text: InFocus: How Civil Wars StartI’m halfway through with Barbara F. Walter’s How Civil Wars Start, a book about foreign civil wars and some US parallels. Walter was previously a member of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Political Instability Task Force, and despite her obvious political bias, she does shed light on what’s happening in the United States today.I have three takeaways to share today:RAPID POLITICAL CHANGE: Civil wars become more likely when a country experiences a significant and rapid political change, such as an attempted transition to democracy or slip into anocracy, Walter’s term to describe the gray area between democracy and dictatorship. She cites Iraq as an example, where US and Coalition Forces attempted a transition to democracy from the Baathist dictatorship. The change was too much, too soon, she writes, which led to Sunnis and Shia fighting each other for power. I’ve written previously about how quickly American culture is changing in the cultural fight between Old America and New America. A rapid shift towards mass immigration, for instance, is a driver of anger and resentment in the United States because it most benefits a single political party. Last week, I wrote about the potential for a legitimacy crisis stemming from the Democrats’ two expanded voting bills, which for now have failed in the Senate. This would have rapidly changed voting procedures, and sparked backlash had these changes to election rules led to wide swings of the electorate or permanent, single-party political dominance. (Early Warning for 18 JAN 2022)SECT-BASED CONFLICT: One of the major arguments against a hot civil war or violent political conflict is that, other than well-known politicians, Americans can’t differentiate political ideology based on looks. Sure, there are bumper stickers, yard signs, and political clothing, but absent that, I doubt one could accurately guess political leanings based on appearance alone. Walter writes about how sectarian association was identified during the Iraqi Civil War, where Sunni and Shia factions bombed civilians, targeted political leaders, and engaged in brutal violence neighborhood by neighborhood. During that conflict, Iraqis were simply asked if they were Sunni or Shia. And, of course, there were many infamous mosque bombings where Sunni and Shia sects targeted each other.I don’t mean to be graphic or dark, but there’s little stopping future belligerents in another American Civil War from targeting civilians based on suspected political leanings. Like in Iraq, asking “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” before committing an act of political violence could become common if we do have a hot civil war. (Or substitute political affiliation for however dividing lines break down in a future conflict.)FACTIONALISM: Walter also mentions that a good indicator of civil war is when political leaders form new political parties based on ethnicity rather than ideology. There is a strong correlation between diversity and civil war. Yugoslavia is a prime example. After the death of the communist Tito, Slobodan Milošević assumed a new role as leader of the Serbs and, according to Walter, pushed Serbian nationalism against other ethnic groups previously held together by Tito’s dictatorship. This may be one reason behind the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. When diversity is popularly accepted as a strength rather than a barrier to unity, factionalizing becomes a larger challenge for the populace. So far, although there are white nationalist and black nationalist groups, there are no explicit race- or ethnicity-based political groups. This is not to say that American society is not factionalizing, however. The Left often points to an overwhelmingly white Republican Party as evidence of racial factionalizing. With higher rates of support from blacks and Hispanics, this may become less the case for Republicans in future elections.