Kate

VDH inspires clear thinking, as he has throughout.

The Washington Post has published an interesting letter from an Iraqi citizen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

AJStrata has a link that works as well as a lengthy excerpt.

One swallow doesn't make a spring (or a thirst quenching drink) but those who followed last weekend's debate between ET and me will be interested in this letter.

As much as I always admire Hanson's arguments and analysis, in this case, I think he is overlooking something important. It is not solely up to the soldiers, it is not up to the military, and it is extremely unfair to put such a burden on them. The best military action can be undermined by a political action.

And that is precisely my concern; that the Iraqi gov't is not setting up a civic mode of governance, but is setting up a tribal mode, substituting one tribe in authority (Hussein's) for another tribe. Tribalism is the root cause of Islamic fascism - and the best military actions cannot address tribalism; only a political action can deal with that.

CNN had a May 1st outline of a 'sectarian agenda' (sectarian=tribal) in Iraq. Key points are:

"Powerful advisers are accused of having an extreme Shiite bias
• U.S. military, intelligence sources: Office could undermine entire U.S. effort
• Iraqi defense minister says the Office is a consultation office and "nothing else"
• Senior Iraqi army officer says: "It's people with no power who want to have power""

I have always been in favour of the Iraq war; its importance in moving the ME out of tribalism and into a civic mode cannot be underestimated.

BUT - that war will fail unless the political system actually changes from a tribal to a civic mode. Substituting one tribal domination for another was never, ever, the goal of the US gov't. Their goal was to enable democracy, ie, a civic mode.

Again - what is happening?

"Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.

The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources."

This is not a military issue; it is a political issue, and the Iraq gov't should not be using the safety brought to them by the presence of the US military, to continue tribalism. That will only continue fascism.

An unspoken truth that VDH raises is that indeed it’s all about oil. Oil that props up despots and Islamofascism that would otherwise implode. The West needs to build more nuclear reactors and wean ourselves off oil and starve the despots.

Also as Canadians we need to worry less about who’s captain of Team Canada and get on with becoming a major supplier of tarsands oil and thereby feed the world’s supplies, keep prices of oil down and help reduce the funds flowing to ME despots.

ET, I agree with your overall comments; i.e. to cause the new quasi-democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan to move away from tribalism by letting them fend for themselves. The issue becomes one of the timing for withdrawal. We can’t abandon the ME oil fields to Al Qaeda without a backup security of energy supply for the West. That will take years.

The West will eventually beat back Islamofascism for the simple reason that we have more money, more technologically advanced resources to fight a prolonged battle against this death cult.

But the economic strength of Western ideas is currently based on an incredibly vibrant globally connected economy which in turn is based on free trade that is based too heavily on the availability of oil from the ME.

We can’t let Al Qaeda blow up the oil fields which is what they’ll do if we pull out now.

So the conundrum boils down to what ET says is the long term solution of ME tribalism being replaced by some from of representative government and the West’s ability to keep the world safe by allowing the global economy to create enough wealth to fight this long war against Islamofascism. Also a strong global economy has the by-product of causing inter-dependence of the USA and China, for example. We don’t want to shut down that inter-dependence by throwing the global economy into a tailspin.

This is a very tough dilemma.

"Their goal was to enable democracy, ie, a civic mode."

Was that their goal? Their stated goal was to eliminate the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of WMD's. If you really want to enable democracy in the ME and hopefully set an example and have it spread, why would you have to do it by force? Couldn't you start by convincing one of our "allies" like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to set the example?

If you think terror attacks and Islamofascism are bad now, watch what happens if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq without victory.

The choice is to fight now in a few limited wars, or fight later in a much broader war with infinitely greater casualties and damage.

I suppose publishing casaulty figures counts as "exaggeration" to some.

""The verdict of all wars that ultimately are decided by the soldiers, and then either supported or opposed by the majority at home with no views or ideology other than its desire to conform to the narrative from the front: support our winners, oppose our losers.""

Pure addle brained prattle! The outcome of this war and all wars is determined by the will of the leadership to provide the resources needed to complete the task!
The soldiers on the forefront of the conflict are resources. The short attention span of the Media notwithstanding! This comment by VLD is pure crap!

Given that one is attempting to move a pastoral/nomadic culture to the 21st century; a quantum leap in paradigm in Arab thinking has to take place.

If the Arab culture can produce notions such as Algebra the foundations of modern science and technology, then one has to admit that there is a window of hope.

While Christ once warned his followers of 'wolves in sheep's clothing' I suspect that there are not a few "sheep donning wolves clothing" for political purposes in Iraq and neighboring countries.

Not a few voices are clamoring for peace among the Arab nations perhaps it is time for them to remove the wolves clothing.

And if you know anything about wolves, they are quite friendly and gregarious when well fed. This has been my experience with a wolf named "Damian".

Being of Dutch extraction Gen. Petraeus will simply become his namesake the ROCK that does not ROLL, but rather plugs the DIKE.

Thus we have "The Dike Plugger Dances with Wolves".

As for myself I have found it useful to "Dance with Big Cats" whilst being a "Sheep in Wolves Clothing".

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

If someone wants casualty figures there is a show being aired on Bell TV right now called the First World War.Now those are casualty figures,like a million Germans alone in the summer of 1918.There are more people killed in traffic accidents in North America than in Iraq and Afganistan combined.

the US military casualty figures are extremely low. A bad month in Iraq results in fewer deaths & injuries than the average week of traffic carnage in California.

Same goes for Cdn casualties in A-Stan . . the average is about 9 KIA per year. Sort of like a summer's long weekend traffic count for Ontario.

Iraqis: Don't Abandon Us (The News From Iraq Is Better Than the MSM Reports)
Captain's Quarters
Iraqis: Don't Abandon Us
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1828362/posts
...-

Iraqis are not surrender monkeys.

Stand with Iraqis.

No surrender.

Stand for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth. Arthur Hugh Clough. 1909-14.

"And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!"
...-

"the US military casualty figures are extremely low. A bad month in Iraq results in fewer deaths & injuries than the average week of traffic carnage in California.

Same goes for Cdn casualties in A-Stan . . the average is about 9 KIA per year. Sort of like a summer's long weekend traffic count for Ontario."
Posted by: Fred at May 4, 2007 11:15 AM

A walk through Bagdad may actually be safer than a walk after dark through downtown Philadelphia, Detroit, or east LA. ;-)

The problem is the same that made "The Short Attention Span Theater" so popular. Most of the MSM readers/listeners/watchers have very short memories and either forget, or more likely were not even alive, when the numbers rolled in from the Tet Offensive, or D-Day, or such.

They have no basis for relative comparisons. And they will continue in that vacumn until a really, really big bomb goes off in a really big city that doesn't have an Arab name.

The short-attention-span-syndrome (s-ass) will then kick into high gear and the Pelosi-Reed Liberals will DEMAND to know why no one was doing ANYTHING to detect/deflect/prevent such an attack.

In the end, you get what you pay for, you get what you vote for, and sometimes you even get what you wish for. But, if you suffer from s-ass, you get to blame someone else, since you have already forgotten that for which you payed/voted/wished.

If the Dems get their way the [free] world will need a a new flag: an Eagle in a fetal position.

A big problem I see in all the discussion is that almost everyone brings a western mindset to the table with Islam.

That does not work. They do not think as we do and cannot entertain (mentally) the concepts we offer.

They are not out to negotiate or rectify self inflicted grievances. They are fighting to make the whole world Allahs as he has always exhorted them to.

TruthSeeker - yes, that was their goal; the enabling of democracy in the ME. The WMD was a 'proximate cause' rather than the 'integral cause'.

Saddam's Iraq was a military dictatorship; his WMD, which he had, were to enable him to control Iraq. The result of this military dictatorship in Iraq and the whole ME, is Islamic fascism - which is caused by the imbalance between a political structure and population size/economic mode.

Because of the military dictatorships, rather than the fascism IMPLODING, ie, the violence taking place within the ME, it EXPLODED into the West.

The reaction of the West was quite correctly, a military action to take out the military dictatorship.

No, you are being naive; you can't negotiate or talk a tribal dictator out of being, a tribal dictator. There is no way that you would talk SA or any of the main ME states, to move out of a dictatorial tribal political structure.

The US was absolutely correct, to take that first step of a military action. The second step, is to enable and assist the new gov't to become non-tribal, ie, civic or democratic. This second step obviously must be accompanied by a military presence, to protect against the 'insurgency' by both internal tribalism and - the external tribalism of the surrounding nations. Iran, SA, Egypt most certainly don't want to see their own states move out of tribal dictatorships! So - they'll promote and fund and send insurgents into Iraq.

BUT - the transformation cannot simply be military. It has to be political as well. My concern is that the current Iraqi gov't might be continuing on with tribalism, and simply substituting one tribe for another - rather than setting up a civic, inclusive government. And using the US military protection to do this.

Agreed, nomdenet, in a perverse way, it is about oil, because the ME has NO industrial dev't of its own. It was trapped within a peasant tribal agriculture for centuries, made no move to progress, and only 'changed' when oil was discovered after the world wars. But even then, it didn't develop the technology, the expertise to both extract the oil, process it - and develop the industries that use oil for energy. It simply sits there - and uses the income - to establish tribal dictatorships. The population has morphed, they've moved from rural to urban, but - they are totally without power. That's the cause of fascism.

Hans, the Muslims didn't invent algebra; it was a hindu 'invention'. The Muslims however, have long copied innovations from elsewhere; their Islamism rejects reason, thought, individualism and so, they trapped themselves into being only 'exploiters' of innovations developed elsewhere.

belisarius - there can't be such a thing as a 'victory' in Iraq, because there is no legitimate army against which the West is fighting. The West is fighting tribal fascism, which is not a national ideology, but a political one - and it will last as long as the ME people are without political power.

The victory has to be the establishment of democracy, civic governance, rather than tribal governance, in the ME.

It will take both military and political actions. The first step had to be military; step two has to be both political and military (that's where we are now); step three is a vigilant political one.

My concern, again, is that we are in step two, and the Iraqi gov't isn't doing its task properly.

Couldn't you start by convincing one of our "allies" like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to set the example?

And the chances of that ever happening are zero.

Ya really think the 5000 royal princes in Saudi Arabia, the royal family in Kuwait, the rabidly conservative Wahabbist religious groups there are going to roll over in those kingdoms, surrender their oil revenues, for a secular democracy and women's rights?

Saddam and the Taliban lost their little gigs because they were easy marks. They were there for the taking in a ME without a lot of options. The locals aren't asking for them back. Something had to be tried as a catalyst to break the deadlock of thuggery and rot in the ME.

However Bush couched our entry into the ME, everything else in the past had failed and 9/11 proved how toxic doing nothing was.

It's infantile to think that if only there were a few more meetings the world will become a better place.

Victory in Iraq is any solution which denies al-Qaeda a safe haven in that country.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq the Islamists will view it as their victory. They will then believe that victory for Islam will be possible worldwide. Having beaten the worlds two superpowers, they will firmly believe that their faith in Islam gave them victory and has made them invincible.

That message will spread and so will war.

My concern is that the current Iraqi gov't might be continuing on with tribalism

I agree with you, ET. The Iraqi constitution was drafted to mute tribalism. I think Maliki is not very charismatic and weaker than the US would like, but, those were the cards dealt us. History, I think will fault the US for not treating Iraq with the same iron fisted occupation we placed on the Germans and Japanese. But, then, the US President didn't have the moronic MSM shaping the agenda like it does today. The Dems would have been screaming if Bush had really gone into autocrat mode.

I think that the culture has a lot to do with the slow pace of progress in Iraq as well. There was a news blurb this week noting that the Iraqi parliament is ajourned three days a week for three hour sessions, and, that's with all of the pressing issues they have. The US administration is losing patience to say the least. It's like herding cats.

Oil was a curse placed upon the Arabs. It killed any chance of building a normal market economy that all could participate in. The revenues have been wasted on nothing that would advance a civil society in the area.

ET, as Iraq moves from tribal to civic mode, it will have to develop properly functioning political, financial and justice institutions. Without them, as a prof stressed years ago, stable modernization is difficult, even impossible. I do not believe, after decades of Baathist destruction of government, these institutions are even close right now to allow this mode-move.

Perhaps partition is the only answer right now.

ET, penny:

As a trained teacher in mathematics and physics I would suggest that the attribution of the development of mathematics entirely to the Hindus is misplaced. That is not the historical record, at least of my readings of the historical record thus far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi

"Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian[1] mathematician, astronomer, astrologer and geographer. He was born around 780 in Khwārizm[2] (now Khiva, Uzbekistan) and died around 850. He worked most of his life as a scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad.

His Algebra was the first book on the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. Consequently he is considered to be the father of algebra,[3] a title he shares with Diophantus. Latin translations of his Arithmetic, on the Indian numerals, introduced the decimal positional number system to the Western world in the 12th century.[4] He revised and updated Ptolemy's Geography as well as writing several works on astronomy and astrology.

His contributions not only made a great impact on mathematics, but on language as well. The word algebra is derived from al-jabr, one of the two operations used to solve quadratic equations, as described in his book. The words algorism and algorithm stem from algoritmi, the Latinization of his name.[5] His name is also the origin of the Spanish word guarismo[6] and of the Portuguese word algarismo, both meaning digit."

The characterization that Muslims are incapable of abstract thought in my opinion is demonstrably false. That there may exist a palpable lack of education among certain sectors of the Muslim world I will not dispute.

The proposition that the Muslim mind can't work in a democratic model is just as misplaced. The Judeo -Christian model of democratic adaptation has stepped forwards in fits and starts with some reversals. Why should it be any different for a Muslim religious-democratic adaptation.

The supposition that the Muslim mind cannot adapt to the democratic model in my view is as false as the proposition that the Muslim mind is incapable of abstract thought. That the political civic mode has not yet adapted may be true, but to arbitrarily foreclose such a possibility is to engage in despair.

In short, as I suggested to some of our leaders in the word of Saint Augustine:

Hope has two lovely daughters, anger and courage.

Anger at what is wrong and courage to set things right.

The necessary condition for political adaptation has been provided, the sufficient condition has to come from the the Arab world themselves.

One might characterize the current state of affairs as one of the 'comfortable Mosque' much as Christians have become muddleheaded in their 'comfortable pews'

I don't see eternal conflict between the Occidental and Oriental mind save for the fact that Occidental and Oriental minds are too lazy or comfortable to engage each other.

As GK Chesterton once observed:

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." - ILN 9/11/09

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution. - Tremendous Trifles, 1909

penny - I agree with every one of your comments.

belisarius - eventually, the US will leave Iraq; that has nothing to do with defining a fascist victory. The fascist defeat comes from the development of democracy in the ME.

Hans - I think we are talking in different directions. The history of algebra that I'm aware of goes back to the Egyptians, Bablylonians, Greeks - and finally, Arabic, whose scholars were not all Arabs but Greek, Persian, Jews, Christians. The Arabic era took over from the previous, and in my understanding, did not contribute innovations.

As for 'the Muslim mind' - I don't agree that there is such a thing. We are all the same species, and Muslims are as capable of abstract thought and democracy etc as anyone else.

What is important, however, is the cognitive culture of the group. And, among Muslims, the cognitive culture rejects reason, thought, analysis, independence of thought, questioning, etc. This is a mode of thought exactly similar to the European pre-Reformation era. It took several hundred vicious years to move the cognitive culture from this non-rational to a mode supporting questions, individual free thought, etc.

What is keeping the Islamic world back, is its being embedded within tribalism, a sociopolitical mode that rejects individualism. Individualism, by the way, is the definitive characteristic of the middle class. That has nothing to do with 'capacity of thought' but with cultural normative ideals. I have never implied or said that a Muslim is incapable of abstract thought or democracy. As I said; they are the same species; of course they are capable. But, just as the West was trapped in feudalism for centuries, so is the Muslim world trapped in tribalism (the same thing).

I disagree with the concept of the Oriental and Occidental Mind. No such thing; we are all the same species. What is different is the economic and sociopolitical mode. A tribal mode is group-based; a civic mode is individual based.

Sorry - I'm not a fan of Augustine. He was, in my view, part of the cause of moving Europe into the feudal era of 'groupism', with his rejection of Arianism and support of the Athanasian view of the trinity - and, his emphasis on sin and redemption.

Of course you can have a revolution in order to install democracy. There are lots of examples, including the Reformation - a long drawn out one, and the American Revolution, and yes, the French Revolution.

Sometimes, as in Europe (France, Russia, China) what happens in the collapse of tribalism, is a phase of inter-tribalism, when a new tribalism, a military dictatorship, emerges - until it collapses and genuine democracy develops.

My concern in Iraq, is that the US has released the Iraqi people from a military dictatorship, but, instead of moving into democracy, the Iraqi gov't is substituting a new tribalism, protected by the US military.

You think the Wahabbit style mosques around the world are 'comfortable'?

The fact that the US is putting a damper on full-scale civil war is irrelevant. By invading, they took responsibility for establishing the conditions for a stable replacement for Hussein's regime. It might not be true democracy as we understand it, but it has to be stable and (relatively) peaceful.

Until those conditions are met, it would be irresponsible and incredibly dangerous for international security for the U.S. to depart.

belisarius - you just don't get it; it isn't up to the US to insert democracy in Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people.

What the US did, was to release them from a tribal dictatorship. Then, the Iraqi people could, and did, move towards a civic mode of government (democracy). BUT, it is up to the Iraqi gov't to nurture and enhance and protect that civic mode and not turn it into a sectarian or tribal mode, ie, simply replacing one tribe as authority, with another tribe.

My concern, as I've said repeatedly, was that the current Iraq gov't was simply moving into a Shi'ite tribal authoritarianism, using the US military as a protection. So, the Iraqi gov't COULD have the US stay and stay and stay, while they simply moved backwards into tribalism, inserting a different tribe than Hussein's tribe. That would be disastrous and a complete misuse of the freedom given to them by the US military.

The US, of course, is very aware of this. CNN has a story on their urging the Iraqi gov't to be more inclusive.

ET:

"You think the Wahabbit style mosques around the world are 'comfortable'?"

Only in the sense that they are 'comfortable' with the Wahabbist-centric view of world. IE in the failure to adapt to changing circumstance.

As to the development of mathematical thought, yes it spans cultures and centuries. What I suggested is that Arabic contributions not be ignored. I wasn't giving a full blown history of mathematics.
In short, credit where credit is due.

The extremist position suggests they speak authoritatively for all muslims. The Al Qaedists certainly believe in the 'muslim' way or the highway.

This has its parallels in the Americas as the native populations that did not adapt were simply laid waste.

What I suggested in reference to the "Occidental/Oriental mind" is the failure of adaption whether in the West/East. In short, the frozen world view engenders the failure to adapt.
This can be exhibited by various segments of a culture or the culture itself.

Thus a culture represents a specific modality of adaptation. In so far as a culture refuses to adapt one experiences 'adaptive discontinuities'.

The adaptive discontinuities of a culture are known commonly as revolutions. IE the French, Russian, American Revolution.

Chesterton's quote is valid as in a democracy the functional change in cultural adaptation is achieved through elections, eliminates maladaptive responses in political/civic culture through self corrective action. Violent revolution should not be necessary if it is functioning properly.

That is, cultural adaptation in a democratic modality should eliminate the revolutionary discontinuities engendered by a 'frozen concepts' view of the world.

One example would be the "LIEberal culture of corruption" which after 13 years became a maladaptive response. This maladaptive response was eliminated by election. Hence the self corrective action of elections dispenses with the revolutionary discontinuity.

Again, REVOLUTION is the evidence of a cultural discontinuity or FAILURE in ADAPTATION.

Revolution in itself is not a cultural adaptation.

DEMOCRACY features a self-corrective mechanism which can eliminate maladaptive reponses in a culture. IE a culture of political corruption can be eliminated.

That is, political revolution is not necessary because the adaptive response is made in discrete steps rather than wholesale discontinuties.

When there are those who propose the elimination of an election, this removes the possibility of self-corrective adaptation as it ensures cultural discontinuity.

Hence, when Karen Redman proposed not respecting confidence votes in Parliament in the spring session of 2005, it is like a clarion cry to revolution.

The result was that Canadians rejected the maladaptive response of a "culture of corruption".

The self corrective of an election ensures a cultural adaptive response. Democracies in and of themselves can still choose the wrong thing or mal adapt between elections but at least in a democracy there is the possibility to change the adaptive response.

This is odd but I think both Belisarius and ET are saying …give war a chance.

Agreed ET that the issue is tribalism, in the pretend countries (lines in the sand) of the ME. The situation is complicated by non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. We can’t just leave the ME people yet to fend for themselves and hope they grow up before the death cult gets them. That’s because of the “perversity” that oil plays in propping up these failed states. This same oil fuels both the global economy and the despots. We still need to figure out how to unravel that conundrum.

But all this could change rapidly. Until recently I’ve been worried about the Dems (Harry and Nancy) out-Frenching the French. But Sarko could win tomorrow in France. Then I could switch back from Freedom Fries to French Fries and we’d see a transatlantic coalition of the willing against terrorism instead of the World Orderly Appeasement feckless wonders of Chirac/Citoyen DeYawn/Pelosi.

What an incredible difference it could make to world affairs if Sarko would take the Euroweenies by the throat and shake them out their stupor. Instead of the EU turning into Eurabia we might see the Arab world turning into Arope . We need to give Bush’s ME democracy card a bit more time.

Hans - when the Koran is your civic paradigm what good can come out of increasingly theocratic Islamic societies?

I don't think Muslims have lesser IQ's. They are perfectly adequate. Their circumstances aren't. You can have a superior IQ, but, what good is it if you are illiterate, isolated and all of your actions have to conform to your religion?

If we, I'm using we broadly meaning the west, lose Iraq, it just can't make it as a democracy, it's because we hit the brick wall that is tribalism+Islam. It is worth a shot. We gave them the open space and tools, that's never regretable, they need ultimately yo run with it.

Lefties offered Iraqis nothing. Paul Wolfowitz is fighting for his life after ruffling feathers at the World Bank. His lefty EU counterparts hate him for all of the right reasons. He was trying to to turn the rot around.

Bush and Co. had thought through invading Iraq as the most secular and most literate of ME countries. Saddam had no time for the imams. It was a logical choice. It was worth the shot. We'll sure have plenty to examine on the Oriental mind if Iraq goes down in flames.

Nine hours a week, nine!, the Iraqi legislators are at it. There isn't much else we can do short of putting guns to their heads, we should, but, the lefties would go parabolic. Both groups are stuck on stupid.

Penny,ET:

When you are dealing with tribalism, then you look for an adaptive response that is positive from their leaders.

Quite simply what needs to be done is to take the Chief Dan George approach.

"Oh God in heaven! Give me back the courage of the olden chiefs. Let me wrestle with my surroundings. Let me again, as in the days of old, dominate my environment. Let me humbly accept this new culture and through it rise up and go on.

Oh God! Like the thunderbird of old I shall rise again out of the sea; I shall grab the instruments of the white man's success-his education, his skills- and with these new tools I shall build my race into the proudest segment of your society.

Before I follow the great chiefs who have gone before us, Oh Canada, I shall see these things come to pass. I shall see our young braves and our chiefs sitting in the houses of law and government, ruling and being ruled by the knowledge and freedoms of our great land.

So shall we shatter the barriers of our isolation. So shall the next hundred years be the greatest in the proud history of our tribes and nations."

That is the approach to tribalism; it is the "Chief Dan George Way For Arab Muslims".

Simply, because he had the wisdom to keep the things that were good in his culture; but was willing to CULTURALLY ADAPT to the new culture.

In short, you don't have reject your tribal identity, just the mal adaptive features. That will have to come from those communities themselves.

HERE IS THE MONEY QUOTE:

"Let me humbly ACCEPT THIS NEW CULTURE and through it rise up and go on."

That is the way forward for natives in Canada and I submit the way forward for the tribes in Iraq.

If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.

Thanks, hans, for your clarification. I see your points.

There is really only one social structure that is capable of adaptation - and that is the democratic or civic mode, which rests on a middle class, which itself rests on the priority of the individual and freedom of individual thought. This mode is only required in a large population that requires constant innovative technological growth.

The so-called 'no-growth' societies, which are everything before the advent of the big agricultural market economies of Europe, had no need for change. Indeed, their strength as a society rested in their tactics of inducing group compliance, downplaying and rejecting individualism. This generated great stability, but, renedered the population unable to adapt to external influences and, to internal disruption.

The ME has to adapt. At the moment, it is using oil, as nomdenet points out, to cocoon it from change - and the result is fascism - externalized to the West.

I think that the no-growth societies, the ones that are not civic, must go through a revolution to destroy the old structure and enable the development of a new one.

If I understand some of the arguments being made on this thread, it's that essentially it is up to the Iraqis themselves to overcome tribalism and put together a working democracy. The Americans gave them the freedom and opportunity to do it, and now it's up to them. Is that essentially correct?

This might make sense if Iraq was viewed in isolation, but it's important to remember that there are powerful external forces at play which have absolutely no interest in tribal reconciliation and democracy. They have another goal entirely.

Those forces are the international network of al-qaeda jihadists and Iran.

My concern is that were the U.S. to depart now, before stability has truly been established and these external forces brought under control, that Iraq could become a new version of Taliban Afghanistan (complete with AQ training camps). I suppose it's likely too that the resulting civil war would draw in Iran, Syria and possibly Saudi Arabia. Who knows how that would end?

Worse yet, the jihadists would trumpet to their fellow islamists that they had beaten the United States, just like they beat the Russians. A lot of people would believe them. Their message would get a lot more credibility in the Islamic world. They would be greatly encouraged to continue the jihad.

So the jihad moves on. Who would be next? Afghanistan for sure. Probably Pakistan too - there is already evidence that a strong effort is being made there to establish a radical Islamic theocracy. I'm sure the jihadists would love to control a country with atomic weapons.

belisarius - that's not my point, ie, the one where you are saying that the Americans liberated the Iraqi from a tribal dictatorship and now, it's up to the Iraqi alone. There are, as I've pointed out, three steps.

First step, is the actual liberation from a tribal dictatorship. That can only come from outside, because the dictatorship is military; Hussein controlled the army.

Second step, is the movement by the Iraqi people from a tribal to a civic mode, in a phase when they are protected by the US military.

The reason for this protection is because there are forces, both internal and external (Iran, SA, Egypt, Pakistan) that reject democracy and want to maintain tribalism.

BUT - this second phase requires that the Iraqi gov't establish a civic governance. My concern, as I've said repeatedly, is that it is instead, establishing a tribal governance; they are just substituting the Shi'ite for Saddam's tribe. That would be disastrous - and a deep misuse of the US military.

The third phase is the diffusion of democracy from Iraq to the other ME states. This is where the other ME states must stand up and reject tribalism and its resultant fascism. Yes, SA, Iran and Egypt don't want democracy, but they don't want fascism either.
And, none of the Arab states want to see Iran take over the area.
The ME states have to stop relying on the US to protect them, to protect them in their tribalism - which is what they have done for a generation - and move into a civic mode.

That's my concern about the US staying IF, IF, Iraq refuses to move into a civic mode and simply substitutes one tribal set of rule for the old one.
If that is the case, my view is that the US should leave - and leave the Arab states fight it out. The ME has no choice; it has to move to a civic mode. And the West shouldn't protect its tribalism.

But, the US shouldn't remain to protect tribalism. That tribalism has been going on for a generation. Remember the first Gulf War? The US didn't want to take out Hussein and any other tribal leader, because it didn't want to destabilize the ME. And that act enabled tribalism to continue..and that has led to fascism.

You haven't explained what you feel are the root causes of jihadism. I maintain that jihadism is fascism, and its root cause in the ME is tribalism. Get rid of that, and fascism will become irrelevant, reduced to a peripheral sect.
How do you get rid of it? Giving political and economic power to the people, ie, to the majority, and you do that by enabling the dev't of a middle class.

Belisarius, yes it’s all rather horrifying isn’t it?

While I agree with ET’s analysis, I don’t think we can abandon the people there just yet for reasons you have made.

Wars need a lot of money to fight them, wars don’t create wealth they spend it. The commercial aspects of this war involve oil and the global economy which is starting to boom into an incredible success story.

The West has the money to beat (or contain) the Islamofascists as long as it has the will to win. And as long as it can fund the war with the dividends of an incredibly strong global economy.

But the “progressives” don’t want us to win. Because they want big government and lots of entitlements. They can’t have that if we’re spending all the extra money on the war. So they favour appeasement. But bin Laden called Clinton the “weak horse “because he would not fight.

Therefore before I jump to ET’s solution, which I think we’ll have to do at some point, first I want to have a contingency plan for oil because I don’t want to wreck the fabulous global economy which we are experiencing which in turn is making the world a safer place than it would be if we were in a global recession. A recession will happen if we let al Qaeda blow up ME oil fields.

I would hold off on ET’s approach until we either get a highly articulate War President into the White House (Thompson or Giuliani or Romney will do)
Or (Lord help us)
We have to sIt back and watch while a Democrat President pulls the rug out from America’s ME efforts. Then when all hell breaks lose as Belisarius has predicted, the Democrats can then be replaced with an appropriate government willing to fight the Islamofascists to the finish.

There are obviously a dozen scenarios that might play out. I think Bush has caused enough of a shake up to ensure that the status quo in the ME is thankfully gone forever. But now it’s best to simply have the US military keep trying to train the Iraqis to defend themselves from the fascist elements. Something big is bound to happen; we won’t have to cause it.

Jihadism is not caused by fascism, but rather by a desire to return to what many Muslims consider the ideal in their history: the 7th century. Formerly quarreling Arab tribes were united under Islam, and under their green flags conquered half the world. A Caliph ruled the united Muslim world. That's what they want to return to. It is the opposite of tribalism.

Jihadists view democracy as a failed western idea that has resulted in lapsed morals and abandonment of God. To them it is anathema.

By driving out the United States, the jihadists will be able to convince large numbers of Muslim people that the only way they can return to glory is through Islam and the restoration of a Caliphate.

Democracy won't have a chance. It will have been discredited by Islam's triumph.

It is pretty apparent that, if we don't have the guts to stay now, even though we are forced to kill a great number of them, then we better be ready and willing to kill almost all of them later on. This would be a true tragedy but the option is losing everything we hold dear.

Belisarius

Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact that tribalism, which gives support to as many voices as there are tribes, is the opposite of (and an impediment) to Islamism, which demands obedience to a single voice.

ET has yet to explain why his new found theory of "tribalism creates Islamism" isn't proved in Iraqi Kurdistan. Be that as it may, I fully expect he'll show off his new toy as often as he can, even if it causes him to now abandon a mission he has staunchly supported for the past three years. One would think an educated person would conduct his research before taking a strong position, not after.

I'm also surprised that those who have supported the war up to the tipping point, but now wish to withdraw ( sugar coated as soon) are unconcerned as to the moral and security implications of what they propose.

Up to now, the notion that America can simply walk away because the Iraqis haven't stood up quickly enough has been advanced most often and strenuously by Hillary Clinton than anyone else. This is hardly surprising given that Clinton's ethics are exclusively utilitarian. It's disappointing therefore to see people here who supported the necessary breaking of Iraq (in order for a democracy to emerge) have no moral qualms about abandoning Iraq before conditions have been created to enable Iraqis to make choices in an environment conducsive to good decision making.

It's hardly the case that Iraqis aren't dying in droves for their new society. One of the benefits of reading sites like The Fourth Rail is one can readily appreciate the sacrifices being made daily by Iraqis in their attempt to bring order and democracy to their country.

In the next election Iraqis might well realize the forces that are unleashed upon their society by not electing secular politicians.

As well Belasarius, as you've pointed out, those who want to leave Iraq (now or soon) don't understand the implications of conceding Iraq to al Qaeda.

It is ironic that so many are prepared to concede Iraq to al Qaeda at this time paricularly given the progress against al Qaeda this week.

One final irony. In the first post in this thread I referred to a letter which was posted on AJ Strata's thread. Ironically a commenter named ET -obviously another ET - approvingly linked this letter on Rhiel World.

The tide has turned in Iraq. The liberation of Ramadi, former al Qaeda stronghold, is now virtually complete. Diyala is next. This is no time to go wobbly. Al Qaeda is taking a shit kicking. There will be plenty of time down the road to assess whether Iraqis have grasped enough of the democratic nettle to warrant future support.

Iraqis are unlikely to choose a Jeffersonian democracy, but then again so are Canadians, if given the choice.

IMHO, once we get rid of the CBC we can look down our noses at Iraqis, but not one moment before.

“explain why his new found theory of "tribalism creates Islamism" isn't proved in Iraqi Kurdistan”

Because they were more or less freed from the fascism of Saddam and the Baathists in by Bush I in 1991. They have had more time. Also they have oil which both Turkey and Saddam were eyeing. But the Kurds learned to protect themselves, even against WMDs fired upon them by Chemical Ali. Moreover the Kurds have had some time to create a middle class.

I think ET’s analysis is correct. We’ve seen how excessive American coddling has produced adolescent behaviour about the need for military options in Europe, even Canada.

But, I would like more time (at least wait for the 2008 President to make the decision) before taking this infant democracy of Iraq out of the incubator.

belisaurius - I completely disagree with you.

The jihadism of today is caused by fascism, and fascism is caused by the tribal political system when it is out of sync with the economy and population size.

You don't explain, after all, why the Islamists after centuries of quiet, would want to expand at this current time. After all, jihad has always been a component of their ideology (which is a tribal, pastoral nomadic ideology). Explain why jihad arose this past decade.

You, and Terry Gain, and the Democrats, don't understand the nature of Islam as a pastoral nomadic ideology - it most certainly does reject democracy, individuals, free thought. That's its nature as an ideology supporting a particular economy (pastoral nomadic). The problem is, the economy is no longer that simple, and the population no longer that minimal, and the political structure hasn't adapted.

You, and Terry Gain, and the Democrats, don't understand tribalism. You think it's just people defining themselves 'in a group'. No. You think it's akin to multiculturalism- eg, as Gain says, 'many voices'. That shows a profound misunderstanding of tribalism.

Again, as I've explained multiple times, tribalism is NOT multiculturalism. That's a completely invalid comparison.

Tribalism is a particular mode of social organization - and no society could operate with 'many voices'. Again, that's the trivia of multiculturalism.

Tribalism is a mode, where individuals are denigrated and one is a hereditary member of a clan, tracing a common ancestor - and, in the society, this hereditary nature is given political power by ONE tribe being politically dominant over the others. This is a TWO-CLASS system. A two-class system means that a small elite, a hereditary group, is in charge, and the rest of the population have no major political, economic and social power.

A civic mode of governance is a THREE class structure, where authority is not hereditary, but elected. This mode is based on the freedom of the individual, who is not defined in power by hereditary memberships, but by merit and individual work. This sets up a majority class, who are the middle class. Democracy rests on this class.

You can have multiple tribes or ethnic identities, as in Kurdistan, as long as they are operating in a CIVIC mode. That is, as long as the political and economic authority is not defined by clan membership but by individual merit and election. So, Terry, your example is empty.

No, Terry, the theory of tribalism is not 'new found'; it's been around for a long time, and has been long researched by many anthropologists and political science researchers. I've been teaching it, and the differences between different modes of organizing societies, for over 25 years.

I have always supported the Iraq War, but, as I've said repeatedly, its phase two is in danger. Phase 2, as I've said above, is the development of a civic mode of governance, which is based on a large middle class; this development would be supported by the presence of the US military.

BUT, is this happening? I've pointed out that the current Iraqi gov't might be, instead, continuing on with tribalism (and again, Belisarius and Terry, try to understand what tribalism really means; it has zilch to do with 'many voices'). The new Iraqi gov't may be substituting one tribe in power with another tribe. And, this substitution might be protected by the presence of the US troops.

Yes, the US gov't is worried that this is precisely what is happening. If this happens, then, fascism will continue, because tribalism (again, please understand what it means) in a large industrial population is extremely dysfunctional.

If this happens, then, I'll say again, the US should leave - and allow the ME to sort it out. Understand that SA, Iraq, Egypt etc do NOT, NOT want Iran to take power in the ME.
And, the ME has to 'go democratic'. Again, a tribal political system is dysfunctional in a large industrial system. The ME tribalism has only been kept in place by funding from oil.

Might I suggest, Terry, that you stop with the sneers, be civil, and stick to the issue?

Terry and Belisarius are both ignoring the operation of the new Iraqi gov't. Not a word from them about it.
Terry and Belisarius both totally misunderstand the nature of tribalism.
They don't understand the difference between a two class and three class political mode; the difference between hereditary and elected authority, the nature and requirement for a middle class. And - how fascism emerges within a dysfunctional social organization.

Again, don't think of 'tribalism' as trivial as multiculturalism. That's not tribalism. Tribalism is a social, economic and political mode of organization of a population, not a cultural idea.

ET,

Your definition of tribalism is interesting, and I don't dispute it. But I think you are completely wrong about it's effect upon jihadism.

All Muslims, regardless or tribal or national affiliation, feel a higher calling to the "ummah" or community of Islam. It supersedes tribal allegiance. It is one of the great accomplishments of Islam, and allowed a fractured group of tribes to unite under a common cause. It is the reason that so many Muslims from so many different countries (and tribes) are coming to Chechnya, Kashmir, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq to fight.

Jihadism is not a recent phenomenom. It has been going on more or less continuously since the 7th century. It has had varying degrees of success in that interval, but every few decades it flares up again somewhere in the world.

The most recent rise of jihadism stems from the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The success of the mujahadeen in defeating the Russians encouraged a new generation of jihadists. They felt that anything was possible if only the Muslim world would return to its Islamic roots. The Arab experiment with socialism had seemingly resulted only in repeated defeat at the hands of the Israelis and international humiliation.

I agree with you that the United States is not responsible for installing democracy in Iraq. They are however responsible for providing the necessary conditions - namely security - for the Iraqis to determine and establish their new government, in whatever form it might take. They assumed this responsibility when they invaded.

Even beyond that, it is critical that the United States not be seen to have been defeated by al Qaeda. As I have previously stated, the consequences of that would be disastrous.

belisaurius - I disagree that the violent phase of jihadism is simply a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. You are focusing only on a superficial proximate cause; the causes of modern jihadism are much deeper and are structural rather than agential.

You are ignoring the problems that emerge within a dysfunctional social infrastructure. A society must have its economic, political, legal, educational, familial and ideological modes 'in sync'. These six systems operate in a particular manner as a coherent infrastructure depending on the size of the population; the size is related to the economy.

The ME was non-industrial before the world wars; it operated in a peasant agriculturalism, which is perfectly congruent with tribalism. Again, don't make the mistake of thinking that 'tribalism' just means 'many voices'. That's not valid. It means a specific political system of hereditary authority - and non-authority, based on kinship filiations.

The world wars changed the economic mode of the ME to industrialism. BUT, the political, legal, etc systems didn't adapt to the industrial infrastructure, which requires a non-hereditary political system, a civic mode based on a free and individualistic middle class.

Instead, what happened inthe ME, was an entrenchment of tribalism, with the dominant tribe using oil-funded military power to retain power.

The population expanded, moved from rural to urban, but, was not given any political, economic or social power. This is the key problem. The population size and economic mode had changed, but the other systems hadn't changed.

This dysfunctional infrastructure is the root cause of fascism, and Islamic fascism, with its violent jihadism, arose as an attempt to obtain political and social power from the Ruler Tribes. It operates as a utopian, evangelistic idealism, focused on a 'past purity', ie, everything will be OK if only we go back to the original way of life.

Because revolution was impossible internally in the ME, because of oil-funded dictatorships, the violence moved outside to the West.

Finally, the West reacted - and has moved that violence back into the ME. And, begun the movement towards the correct infrastructure in an industrial mode - democracy.

Democracy isn't a choice in a large industrial population. When the economy is industrial, the political system has to be democratic, ie, it has to be civic rather than tribal (hereditary); it has to form a majority middle class, and this class has to operate by merit rather than kinship, and has to have the political and economic power.

You cannot, as a military, defeat Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a nation, not a state. There will be no official signing of surrender papers. Al Qaeda is a fascist agenda, and as long as the majority of the people do not have political and economic power, its utopian hysteria will exist, will continue to attract followers. When the ME develops democracy, with a robust middle class, this Al Qaeda fascism will be reduced to irrelevance.

An excellent book on the rise of Al Qaeda is Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower' which outlines its emergence after WWI.

Well ET, clearly neither of us is going to convince the other. An interesting discussion nonetheless.

I've read "The Looming Tower". Great book. I would also recommend "No God But God" by Reza Aslan.

I guess we'll see who is right as events unfold ;-)

Item up at jihadwatch seems to support ET's concern:
Egyptian Government weekly alleges ties between Iraqi PM and Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

I'm a believer in good instincts which unfortunatly can be dulled by excessive intellectualization. I NEVER bought Arafat -- I intuited his double-game even before I delved deeply into the conflict; just from looking at his face and body language.
I have the same feeling about Maliki. I don't like the "cut of his jib". My instincts tell me that ET's concerns are well-founded.

penny: I thought that too -- that Iraq was the best best. However, you must concede that the US view of Iraq was seriously compromised by nostalgic westernized Iraqis who hadn't been there for decades.
Hugh Fitzgerald at jihadwatch makes the same point about Wolfowitz: that he may have been unduly influenced by his main Muslim squeeze who too was highly westernized. He argues that Wolf was a specialist military man with zero understanding of Islam and the region. This has been the main problem with the neo-cons: not sinister, just naive.

While I too supported the Iraq war, I also came to the sad conclusion that the US hadn't the faintest clue what they were doing. They didn't do their homework. I don't think they even really understood the Sunni-Shia divide.

Where truer words ever writ?:

Its mother’s milk is envy and jealousy that a displaced decimated people was placed down beside them in rock and scrub, and sixty years later built a humane, prosperous society that is a daily reminder to them that what they do—statism, gender apartheid, tribalism, feuding, religious intolerance, corruption, autocracy, polygamy, honor killings, etc.—lead to the very opposite sort of society in which nothing is invented, no discovery is found, no security or prosperity is achieved, and hand-outs are demanded but never appreciated.

But why discuss self-inflicted misery when the Jews are a few hundred yards away to blame, and guilt-ridden wealthy Westerners are easy marks for shake-downs, themselves anti-Semitic and fearful of hooded men with shaking fists and blood-curdling chants?

But sadly despite all the excellent rhetoric, ET is party to that same blame-game! The mystifying disconnet!

I don't think 'as events unfold' will prove the validity of the cause of jihadism. It's an analysis, not a model.

You consider that jihadism is not fascist, has nothing to do with the economic and political infrastructure, has nothing to do with a tribal politico-economic system - and is due only to Islamic ideology and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I consider that jihadism is fascist, emerging from the oil-funded military dictatorial retention of a tribal politico-economic system.

You, and Terry Gain, share this perspective; you both reject a politico-economic dysfunctional structure and consider that jihadism is a purely ideological action. That means that you both consider that Al Qaeda can be defeated by military actions.
I disagree - Al Qaeda cannot be defeated by military actions alone but by removing tribalism and developing a civic sociopolitical system.

We all certainly agree that the Iraq War was the right move by the US; that the movement to democracy is the right move by the ME.

Where we also disagree is the nature of the current phase. My concern is that this phase 2 may be being corrupted by the current Iraqi gov't, who are using the presence of the US military to install, not a civic structure, but the continuation of tribalism - just substituting one tribe for another.

That act by the Iraqi gov't will ensure the continuance of fascism, jihadism, Al Qaeda. You have to remove the root cause - by empowering the people, the majority of the people.

The US cannot allow its military, its troops, to be used to continue tribalism. That's not why they went into the ME; that's not what those soldiers died for. They sacrificed for democracy, not another tribal rule.

The US is aware of this problem and is trying to get the Iraqi gov't to address it. If they succeed, fine - then phase 2 is robust. If the Iraqi gov't rejects the civic mode and moves back into tribalism, the US has to leave; it can't support tribalism.

Actually, I was opposed to the Iraq war in 2003 and said so openly. Not because I'm a peacenik, but because I had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen. Anybody who had followed the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Lebanon would have realized that Iraq in 2003 wouldn't be a fight between mechanized armies. It would become a rallying cause for jihadists and a war of insurgency.

In Chechnya, Muslims from around the world had joined local insurgents and in 1996 drove the Russians out. In one of the final scenes of that war, a Russian armoured column that was leaving the country - flying white flags - was ambushed by the Arab field commander Khattab. He blew up the first and last vehicles in the column using their technique of "undermining" (now commonly referred to as IEDs) and proceeded to slaughter 300 Russian soldiers.

Chechnya then became a base for Islamic extremism and in 1999 the Russians were forced to invade again.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah used roadside bombs to great effect against the Israelis, and ultimately forced their withdrawl in 2000.

These successful wars by both Sunni and Shiite jihadists were clearly going to be the model for resistance to American invasion, but for some reason this was not anticipated. Hussein paraded his Fedayeen irregulars on TV before the war started and openly invited jihadists to fight for him.

What ET refers to as Hussein's "tribal dictatorship" had in no way been associated with Al Qaeda or jihadism, beyond some financial support for Palestinian terrorists. To my mind attacking Iraq was going to be a diversion from the true war in Afghanistan.

Once the war started though, the only choice was to persevere and win.

I dispute any suggestion that Al Qaeda cannot be defeated militarily. That is ridiculous. Of course they can be defeated, just like any other insurgency or armed force. All you need is the right leader and the right tactics.

Gen. Petreaus has an excellent counter-insurgency programme underway, which for the first time has a real chance to succeed. Any discussion of establishing democracy is pointless without the conditions of security necessary for it to flourish. That requires defeating the trans-national Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq.

If the tribal and religious groups in Iraq ultimately prove unable to resolve their differences after that, then another solution will be required. Maybe partition.

Belisarius:

Dershowitz in "The Case for Israel" makes a good point that I think you will agree with: after describing himself as a liberal (which I didn't know) he also says that despite thinking Saddam had WMD he was against the Iraq war but by about 51% vs. 49%. His main reason was the Law of Unintended Consequences which you can't deny have occurred in the extreme.

Tho I also supported the war, I now feel it was a mistake for this reason: the ME hates the US mostly out of envy but also due to its support of dictators like Mubarak and the Saudi princes, which admittedly are a better choice than an Islamic theocracy. The Muslims are great blamers unable to come face to face with the evil that is Islam and unable to process the Mother of All Cogitive Dissonances: that the Muslims, who are supposed to he the greatest, have been floundering for centuries. In invading Iraq, the US has really bolstered that blame-game and helped the dictator-thugs deflect attention from the fetid swamps they have created.

As per penny's comment above, you can't install democracy militarily UNLESS you can fight TOTAL WAR which is today a political impossibility domestically and globally. If you can't fight total war, don't go to war. Support dissidents, be smart with propaganda, get off the oil addiction, etc. This is the error of all those really smart guys like VDH: the failure to recognize that the political atmospherics simply don't permit the kind of war-making needed to achieve these noble objectives.

ET, I feel, is congenitally unable to admit error, and will spin interesting totally original theories (like the fantasy that I've seen nowhere else that the US succeeded in pushing fascism back into the ME!) rather than admit that while the enterprise was honorably conceived, it was naive in the extreme.

This end, I will never ever support a war not waged by Democrats!

Nope, belisarius and nope again.

You cannot defeat a disease without removing the cause of that disease. Get rid of the surface symptoms - and the disease remains. Get rid of one group of Al Qaeda, and another will emerge, unless and until you get rid of the disease.

Al Qaeda is not a state, a nation, an army. It is a fascist symptom of a disease - and the disease is maintaining a tribal sociopolitical infrastructure in a multi-million size industrial population. The only way to defeat Al Qaeda, is to prevent fascism - which means - to enable a civic infrastructure.

No, partition is not the answer. Are you suggesting partitioning the areas into separate tribes? Nope. It won't work. First, a tribe itself is made up of multiple sets, or clans. What will happen is that ONE clan will assume dominance over the other clans. Even in one tribe. Same disease; same dysfunctional infrastructure; it's 'a hereditary two-class' structure.

You can't have a two-class structure (which is always hereditary by the way) in a multi-million population in an industrial economy. It's dysfunctional; it explodes. You must have a non-hereditary three class system, with the majority of the population in the middle class. Non-hereditary. Authority is not decided by your tribe, clan, kin filiations.

You need not only security for democracy; you need a governmental rejection of tribalism and a deliberate, constant, ever-vigilante movement towards the development of a non-hereditary middle class.

ET,

Your theories are interesting to read, but I struggle to think of any real-world situation from the past which would support them. They have the ring of academia. Sounds good, but where's the evidence?

I've given you lots of real-world recent and historical examples to support my views. I would be very interested to read some hard facts which support yours. I mean that.

Wasn't Weimar Germany a democracy, with a large middle-class? Didn't stop the rise of fascism.

Ideology is always the lynch pin of extremism.

“I struggle to think of any real-world situation from the past which would support them”

I’m not an expert on this stuff but I’d sure prefer my kids getting an education in anthropology from ET than from Margaret Mead types and the rest of the utopian cultural relativists that dominate our universities today.

In the past tribalism imploded on itself. Now unfortunately in the ME it is propped up artificially by oil in the hands of despots, fascists.

Also having a middle class is no guarantee you won’t let yourself be dominated by totalitarians .. . Let me think of a country that had a one party system for most of a century? .. it was called the Natural Governing Party, then finally the middle class got disgusted and threw it out.

There's no oil in Egypt. Ditto Pakistan. Yet some of the most virulent jihadists come from those countries.

What about Britain? How do we explain the thousands of home-grown radicals who support al-Qaeda? Four who blew themselves up in July 2005 came from middle class British families and were born in the UK. One was a convert to Islam. Here in Canada a number of Cdn-born have been arrested for plotting similiar attacks.

Forget tribalism. Jihad is all about ideology.

Indeed, ET is fact adverse! Continues to argue, for example, that Israel has never been in favour of a two-state solution: patently false. It has!

And Barak made an breathtaking offer: 95% of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem as the capital, control over the Temple Mount, and -- only just learned this from Dershowitz, assume he's right -- $30 billion for compensation for the refugees of 1948.

And Arafat shocked everyone (except people who intuited his game) by walking away from the table, even against the strong advice of Prince Bandahar of Saudi Arabia.

Questions for fact-adverse ET:
Wasn't that an offer of a state?
Why did Arafat walk and call up the pre-planned intifada?
Re: fantasy theory about driving fascism back into the ME: are there fewer plots afoot in the UK now?
Is the absence of a second strike against the US evidence of the fantasy theory, or evidence of better security and intelligence?

Belisarius, within those countries are the seeds to move them into the modern world. Egypt has a bit of a middle class. It might make it. It isn’t propped up by oil but it is propped up by US billions (about the same amount as aid to Israel, I think). Should the US stop propping Egypt up? Maybe we should send ET over to Egypt and tell them to smarten up or the payments stop?

Pakistan is a mess, so that’s a good question. The Brits propped it up; it became part of the Commonwealth. But I know people that have spent time there, done business there and say it is the worst hell hole in the region. We need to figure out what to do about Pakistan and Musharraf, who seized power in 1999, who said he’d have elections but won’t hold them. But why doesn’t it just implode? It probably will eventually. But the US got help from Pakistan during the war between the USSR and Afghanistan, so the US is maybe at fault here too by not just letting the implosions begin.

The controversial MP Wajid Khan ( a former Pakistani fighter pilot) who crossed the floor to help Harper is a very impressive guy. I’ve met him. I think he can help us play a role in trying to figure out how this nuclear power can be dealt with. Meanwhile not enough Canadians want to think about these horrible problems, they’re more concerned with things like upholding the Geneva Convention for suicide bombers.

Your question on Pakistan brings up the issue that a lot of what’s wrong in the world today was either masked by the Cold War or was part of the proxy wars that took place between the USSR and the US. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, suddenly all these problems moved to the front of the world stage. A lot of failed states have been propped up during the Cold War by one side or by both sides. We need to let some of these states completely fail.

We need to rethink our Foreign Policy. It can’t be about Pearsonian peacekeeping … that’s a myth.

As to Britain, unlike Canada and the US, Europe was not based on centuries of immigration. They don’t know how to handle it. They also believe in multiculturalism .. i.e. the opposite to assimilation. One of my British friends would simply answer you that the problem is the Brits still have caste system based on an old boy network where what private school you went to is the key to progress there ( the opposite to a meriticracy that builds a straong middle class) .. ditto France . .Sarko wants to change that.. the French lefties are perplexed .. Solange Royal says they’ll riot .. we’ll see tomorrow.

If you look at the timing of Arafat's withdrawl, it occurred at about the same time Barak announced Israel's withdrawl from south Lebanon. Arafat realized he didn't need to compromise. If Hezbollah could beat the Israelis so could he. He started insisting on "right of return" of millions of Palestinian refugees to their family homes in Israel, a condition he knew would never be accepted.

If Barak had stayed firm on Lebanon there's a good chance peace would have been achieved.

belisarius - ideology doesn't operate in a vacuum. It emerges and operates within an economic and political infrastructure.

Your focus on ideology alone is a superficial view.
You don't understand the infrastructure of tribalism - an hereditary authoritative structure that is perfect for a small to medium population in a no-growth, no-change peasant agriculture, but cannot deal with a multi-million population in an industrial economy. You totally ignore the infrastructure and focus only on the superstructure, the ideology. Again, ideology doesn't exist 'by itself'.

I wonder what you mean by 'ideology'; to me, it simply means the ideas of X. I suspect it means something quite different to you (jihad is all about ideology; ideology the lynchpin of extremism)...But every society has an ideology, ie, a set of ideas about itself.

If you are defining ideology only as irrational extremism, then, you must ask why it exists. Again, ideas don't operate in a vacuum.

No, the problem leading to fascism in Germany was based around the redefinition of the borders of nations in Europe, before the Wiemar Republic, which meant a mixture of minorities in Germany, and Germany didn't know how to deal with them - and, Germany lacked that robust flexible civic middle class. After WWI, with the birth of the Wiemar Republic, the economy fell apart, with rampant inflation, enormous unemployment, essentially an economic collapse.

This led to fascism, an ideology based on the notion of a utopian past, that can be, if 'we behave ourselves', resurrected in the future. Fascism is utopianism; so is communism. The former defines a past as perfect; the latter defines a future as perfect. Both insist that there are tactics and strategies of almost mechanically, achieving that utopia.

I am not saying that Islamic fascism is 'about oil'!!!! I am saying that it emerges (for the zillionth time) within a dysfunctional societal infrastructure. When the population size and the economy are 'out of sync' with the political system. The tribal sociopolitical system sets up a hereditary two-class system - and that rejects the empowerment of the majority - and in an industrial society, you must have the majority empowered as a middle class. Sigh....

So, the fact that Egypt and Pakistan don't have oil is not relevant; their sociopolitical structures are TRIBAL. My mention of oil is that it enabled some of the ME nations to maintain a tribal political structure by funding their military. Pakistan and Egypt use other sources of funding their repressive regimes.

The externalization of Islamic fascism is due to the immigration from the ME of millions of Muslims, who were not made part of a middle class in their own countries. This rejection of them as civic members in their own countries, moves them into a utopian idealism - fascism.

And, the appearance of this violence in the West, is due to multiculturalism in Europe, which has done the same thing - set them up as 'mini-tribes', as isolated peoples, not part of the empowered middle class of their new nation. So, their empowerment and their loyalty is to the utopianism of Islamic fascism - which gives them power, where both their former country and their new country rejects them as middle class members. With this isolationism of multiculturalism, they move into a membership in a non-nation, the Islamic fascism.

In reply, yet again, to me no dhimmi, No, the Oslo offer was not for a state. It was for municipal government over a few towns. The governance of state-attributes, ie, resources, borders, airspace, roads, communications etc - was to be left in the hands of Israel. A comparison would be like stating that because Montreal has municipal self-governance, then that means that Quebec is a nation.

And Israel has never acknowledged a Palestinian state.

Oh, speaking of examples of tribes being propped up that would otherwise fail.

How about our own First Nations? We spend $10 billion a year on propping up that concept so that those folks don’t have to assimilate and become part of middle class Canadians. As Dr Phil says “and how’s that working for ye?”

Ah yes, Barak's fault of course! Dumb me!
But seriously, read somewhere recently that Peres rescued Arafat! The PLO was apparently nearly bankrupt after its disastrous siding with Saddam and his Kuwait venture -- which pissed off almost everyone. So Peres threw him a lifeline with the Oslo fantasy that and got him entrenched in Gaza! Lefties!

But of course, Arafat was only seeking, per ET, compensation. The jihad would have been called off with compensation; it was a financial deal the cat was looking for. Sheish!

I think the US should END all funding to ME regimes. I'd love to see the Muslim Brothers take down a big country like Egypt (that, after all was Zawahiri and co.'s initial goal). Give the vicious anti-semites anti-yanks a little taste of sharia! Then a reverse revolution. Give all those nutbars who think sharia would be peachy keen a living laboratory to frighten them into sense and sensibility. Give themselves a good lesson like the Russian peasants who thought they were going to get free land from the Bolshies. Sorry suckers!

The US is just getting in the way I feel now. END all financial aid, shut down all their bases (except maybe N Korea's), let Europe grow up, and let the ME nutters duke it out -- or nuke it out!

Sorry for the cynicism, but I'm quite fed up with it all.

ET,

I won't repeat my problems with your principle arguments since I think we've already been around the buoy on them a few times! I like your definition of fascism, and agree it applies well to radical Islam (Islamic Fascism) in its search for a utopian past.

There is one exception though. You state that Muslim residents in the west have set themselves up as "mini-tribes" and are isolated. They turn to Islamism as a means to achieve acceptance.

I've heard this line of reasoning before, and it is completely fallacious. It is true that in France Muslim minorities have been largely ghettoized, however it is patently untrue in the Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. Each of these countries has a very large Muslim minority that generally functions peacefully and has integrated well. Despite this, a generation of jihadists has arisen, often to the distress of their wealthy middle-class parents and many of their Muslim friends.

Why? There are a variety of reasons, but the common denominator is an exposure to the preachings of radical Islam. In particular, its cry for the need to fight against perceived attacks on Muslims worldwide. Because Islam stresses the primacy of the Islamic community over national allegiance, many of these young people are convinced they must join jihad. Their own country and fellow citizens become a target.

While demolishing ET's obviously flawed tribalism = Islamofascism theory Belisarius makes the following statement.

"You state that Muslim residents in the west have set themselves up as "mini-tribes" and are isolated. They turn to Islamism as a means to achieve acceptance.

I've heard this line of reasoning before, and it is completely fallacious. It is true that in France Muslim minorities have been largely ghettoized, however it is patently untrue in the Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. Each of these countries has a very large Muslim minority that generally functions peacefully and has integrated well. Despite this, a generation of jihadists has arisen, often to the distress of their wealthy middle-class parents and many of their Muslim friends."

As is abundatly clear ET's theory (which he appears to have discovered only last weekend after staunchly supporting a war which, if his theory is valid, is hopeless) doesn't explain why those who are disenfranchised by tribalism, as he understands it, would choose not rebellion, but Islamofascism, which must rank as the world's most rigidly hierarchical struture.

"Me Osama. You suicide bomber". (Bit of a gap there between the upper and lower class).

So you have the well to do products of middle class upbringings and allegedly disenfranchised members of the tribe (no proof offered) choosing Islamofascism. The common denominator in each case is their religious extremism, not tribalism.

Oh, and another inconvenient fact which runs counter to ET's void of facts theory. Twenty five of the thirty one Sunnis tribes in Anbar Province are fighting against al Qaeda. I can only gather they haven't heard of ET's theory.

If Sunni tribes are eschewing Islamofascim, exactly which Iraqis are embracing it?

terry - I've been analyzing Islamic fascism as due to tribalism since Day 1. Practically every post I've made on Islamism, for several years now, has outlined this analysis. Could you explain why you think it's new? You seem to deliberately ignore that I've been discussing tribalism and fascism on this blog for years.

And I've repeatedly explained why Islamic fascism emerges in tribal dictatorships, rather than rebellion. It is because they are dictatorships, with dissent viciously and violently repressed by those military dictators. In such a case, change can only come from the outside - eg, the US going in to take out the dictatorship.

And, in such a case, the population will turn to a utopian tactic, which acknowledges a number of things, very typical in all utopian agendas.

First that they, themselves, cannot change the present reality ruled by the tribe in power, but that they can change their future. Note that this is a characteristic of Islam, a religion that emerged as a reaction to the expansion of settled and collaborative agriculture (Islams were migratory pastoralists not settled).

They define the 'truth' of their mission by a direct link. In fascism, the link is to the past, where The Good Life is defined as having actually existed. In communism, the link is to the future. Then, they define the action necessary to reach this past or future, is violence, a revolution.

This violence could not be expressed within the ME dictatorships, so, it moved outside. And SA, a key tribal dictatorship and basic source of Islamic fascism, has enabled this externalization in great measure, by separating church from state!!!...and separating their tribal rule over SA from a fascist ideology - which they export.

Please explain your conclusion that it is 'obviously flawed'. Your Osama-suicide bomber example is childish; it has nothing to do with upper and lower class.

As for multiculturalism setting up isolate populations defined by 'origin' - I've said that repeatedly, and maintain my point. In Canada, the populations aren't large enough and the economic dead ends strong enough to reach the threshold. Both these variables have been reached in Europe and the UK.

No, the war is not hopeless and you are totally ignoring what I'm saying. I've said, repeatedly, that the war was right; that the US was right to go in. To take out the infrastructure of tribalism, which is the root cause of Islamic fascism. Enabling democracy means the dev't of a middle class. You completely ignore societal infrastructure. Why is that?

A lower class has no social or economic power. That's hardly a new analysis. If a particular tribe is defined as without social or economic power, they are 'lower class' in a two-class structure. You don't seem to understand basic class infrastructure; and you don't understand tribalism.

Good, some of the Sunni are fighting Al Qaeda; that means that they are becoming empowered within the Iraqi gov't. My concern has been, as outlined in several articles in the MSM, that the Iraqi govt, in this phase 2, might be substituting one tribe for another tribe - and maintaining tribalism rather than moving into a civic mode.

Again, you simply don't understand tribalism and class infrastructure. I've explained - you don't get it; and there's little I can do about it.

You keep stating that the war is 'just ideology', without explaining why that ideology has emerged, what feeds it, what keeps it going. Ideas don't exist without an infrastructure - an economic and political infrastructure.

“As with many other British-born Islamic terrorists, Khyam's conversion from a studious though popular schoolboy to a murderer in the making began at his local mosque, in Langley Green. He was an easy prey for the preachers of hate after his parents divorced when he was 15, the absence of a father figure at home making him particularly vulnerable.

“It took three months to track down the teenager, but he was eventually located in a mosque in Kashmir.
He denied he had been to the (al-Qaeda training camps) … but it was a lie.
In England, Khyam had come under the spell of the fanatical cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, then leader of the now outlawed Islamic movement al-Muhajiroun.
"I was very concerned that the government didn't do anything … We parents were screaming for something to be done about him .. Sajjad Ahmad, Khyam's uncle, also tried to intervene. "We went to police, to MPs. We could see this disaster of brainwashed youth unfolding in slow motion."

The whole thing is here in today’s:
The making of a terrorist
Sunday Telegraph UK

I think it’s necessary to look at both the role of the common thread of Islam, and to look at what are the local differences in recruiting disenfranchised young males in each of:

The Middle East - 40% unemployment of male youths and a sociopolitical structure that is based too heavily on Islam , born out of tribalism , that doesn’t separate the Mosque from state and doesn’t treat women as equal.

France - where reverse-colonization of immigrants has come from North African Moslem countries and they have been ghettoized. Europe does not have a history of economic growth based on assimilating immigrants. The French think you have to be born French to be French

North America - our history of assimilating millions of immigrants has developed with some isolation from time to time, but most assimilated. That should not be taken for granted any longer because the concept of multiculturalism and political correctness has moved us from Two Solitudes to potentially many solitudes. Particularly now that our population is large enough for new solicitudes to have enough critical mass to survive as an isolated culture -- unless we do what Wajid Khan is suggesting and that is:
insist on non-hyphenated Canadians.
We need to make it clear what we want new immigrants to assimilate to. We produced a home-grown in Ottawa in connection with the Telegram story above. We arrested 18 Islamic youths in Mississauga who were allegedly building a bomb. We need to figure out what’s behind this home-grown thing.

The UK - Barclays Bank has agreed to remove the piggy bank give aways from their counter because they offend. It has become Londonstan because political correctness has not made it clear what immigrants should assimilate to.

The Brits and France have a culture historically run by elitists from Eton or L’Ecole de haut Administration de blah blah. Thatcher broke that rule but the UK is back sliding into its caste system , not enough reliance on the common sense of its middle class.

We have way underestimated the value of our middle class to solve societies problems. Listen to a soccermom not the CBC.

By the way, belisarius and terry gain - if 'it's all about ideology' - then, heck, who needs a war to change a political infrastructure? Just send in hordes of ideologists of a different stripe!

Oh- it can't be done? Hussein wouldn't have permitted dissenting views? The Saudi, the Iranians? No?

Then, it isn't just about ideology; it's about the deep structure of the society - and that is what has to be changed. And this will take years. There's no 'end to the war', as you envision, when you have killed off all Al Qaeda. That won't happen. You have to change the infrastructure that breeds fascism.

But despite all that fine rhetoric about fascism, tribalism, democracy and civic structures, ET favours the Islamic fascist/neo Nazi Palestinians in their quest for the destruction of Israel and a single state comprising all contemporary Palestine, after 80% of Mandatory Palestine was made into a Arab emirate (Transjordan) where Jews who had lived there were driven out, and where Jews are not now permitted to live. Repeating: where Jews are not permitted to live.

Unwittingly, to be fair!

Excessively cerebral theoretical constructs to which reality must be bent, reality-challenged, zero street smarts.

Denies that the Arabs were offered a state by the Peel Commission in 1937, in 1947 and by Barak in 2000.

Rejected, rejected, rejected.

ET: My questions above. Why did Arafat leave the negotiating table after Barak's breath-taking offer?

We're talking about ideology as the cause of jihadism - not how to eliminate it. Certainly a war was necessary in Afghanistan, with its terror training camps and Al Qaeda bases. As for Iraq? Removing Hussein was a positive but it had nothing to do with jihadism.

What you're saying just doesn't make sense, ET. To paraphrase: you are saying that in order to defeat jihadism we must invade countries with tribal governments so that democracy and a middle class can be established. If they refuse the gift of democracy, we must withdraw so that they can fight it out until democracy is established. All of this is necessary because jihadism stems from tribalism and cannot emerge in democracies with a strong middle class. Is that it?

One of the main problems with what you are saying is that it is based entirely on theory, and not borne out by real-world events. Jihadism is not limited to the disenfranchised. If anything, quite the contrary. You will recall that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from well-to-do Egyptian and Saudi families that were very much part of the tribal establishment (as pointed out in the book you spoke of, "The Looming Tower").

Other jihadists have come from well-off western families and converted to Islam. Disenfranchised, no. Disenchanted, probably.

Spot on Belisaurius.
See my earlier comment about theory untainted by reality.

AND, ET (unwittingly to be fair) favours the destruction of the only democracy in the ME -- the State of Israel. Repeating: unwittingly.

Democracy CANNOT be intalled by miliary means UNLESS you wage total war, totally subjugate and colonize the tribalists, and for a few decades at the least. But that is no longer the taste.

Afterthought: Iraq went to elections too soon. We all got excited by the "purple finger" revolution. Delusional, we were. It was meaningless: Sistani simply told them to go and vote.

What we will get now will be another islamofascist theorcacy in Iraq. Mark my words.

I'll make one other point too about ultimately defeating the ideology. Jihadists actually consider the west (what they call they "far enemy") secondary to their own governments and tribal leaders (the "near enemy") who they view as impeding their radical notions of Islam and the need for a united Caliphate. As we've seen in Iraq, removing the existing power without providing necessary security can create a vacuum that these radicals move in to.

But there is also a very powerful movement of moderation and reform in Islam, which opposes the Jihadists.

In my opinion, it is this war of ideas which must be won. Moderates must be supported and the spread of radical ideas opposed at every turn. Certainly democracy helps with this, but not if the jihadists are able to convince people it is an alien western concept and un-Islamic. Invading Muslim countries doesn't help either, as it plays into the hands of radicals who can call it an "attack on Islam".

A lot of this comes back to Saudi Arabia. The power of the Saud family is very much based on an alliance with the powerful and radical Wahhabi clerics. They have been using their oil money to spread its poisonous ideas around the world.

I think that it is possible to defeat Al Qaeda militarily in Iraq, and establish conditions for security there. Ultimately though, it is the war of ideas which must be won to stop this scourge worldwide.

Correct in all respects, I feel!

Re: Wahhabi Islam, I just read Dore Gold's essential read: Hatred's Kingdom.
As to the war of ideas, this is exactly Wallid Phares' thesis: just read two of his books, Future Jihad, and The War of Ideas. And he correctly charges that western academics have failed us in their apologetics for Islam.

1. Indeed, that was always the Muslim Brothers' primnary objective: the destruction of all 22 Arab regimes and replacement with sharia.
2. Supporting countries like Egypt essentially frustrates this and contrary to ET's thesis, actually pushes jihad outward!
3. The bullshitter Tony Blair while waxing poetic about the great struggle against jihad, allowed the UK to become the capital of western jihadism along these quid pro quo lines: we'll allow you to promulgate your hate ideology as long as you restrict your mass-murder outside the UK. Surprise!!!
4. By giving islamofascists all the attention, they permitted moderate (?) muslims to be cowed and silecned. On Blair's ridiculous panel he included the notorious, albeit sweet-talking, Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood's founder Al Banna. Their very first recommendation was the banning of Holocaust memorial day on the premise that it would offend Muslims, who I don't think actually did all the murdering, tho' they heartily approved of it, witness the hot sales of the Protocols and Mein Kamf.

And I cannot agree more with your point about the War on Islam. The illiterate impoverished masses have been whipped up into a frenzy of paranoia that the West is actually out to destroy Islam. The US ventures, tho honourable and noble in intention, feeds into this. Manna from heaven for the dictator-thugs who run the ME. A lifeline.

All well-intended even noble, but dumb and dumber! The neo-cons (who I foolishly supported) had the right ideas but were clueless about the complex dynamic of the region.

Final point: my biggest shock in Gold's book was to learn that Saudi Arabia was supporting Hamas -- the "moderate" Abbas (the guy in the nice western suit) even complained to the Saudis about it.

Dore Gold's book sounds interesting, No Dhimmi. Hadn't heard of it. I'll have to have a read.

Dore Gold: And also The Fight for Jerusalem. Great insights into the Pali-Nazi's propaganda denying Jewish history and by implication the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

I heard him interviewed at Atlas Shrugged and was so blown away by his erudition that I ordered his book on amazon.ca immediately after. Former Israeli ambassador to the UN but a very learned man. Has a PhD from Columbia I think (or Bostom U?). Not at all strident. Calm, balanced, scholarly.

BTW, me no Jew, me white gentile.