Warnings of ‘Civil War’ Risk Harming Efforts Against Political Violence

Alex Stark co-authored an essay in War on the Rocks on the recent debate suggesting that the U.S. is in danger of falling into "civil war."

Scholars of civil war typically understand the concept as one specific manifestation of violence among many. Although researchers may disagree on the particulars, they agree broadly that civil wars are conflicts within a country between the ruling government of that country and named, politically motivated armed groups that commit violence against one another above some threshold of battlefield casualties. For expert audiences, civil war violence is not one-sided violence — where an armed group targets civilians or the government with no organized retaliation — nor is it simply one-directional state repression. It is not indiscriminate terrorism aimed at the population, or even systematic, targeted campaigns of violence against minorities or specific groups. Rather, to be categorized as a “civil war,” violence must be part of a meaningful contest over the central government of the country, or a meaningful effort at secession.

Civil war scholar Barbara Walter, who has been a prominent voice in this debate, has been careful to note she wants to avoid “an exercise in fear-mongering.” When she warns of a civil war, she points not to something akin to the U.S. Civil War — still the most destructive war in the country’s history — but rather to something with the intensity of Northern Ireland’s Troubles or Italy’s Years of Lead. “The next war is going to be more decentralized, fought by small groups and individuals using terrorism and guerrilla warfare to destabilize the country,” Walter told Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, adding that “We are closer to that type of civil war than most people realize.”

In our own work, we have researched political violence that can occur in the absence of civil wars, or alongside them. Our concern with the frame Walter and others offer — and with the attached “civil war or not” headlines — is that it misses the wide array of other kinds of political violence the United States has not only historically experienced, but is currently experiencing. Crisp scholarly definitions belie the lived experience of political violence, which can be pervasive without ever rising to the level of civil war. And these forms of violence tend to fall disproportionately on specific sectors of the population while leaving absolutely no mark on other sectors. Political violence can also become easily and slowly normalized over the course of years. It is exactly this normalization that civil war scholars are trying to guard against when they raise the alarm, as warning signs from weakening democratic institutions to increasing societal polarization indicate that political violence could be on the rise.