| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| It's The Tribes, Stupid |
| 2006-11-16 |
| © 2006 Steven Pressfield Forget the Koran. Forget the ayatollahs and the imams. If we want to understand the enemy we're fighting in Iraq, the magic word is "tribe." Islam is not our opponent in Baghdad or Fallouja. We delude ourselves if we believe the foe is a religion. The enemy is tribalism articulated in terms of religion. For two years I've been researching a book about Alexander the Great's counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we're fighting today – even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic. In other words, the clash of East and West is at bottom not about religion. It's about two different ways of being in the world. Those ways haven't changed in 2300 years. They are polar antagonists, incompatible and irreconcilable. The West is modern and rational; its constituent unit is the nation. The East is ancient and visceral; its constituent unit is the tribe. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #12 The one problem with this analysis is that, as the author admits of Alexander's Macedonians, the 'West' was once tribal as well. But they became more 'rational' and built a nation. There is a book quite a few of you might have read called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond that basically says geography and the availability of domesticable plants and animals led to the formation of nations from tribes. Personally, I do not fully buy it but it's thought provoking. In this theory the craggy coast of Europe allowed a number of geographically secure enclaves in which humans could build agricultural societies with relative protection for sufficient time that, eventually, some of them built strong nations that were able to venture forth and conquer -- a factor that roughly corresponds to 'recorded history.' One of the first of these societies was in what is now Iraq. I guess they've backslid since then. To me the problem is that we in the "West" are in a post-modern funk and lack a sense of self confidence. It is largely self induced and a largely well intended response to the horrors of the 20th century. First came the Enlightenment and Reason. So far, so good. Then came Darwin, who provided a rational explanation for the origin of man that did not involve God. Ok, but then came ideologies like Marxism which filled the void left by God and King but led to over 100 million deaths, many in camps rather than the battlefield. Now, the Europeans recoil in guilt from what they did over the last century. If you look at the demographic statistics, they don't even consider themselves worthy of reproducing let alone imposing their ways on our tribal enemies. My pet theory is that they have resorted to environmentalism (neo paganism really) to fill the spiritual void left by Darwin and Marx so they are no longer rational (Hans Blix things global warming is a bigger threat than nuclear terrorism, for instance). America is different. For many reasons, a lot of our citizens are more likely to reconcile faith and reason rather than resort to atheistic ideology. A shorter history and religious pluralism meant religions had to argue their point, win over converts and avoid the corruption and sometimes bloody excesses of established religions in Europe. Free enterprise and the frontier made leftist ideologies far less appealing as alternatives. We still think we have something good to share with, if not impose on, the rest of the world. Certainly, our many immigrants agree. Back when the West ws more self confident, colonial Europeans unashamedly forced various tribal people to change their ways even as greed was a major motivator for 'colonialism.' They did so ruthlessly at times, of course. I have read, but have not confirmed, that the British controlled what is basically India + Pakland with 30,000 troops. Certainly they were brutal and played tribes and religions against eachother brilliantly (as did the Conquistadors) to prevail at such a numerical disadvantage. But they left in place enduring institutions that still benefit the nation of India and are the last vestiges of civilization in Pakland, where the Wahabists are now the colonialists. Reading my post of General Platt's obit yesterday got me thinking of this rant. Pakland was a far better place when he was riding to hounds and having a whiskey afterwards than it is now but few will admit it. I agree with those who say we are too "politically correct" and not ruthless enough in fighting in the tribal middle east. However, I do not think the enemy people are unbeatable or unredeemable if faced with a self confident force from a superior society. We in the West do indeed have a superior culture by all material and moral measures. However, we refuse to acknowledge it and I believe that is the root of the problem when faced with an enemy who has an overabundance of pride, rather than a deficiency. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-11-16 23:51 |
| #11 Yep, but as I like to describe or label it, America's enemies are angry at America for NOT wiping them out = taking over sooner. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-16 22:08 |
| #10 I am willing to marry the hot one, Jenna Bush, if it will help peace in Iraq. It's a small sacrifice, but I do it for the children™ |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-16 21:34 |
| #9 google the rest - good reading and quite an insight into tribal reactions, dealing with tribes, and our own abysmal history of being able to do so. *Sigh* I'm gonna have to quit my job if I ever hope to keep up with RB's reading list. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2006-11-16 21:14 |
| #8 FOTSGreg, cheers, salutations , i'll be a readin'. |
| Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-11-16 21:04 |
| #7 Additional good sites, http://www.thenaturalamerican.com/apache_war.htm http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/indian.html#Apache%20Wars http://www.charleslummis.com/crook.htm http://downtheroad.org/Journals/2Arizona/Apache.htm google the rest - good reading and quite an insight into tribal reactions, dealing with tribes, and our own abysmal history of being able to do so. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-16 20:13 |
| #6 Some of ya'll are missing the point here I think. During the Apache Wars, and in particular referring to Geronimo - incidentally one of the longest, and most savage guerilla wars in American history, the US government and Army were forced to wage ruthless, bloody, and horribly expensive (in many ways) campaigns against a small, unruly, vicious, ruthless group of tribes and tribal leaders that knew the land and held to their own ways and honor until they were forced to face the fact that they had no other choice than complete and total genocide or surrender. The Apaches fought ruthlessly and were known for the savagery inflicted on captured whites or virtually anyone else not Apache or not known and welcomed by the Apaches. The US Army eventually learned that it had to be virtually as ruthless and vicious as the warriors they were fighting if they were going to win. The Apaches raided both sides of the border. If they were being chased by the US Army, they crossed the border into mexico and were, for awhile, safe. If they were being chased by the Mexican Army, however, they had to cross into the USA at specific points where they would not be intercepted by American forces. In the end, the US Army eventually learned that it had to be capable of chasing the Apaches into Mexico if they were going to win. The Mexicans didn;t like it and protested like hell, but there was little they could do about it without sparking war with the US (and the Mexican Army wasn't really very effective or very enthusiastic about chasing the Apaches - they tended to lose way too many soldiers in the process). The whole process was virtually stalemated for years with the US Army chasing the Apaches all over the southwest end of hell. Then came a couple of US Army generals (Crook & Niles) who had the guts to take it to the Apaches like they never had before. Niles utilized technology, and by the time Geronimo had been beaten down a number of times until he had only 24 warritors with him when persuaded to accept surrender and temporary imprisonment in Florida. You can read a very brief, imprecise, incomplete, and obfuscated version of the story here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Wars However, this entire reference fails even once to include the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers to the entire epic of the campaigns against the Apaches and it also fails to tell the tale of the scope of the 20+ year campaign against them. The Buffalo Soldiers eventually earned their name and title from the American Indians, principally the Apache, Comanche, and other tribes against which they learned how to be just as thoroughly ruthless and honorable in combat. The Apaches respected the Buffalo Soldiers and the leaders as much as they respected their tribal leaders because they knew these men could kick ass and take names in any fight. Our leaders need to take a few more lessons from history. A few good books as references on how to deal with tribal uprisings (and how not to), John D. McDermott, A Guide to the Indian Wars of the West (University of Nebraska Press, 1998) ISBN 0-8032-8246-X (I haven't read this one yet) Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee (don't bother - leftist, revisionist claptrap) Long Knives & Yellow Legs (title uncertain; one of the best historical western descriptions of the Indian Wars I have ever read, now long out of print, but worth it if you can find a copy) http://www.geocities.com/~zybt/awars.htm (probably one of the best point-by-point rundowns I've ever seen (even if it contrdicts anything I;ve said above, believe it, not me) (sorry to be so long-winded). |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-16 19:53 |
| #5 Yep, how long have we been saying this. Islam is one problem. The other and prolly more dire issue is the bedouin tribe foundation of the culture of mesopatamia. It would have been advantageous to pit tribe vs. tribe ala Hussein & exploit the fractures. Those tribes that played ball received more prestige, etc. Those that supported insurgencies got brutally wetworked. It would have also been advantageous to make them swear fealty to the U.S. or GWB a kin to Hirohito & MacArthur. I think the Japan plan vice the Marshall plan would've been more applicable in this case - just my $.02. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-11-16 14:57 |
| #4 Forced marches and plague blankets are probably non-starters in this era of sensitivity. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-16 13:18 |
| #3 That is about the best summation of tribalism I've seen in some time. So, what to do? Stomp the bejeebers out of them and reign over them in an Imperialistic fashion (not likely), or leave them to their squalid tribal primitivness (not in our best interests)? |
| Posted by: Mick Dundee 2006-11-16 12:51 |
| #2 That's true sir. Many of us here realized this long ago. Bush & his group never have. That's why their approach has failed miserably. Bring on the cavalry, Gronimo's back. Take no prisoners. When we have reduced their numbers by an appropriate amount, they will submit. Either that, or leave. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-11-16 10:45 |
| #1 So, if I follow Mr Pressfield, President Bush needs to be married to several Tribal Chieftains' daughters, share some roast goat by the fire, schmooze a little, very fiercely, of course, make a couple of them Grand Poobahs at the Pentagon -- or we should just leave. From such brilliance was the current world made. I can't help but think there are options Mr Pressfield hasn't fully considered. |
| Posted by: Phaving Glererong9756 2006-11-16 09:38 |