you don't let em call it a civil war, they're gonna come up with some other long-arsed description just so they can use acronym for it.
Kinetic Force Negotiated Internal Conflict Episode. KFNICE
You want that ? Do ya ?
You know they'll do it.
Bech, in general, I am pro-engagement. There we are agreed. And the US has engaged with Syria and Iran recently on any number of issues (with Iran, we have been at the table discussing Iraq for some time until this week's talks were cut off). But to give one example, the Syrians want four things: a) a guarantee of security for the regime (which we can't really give); b) the Golan Heights (which is an Israeli decision, albeit one we can influence); c) the Hariri tribunal to go away (which is now an international issue and not the sole provenance of the US); and d) some kind of hegemony over Lebanon (which the Bush Administration is hardline on and refuses). So what happens if we engage with the other side and they then make demands we can't grant?
David, I have been following your reporting for NOW Lebanon since this mess started. Keep it up!
Can someone explain to me why FM and the M14 Christian groups have to be disarmed and arrested by M8 factions and the Lebanese Army?
SSNP, Amal, Hiz are all running around freely disarming these people and the Army works with them because it is "illegal" for these parties to arm themselves? With Hiz fighting other parties now the "resistence" argument has fallen flat.
These FM guys were obviously no threat at all considering how they were raped the past few days. So what was the big deal with some Fan-boys playing militia when they posed no threat to the foreign backed ones.
It was not like FM et al were getting foreign arms and training.
These FPM blowhards just want Hiz to do their dirty work so they can grab power from the elected government.
I don't agree with your analysis Abu Muqawama, that's not exactly what the US has been doing. It is more of a rosy picture you are painting. For example, engaging Iran on Iraq but cornering it on its nuclear agenda and threatening to bomb, is not really what you call engaging.
Anyway will write more on that later. More importantly, kilo is right on the "usefulness" of the concept. We quarrel on words but what happened on the ground is in the end not really related. But I do think that calling this conflict "civil" has moralistic connotations that don't fit the picture. The media and academia has a lot to do with this historical bias. Will write more on Monday in a separate post on my blog answering all these questions and more.
For now I need to disappear... See you soon...
Surely this cannot be answered yet anyway. How long it takes and what political eventualities come out of it will decide what it is.
If its over by Sunday night its a revolution/coup/putsch/counter-putsch/show of force depending entirely on how the party in power then plays the political set up.
If its not over by next Sunday its a civil war.
I would recommend this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-hizbollah-rules-west-beirut-in-irans-proxy-war-with-us-825430.html
"But I found far more powerful symbolism in Hamra Street, one of west Beirut's two main commercial thoroughfares. More than 100 Hizbollah men were standing or patrolling the highway, clad in new camouflage fatigues, wearing new black flak jackets and new black, peaked, American-style baseball caps and – more to the point – what appeared to be equally new American sniper rifles..."
See also:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=91798
". . .Moreover, the officer stresses that the 2007 victory of the Lebanese Army against Fatah al-Islam, which is allegedly linked to Al-Qaeda, was a hard blow to extremist groups, and reduced the chances of another conflict. "This [defeat] will undoubtedly make them [terrorist groups] wary of plotting any new attacks," he says."
"The source says Lebanese security forces have been able to curb the steady flow of militants from the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in the South to Iraq in recent months. The refugee enclave, known to host some groups with links to Al-Qaeda, is also home to rival extremist factions."
"In addition, the officer says, Hizbullah's status as a Shiite organization has not prevented it from having influence over certain Sunni factions in the Palestinian camps, and it has used this to shift their support away from Al-Qaeda, further weakening the group's power in the area."
Fatah-al-Islam - was that a U.S./Israel sponsored proxy army? Or was it an Al Qaeda-sponsored proxy army? Or both?
Civil war? Not yet. Last I heard, no one was really fighting back.
Those definitions were interesting. "Armed conflict within the boundaries of a recognized sovereign entity between parties subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities" eh?
What common authority?
Fragmentary State Episodic Violence (FSEV). Yeah, that's the ticket!
More seriously, is internal conflict in a fragmentary state to be lumped together with internal conflict in an otherwise cohesive state? Maybe fragmentary state/pseudo state (i.e. you've just installed a gov't that didn't previously exist) COIN should be separated from cohesive/pre-existing state COIN.
Maybe we could use the old biological contamination symbol for the former and the red cross for the latter...
I've just returned from spending the afternoon in Hamra, and it is most decidedly not normal. In my old neighborhood, a 16-year-old boy was shot and killed yesterday. The guys in the neighborhood say he was delivering a narguileh on his scooter for the shop he works at.
The guys in the neighborhood (mustaqbal, mostly) were congregating in the street without any weapons when the SSNP thugs who have hung their flags all over Hamra came and tried to force them inside by shooting around. We ran into some other armed SSNP militiamen near the Pavilion hotel, next to t-marbuta cafe.
These guys are thugs and the population is really scared and furious. There is sporadic fighting and SSNP guys basically just lording it around and shooting things up from time to time.
A question no one has asked: what do Hizbollahs actions portend for the Jihadi groups operating with support (or at least allowed them space for sectarian agitation) of Mustaqbal? Why did they just sit on the sidelines for this?
AM: Great points.
Why don't you call it a "one day civil war".
The term "civil war" implies a much larger more serious conflict than what appears to have taken place. In this sense I think bech's criticism is correct.
Sort of like the vague use of the term "WMDs".
"...yesterday was war as it was an act of force..."
If you define war as a movement of energy, then, to be correct, the sentence should read "yesterday was war as it was an act of displacement" As a movement of energy there are two parts defined as the potential and the kinetic, with kinetic being the displacing force as you defined it.
So then all you need to figure out is what is the potential force in the "war". In other words, what created the movement or the potential movement? Did the potential come from outside Lebanon or inside Lebanon? In this movement (war), is there an inside and outside, or does one side only see one potential? It sounds to me like there are many realities to your question, "is Lebanon in a civil war?", which is easier to answer if you replace "war" with a movement of energy. In other words you don't need to define war as a threshold of 1,000 dead you only define it as one force displacing another force. Then you only need to define the nature of the displacement. Hint, the enemy is inside the displacement, not outside, where the potential might be located. If the displacement is Lebanese, then it is civil war. We only understand that it is war when we see the violence(-PE) and not the displacement(KE). KE = -PE
"...yesterday was war as it was an act of force..."
If you define war as a movement of energy, then, to be correct, the sentence should read "yesterday was war as it was an act of displacement" As a movement of energy there are two parts defined as the potential and the kinetic, with kinetic being the displacing force as you defined it.
So then all you need to figure out is what is the potential force in the "war". In other words, what created the movement or the potential movement? Did the potential come from outside Lebanon or inside Lebanon? In this movement (war), is there an inside and outside, or does one side only see one potential? It sounds to me like there are many realities to your question, "is Lebanon in a civil war?", which is easier to answer if you replace "war" with a movement of energy. In other words you don't need to define war as a threshold of 1,000 dead you only define it as one force displacing another force. Then you only need to define the nature of the displacement. Hint, the enemy is inside the displacement, not outside, where the potential might be located. If the displacement is Lebanese, then it is civil war. We only understand that it is war when we see the violence(-PE) and not the displacement(KE). KE = -PE
Click on my name to see a photo taken from inside Future TV. Notice the mug that replaced the portraits of Hariri with a certain young despot currently in Damascus.
But remember, Syria has absolutely nothing to do with Hizbollah. Why, if we just talked it out, they would see the wisdom of distancing themselves from the Alawite thug and his Qom spine.
While they arrest people they don't like, it's interesting to note that this "pre-emption" operation thus far has included dismantling much of the free press, to include attacks on Al-Mustaqbal TV and its newspaper, Ash-Sharq, Sevan and M14's website, according to Reuters.
NOW Lebanon admirably continues to put out the news.
Instead of "talking" to Hizbollah, why don't we use our considerable naval-based assets to electronically commandeer their media assets and broadcast for the next 24 hours footage of Nasrallah in a tutu?
Since this Hizbollah-triggered civil war is based on farce, not politics or the free exchange of ideas in a democracy, it would be fitting for Hizbollah's media outlets to shut down, albeit not in the same manner they silenced their critics.
ONly the goon, the thug, the stupid would pillage, deface and then burn newspapers and TV stations and stake, amidst the vandalism, the visage of another tinpot dicator from outside Lebanon.
Abu M, I don't much read or listen to news from Iran except what appears in the Arabic language press. I don't read Fars, so that's a real handicap.
But apparently over the last several weeks a mini-crisis has formed in Qom and Tehran, too. Some of it seems to be tied to Ahmadinejad's recent claim that his decisions are "guided" by the Twelth Imam.
That's a bit much to swallow even for Majlis who like the bastard.
One would imagine the lost Imam would have raised Ahmadinejad's popularity with everyone else in Iran (no such luck).
I don't much buy into "wag the dog" scenarios, even when the ass of the dog is Hizbollah and the mouth lapping up the mutt chow is Qom (yes, I did use the canine metaphor in the most un-PC way possible).
But in Lebanon, Jumblatt had been calling for the expulsion of Iran's embassy staff and the half of direct flights from Iran to Beirut.
And I've noticed a concerted effort recently by MNF-I, Israel, Afghani authorities, leaders in KSA and Kuwait and the Lebanese government to discuss openly seizures of Iranian arms, decrying Iranian influence and otherwise comparing Hizbollah/Amal directly to Syria and Tehran.
Is the latest outbreak in Lebanon by Hizbollah really tied to the mild political clash over a security camera and an illegal telephone system? Or is it Iran's effort to end the "wedge" strategy against Syria, cover up Tehran's own bad domestic news (more resignations!) and otherwise distract media attention from elsewhere.
What was being "preempted" wasn't the (ludicrous) enforcement by a weak and divided government of Lebanese telecommunication laws, but rather the "wedge" onslaught and more attempts to isolate Iran. It was a reminder of just what Iran can still manipulate, should it wish to do so.
Just a thought. I'm not sure KSA and Kuwait will respond the way Iran wants them to.
Soldier, I think I've changed my mind.
You're a Saudi mouthpiece aren't you? I should've realized it earlier. Silly me.
Soldier, I think I've changed my mind. You're a Saudi mouthpiece aren't you? I should've realized it earlier. Silly me.
He's definitely not in the US Army and he's a twisted little monkey. I wouldn't say he's a Saudi Mouthpiece, but he could be pro-Saudi when he should be only Pro-American / neutral on foreign matters being a active member of the US Military.
FYI- Soldier is definitely Pro-Kurdish....so I would lean against him being Pro-Arab....as Soldier believes that the rest of Iraq, besides Kurdistan is a rotting corpse. Just ask him and see what he thinks about Iraq and then ask him about Kurdistan.
He's definitely a racist A-hole.
Soldiernolongeriniraq how have you managed all these years being born afflicted with anencephaly?
Have you ever seen the the film Valley of the Wolves? Do you know the intentions of this film and why it was made? Psych Ops? hummm
Essentially, it has a plot line, that the American invasion of Iraq is intended to set up an independent Kurdistan, which will then steal away part of Southeastern Turkey and gobble up a majority of the natural resources (OIL) in Iraq.
Do you know that the Turkish First Lady said publicly how much she liked the movie Valley of the Wolves? The film grossed $27.9 million at the box office - $25.1 million in Turkey and $2.8 million in Europe.
Why do you think people in the United States don't understand how this films and thoughts like yours might be looked at as trying to poison relationships between the US and Turkey? Perhaps because people like you may not understand the mindset of the Turks? Perhaps you should watch the film, so you can get a Turk's perceptions of the war in Iraq. What do you think the Kurd's really plan to do? Please answer. Or would you prefer to keep drinking your own Koolaid?
So tell me, do you believe that the Kurds are going to be able to continue to portray themselves sympathetically in the media?
I have an brilliant idea, why doesn't the Iraq Government just move the Capitol to Sanandaj? To hell with Baghdad!
Counties in the recent past have moved their Capitols to improve peace, economy and kick start their governments like Nigeria, Kazakhstan, etc.. So why not move the Capitol of Iraq to Sanandaj? I think that would be a good idea! Can you feel the sarcasm?
Now tell me in a 300 word essay why moving the Capitol of Iraq to Sanandaj won't work? Look at the big brain on Brad! Lets hear your thoughts. Please lets hear your ideas on why or why it could or would not work.
Thanks!
^^^
These last three posts remind me of the nonsense coming out of FPM.
FPM/Hizballah "Opposition" is scary stuff.
Hey, Anonymous, thanks for handing me my DD-214. If you don't believe that most American veterans of OIF don't find much Iraq to be akin to a "rotting corpse," perhaps you don't known any soldiers. You certainly don't know any Iraqis.
But the courage exhibited by your anonymous comments is precious. We all have that to savor.
Reminds me of the turds I use to arrest. Say it again
Soldier
Why don't you give trying to answer Anon's questions?
Elf.
Soldier
I think Elf said it best, so why don't you please answer the questions?
1) Have you ever seen the the film Valley of the Wolves?
2) Do you know the intentions of this film and why it was made?
From what I know, the movie has a plot that the American invasion of Iraq is intended to set up an independent Kurdistan, which will then steal away part of Southeastern Turkey and gobble up a majority of the natural resources (OIL) in Iraq.
3) Do you know that the Turkish First Lady said publicly how much she liked the movie Valley of the Wolves?
4) Did you know the film grossed $27.9 million at the box office - $25.1 million in Turkey and $2.8 million in Europe.
5) Why do you think people in the United States don't understand how this film and sympathetic thoughts about Kurds might be looked at as trying to poison relationships between the US and Turkey?
6) Do you understand the mindset of the Turks?
7) Have you seen this film and do you understand the Turk's perceptions of the war in Iraq?
8) What do you think the Kurd's really plan to do for the next 5 years?
9) Do you believe that the Kurds are going to be able to continue to portray themselves sympathetically in the media or to Turkey?
Do you believe it is possible to move the capitol of Iraq to Sanandaj? If you don't think this is possible, please tell me why moving the capitol of Iraq to Sanandaj won't work?
That's all the questions I would like answered. Let's be civil and educated on this and you might be able to teach me something new.
Thanks,
Anon
Lynch over at Abu Aardvark has some fun at AM's expense: http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/05/not-really-sect.html
Oh shit, are we back to guessing snlis secret agenda again? lol. My guess he is a recuperating veteran whose job it is to examine info for some US department and also to engage in a bit of info-war in the blogosphere now and then. Wich is fair enough, though a bit demeaning.
Having said that, snli, you might wish to see Hezbollas recent action from a military pov: Youre a highly trained army recieving supplies from two allies, one near and one far. You have two distinct enemies, one near and one far, and in your hinterland you have a spread coalition of forces loosely aligned with your enemies. As these loose forces start to exert political force against you while building up their military strength through Saudi sponsored means, what are your choices? A) To engage in endless political discussions while the weakest part of the forces arraigned against you keep on building? or B) To deal a swift decisive blow to this weakest enemy and root out various possible infiltrators/saboteurs?
And seriously: "ONly the goon, the thug, the stupid would pillage, deface and then burn newspapers and TV stations and stake". Hey, I seem to remember the various Serbian media-outlets did not fare so very well in the face of US might not so long ago?
Post a Comment