T Nation

Civil War: Necessary Evil?


#1

I was reflecting on Human History as I was pondering the mess in Iraq...and pose these questions to the "Nation" family:

"Can a country really become a sovereign entity without first either a) Civil War and/or b) Internal Revolution"?

"Will ANY country EVER become a "United" country without a "dominant" presense in control, especially in the Middle East"?

I say "no" and "no".

Historically, it just seems like a country has to first go through either a Civil War and/or Revolution first; and out of the aformentioned, there must be a "dominant" presense in control.

Let's discuss.

Mufasa


#2

Well, though this discussion has often been framed in a right vs left perspective...

I think historically you can see that attempts to impose external views of society on another civilization almost invariably break down sooner or later.

Japan and Germany were probably very special cases in this regard.

The day they went in saying that Iraq would not be allowed to be split, that it would remain one country, simply outlined the potential for problems that would necessarily be laying in wait for an opportunity to strike.


#3

I think the most natural direction. Would be to fragment and be annexed by neighboring factions. It may not be the best thing for the U.S


#4

A corollary question: Assuming you're correct, would a civil war in which one side was not broken, literally, be effective?