Tribes

Author’s note:
The author has special knowledge of neither Iraq, nor Middle Eastern studies; this puts him on a level playing field with our esteemed national Deciders.

Tribalism in Arabia and America
Based on our simplistic approach to Iraq, it would seem we have no idea about tribalism. Ironically, the US has had a long history of it. From The Hatfields and McCoys to dueling politicians to the Trail of Tears, to the War Between the States, we have had first-hand experience with tribes. It is time for us to refocus the current strife in Iraq and consider how much we have in common with feuding tribal people.

Tribalism in Arabia
Long ago, there was a great civilization in Arabia. While we wandered through morasses of pig shit in Europe, the Arabs had an advanced culture and an excellent standard of living. For reasons unknown to the ignorant author, one day, there were only Tribes in Arabia. And they didn’t get along because of limited water resources and vastly differing codes of conduct that separated the tribes from each other, similar to tribal differences that caused unending friction among American Indians.
So the tribes warred amongst one another, and the West took no notice after the Crusades. Then in the 1880s, Imperial Europe turned to the Persian Gulf, at first purely out of trade routes in case the War to End all Wars should come to fruition. After all, they had spent so much time and money on military strategies, it seemed a terrible waste to shelve them.

Tribalism in Europe
Europe was a collection of tribes cleverly disguised as nations. The balance of power in Europe was an unstable mess and Germany, a late-comer to the Imperial game, was lagging behind the other powers. She feared trade wars and being cut out of the global game, so she did something very clever. Germany befriended the Turks and the Turks welcomed German money and engineering, as they were stumbling a bit as an empire, too. Since Germany was landlocked, she came up with the brilliant idea of building a railway across the desert that would give her direct access to the East and the ability to get around Britain’s all-powerful Navy and the profit-sucking tolls of the Suez Canal. In the event of war, the railroad would move troops and fuel out of range of the pesky British gunboats.

The British and French were non-plussed at this friendship, but allowed the rails to be built, since they had no reason to stop them until the war began. And once the fighting started, and the realities of mechanized war’s dependency on fuel sank in, oil became a deciding factor in armed conflict.

The Turks had already joined with Germany, so that meant that the Arabs needed to be courted to the British side. One would think this wouldn’t be so hard to do, since the Turks were cruel overlords to the Arabs and the normal foreign policy line of “enemy of my enemy is my friend” should have applied to the Arabs and British/French alliance.

Tribalism and deal-making made this process a painful one and some tribes went with the Turks, because they believed the Turks would win and exact terrible revenge on the Arabs should they have taken up arms against their oppressors.

It is important to note the complexities for the Arabs in picking sides for WWI. The choices weren’t obvious for them then, just as they aren’t obvious now: there is no Arab identity. They are still inherently tribal. We can draw lines on maps until the camels come home, it ain’t gonna change the fundamental differences that our cultures have. Arabs don’t believe in lines on maps. They don’t stand in straight lines waiting at the market. They don’t observe traffic signs. They operate in a totally different way from us, and because the West has superior weapons technology, the Arabs have had to knuckle under to our power, but there is intense desire in them to live life the way they see fit. It is a way that makes no sense to us.

Until now, we have been the dominant culture and we have called the shots. And we are justifiably terrified that this may change because we need their crude.

The Arabs were able to unite, for a brief time, during their revolt against the Turks. The British capitalized on this and managed to eek out a victory in the East, which they added to the stalemate at the unsatisfying, and inconclusive, end of WWI.
In Paris, 1919, both sides were bled nearly dry and of course, the “victors” divvied up the spoils of war. They looked at likely places the oil would be and drew lines on maps according to the oil fields. This is how Iraq came into being.

Britain and France also denied the Arabs credit for their part in said “victory” and relegated them to being under French rule instead of allowing Arabs to have self-government. It is this essential betrayal that has fueled anti-West sentiments in this century. Let’s leave the Crusades out of this discussion.

Tribalism in America
America is a strange place. We can’t understand why Iraq is having such a rough time getting their governmental act together. But compare the arbitrary granting of Iraq’s existence at a cursed table in Paris, 1919 to the 400 year progression that lead to the formation of our nation. We evolved slowly over time. Our country was funded by British, French and Spanish sources, all of which used colonies to generate revenue for the respective motherlands.

We got this unbelievable break with the founding fathers and their ingenious system of distribution of power through representative democracy; checks and balances; separation of church and state; religious tolerance; and the Trinity of government: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. And these tenets of our government took years to evolve as well. And their evolution wasn’t easy or pretty. They were resultant of intellectual dogfights among intellectual giants. Jefferson was so disgusted with the process, and so convinced that we got it wrong, that after one such fight, he retreated to Monticello and didn’t talk to anyone for three years. How can we expect the Iraqis, whose intellectual base has been eroded through inprisonment, executions and exile, to suddenly spring up from oppression and start a healthy democratic debate?

We had 400 years of slave labor, which created a false economy and allowed for huge profits to be made from human labor. We eliminated Native tribalism through accidental germ warfare and military conquest. And finally, we ended American Tribalism with the War Between the States. And still, we are the red and blue states and seethe with differences.

To understand the Iraqi perspective, (and granted insurgents are mostly from outside Iraq, because the situation is so much more complex than anyone has guessed at) use the following flawed model.

Imagine, if you will, that during our revolution, the French came in. They took over operations; occupied our country with their military; and made us all eat snails; and we paid extra taxes so that the leadership in France could each buy extra powdered wig and support a mistress. How would the colonists have reacted? Maybe a few road-side cart bombs at first, but it would have escalated from there….

There is no solution to our predicament. If we leave, it will appear as though we triggered a long-suppressed civil war. If we stay, it will appear as though we triggered a long-suppressed civil war. We can’t stay. The supply lines are too long to support. Our allies are weary of us. And those we sought to “liberate” are also growing tired of our presence.

We will repeat the pattern of Vietnam. We’ll expand the war, just as we did in Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, meet Iran). We will be chased out in disgrace. But the costs of this war are so much higher. We have lost international trust and after we get chased out, we’ll be seen as ineffectual.

To add to the mix, we are vulnerable to trade wars with China and Europe. Our currency is weak, our debts are high, our base for business has been badly eroded due to giving our manufacturing base away to our economic competitors. Our financial system, once seen as honest, transparent and trustworthy, has been wracked with scandal and financial failure. International trade and banking are shifting from New York to London and China.

Perhaps this happened to the splendor of Arabia – she lost her luster and spent her intellectual and monetary capital on things that failed to contribute to the greater good. She paid a high price, as we will.