Iraq is not Anarchy

I was just reading an article in an old Columbia Journalism Review - 4 books on the Iraq war reviewed by Jarhead author, Swofford. I like the guy but at one point he says something about Iraq being in a state of anarchy.

This is how anarchy is used in conventional context. Much like using the word communist to describe any nationalistic movement during the cold war, this usage of anarchy has little relevance to what anarchy actually is. It does show the extent to which people believe a lack of centralized coercive government will lead to a state of chaotic lawlessness.

Anarchy, as I define it, is a system in which people have control over the decisions that affect their lives. Upon hearing this, most people inevitably respond that such a system is impossible or would not "work." This response is guaranteed to piss me off. The same people who spend hours detailing the failings of this society will inevitably measure different systems against some impossible scale of whether it would have problems or not.

Anarchy is not utopia. Let's get that straight. Anarchy requires work and is likely incompatible with the consumer-driven system which has led to many of the problems of contemporary society. This is to say that people living in a state of anarchy would likely not grow fat watching lame sitcoms (though I hope Scrubs would still be on). But I digress.

Iraq is not anarchy because not only do people absolutely not have control over their lives - Iraq has many sources of unjust authority. From the civilian-targetting insurgents to religious leaders to a tribal patriarchy, Iraqis are arguably further from a state of anarchy that citizens in the United States. Incidentally, saying that these religious leaders have unjust authority should not imply they are not popular - historically, many kings have wielded unjust authority and been worshipped because of it.

I am tired of hearing how someplace is anarchic because the central government has lost power to force citizens to do its bidding. Merely because central government must wither under anarchy does not mean that the withering of central government leads to anarchy. Historically it does not. A daisy is a flower. All flowers are not daisies.