Jimmy J is a frequent commenter who has previously posted as my guest at ShrinkWrapped; "One Man's Journey" is thought provoking and powerful. (If you haven't read it, take a look: Part I, Part II, Part III) He has now called upon some of his past experiences to raise some very important questions that are at the core of our difficulties in Iraq and are rarely discussed despite their importance. In this post he addresses concerns about the tribal nature of much of the world and wonders if that implies that our attempts to bring the Arab World into the Modern World are likely to fail.
THOUGHTS ABOUT TRIBALISM AND CHANGE
In 1965 I was the Officer-in-Charge of a Navy All-Weather Fighter detachment assigned to the Air Force at Tan Son Nhut in Vietnam. At the time the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, (MACV) was commanded by General William Westmoreland. The General held a command briefing once a week when various units briefed him on their missions and how things were going. The Seventh Fleet Liason Officer, a Navy Commander, thought that having a Navy unit doing interceptor missions for the Air Force was a real feather in the Navy's cap and he wanted me to brief the General. I agreed and traveled from Tan Son Nhut to MACV Headquarters in downtown Saigon for that purpose.
When I arrived at the headquarters the Commander met me and informed me that the brief had been called off because of some attacks in the Mekong Delta that required the General's attention. As a consolation for my time and effort he offered to take me to lunch at a nice Vietnamese restaurant.
The restaurant was in a hotel where many correspondents and civilian contractors stayed. The lunch was a gourmet treat of French and Vietnamese delicacies. The service was as wonderful as the food. The waiters were never in view, but would appear whenever a dish needed removing, a glass filled or any other need was noticed. It seemed a rather surreal experience to enjoy such marvelous food and service in a country that was wracked by war and chaos. But Vietnam was a country riddled with irony and contrast.
Our conversation that day was far ranging and I have forgotten much of it, but I have never forgotten his explanation of why the Vietnamese and other people that live in the Equatorial Regions of the world find it difficult to accept democracy and capitalism.
His theory was that the people who live between thirty degrees north and south parallels of latitude (the Equatorial Region) are different than those who live in more temperate climates. In that region it is relatively easy to wrest a living from nature through hunting, gathering, and subsistence farming. There are also abundant materials for building crude shelters from the elements. Because the temperatures are warm, the main purpose of shelter is protection from rain or hot sun. On the other hand, nature is very strong in these latitudes. Insects and the elements attack any structure as soon as it is put up. Periodically typhoons/hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes occur, destroying shelters and lives. As a result the people develop a philosophy that they can’t fight nature. Therefore, they don’t spend much time, money, or effort on building shelter. And since food is readily available they don’t see the necessity to plan ahead for their food supplies or to save up for a possible famine. He believed the people of the tropics were very resistant to the ideas of democracy and capitalism because they were still too close to the old ways of tribalism. This meant the tradition of strong or big-man leaders, not building lasting infrastructure, and living in the moment rather than planning and investing for the future.
At the time his theory didn't make a lot of sense to me, but as the years have gone by I have continued to think about it. I particularly recalled it when I read such books as Friedman's, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," and Barnett's, "The Pentagon's New Map." Both those books proclaim the big idea that technology is producing a globally connected economy. They both believe that globalization is the wave that is going to transform the world into a more peaceful, more prosperous, and more connected place.
In Friedman's book he talks about how difficult it is for those who still live in this tribal culture, which is represented by the Olive Tree, to accept the wave of modernity represented by the Lexus. Friedman hopes that dialogue and the overwhelming reality of globalism can slowly bridge the gap. Barnett, on the other hand, posits that the tribal cultures will resist, often violently, but the eventual acceptance of modernity is inevitable. He bases this on the fact that the West is overwhelmingly superior to most of the Muslim world by just about any measure you care to use.
It's clear to me that we are seeing Barnett's and Friedman's theories in action in the present struggle between the Islamic world and the West. The Islamists want to go back to the "good old days" of the sixth century and the simple tribal life under shariah law. Many people might say, "Why not isolate them in their countries and let them live however they wish?" Friedman would say that it is impossible because globalism is too intrusive. The friction is there and cannot be removed. Barnett, on the other hand, answers that it would be immoral to let a third of the world's population live such a poverty stricken, miserable life while the rest of the world is continuing to forge ahead to ever higher standards of living. Barnett believes that using military power to change what he calls the rule sets (cultural norms) in the miserable backwaters of the equatorial regions (What he calls the Gap.) is a high moral calling.
After I read those two books I was convinced that globalization was destined to change the Islamic world and that some military power would undoubtedly have to be used to do it. I hoped that the military power, when it was used, would be overwhelming and bring about a quick and unconditional surrender so that the rebuilding could begin quickly. That isn't what we got because Barnett's theory states that infrastructure should be preserved and bloodshed should be as minimal as possible. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
As the war effort has chugged slowly along in Afghanistan and Iraq I have pondered the difficulties of changing cultural norms in areas where tribalism has been the dominant rule set for thousands of years. These people are heavily invested in what they know. What is offered seems strange, and many moderate Muslims are uncertain that such foreign ideas as democracy and free markets offer them a better life. The Islamists are determined not to let these new ideas take hold because they know it means the end of the ideal Islamic world that they envision. Thus far they have been able to create enough chaos and death to create doubt in people's minds about what can or should be done.
As this has continued I have also given much thought to the way we in the West arrived at our present rule sets. Separation of church and state, religious freedom, representative government, private property ownership backed by rule of law, free scientific inquiry, and minimal government interference in commerce are all things we more or less take for granted. In fact many of us may not even recognize that these rule sets are in fact the basis of our freedom and high standard of living. Many may also not realize that they are all the antithesis of tribal rule sets. Each of those modern rule sets were hard won from people who, just like the Islamists, wanted to maintain the status quo. There was a great deal of quarreling, fighting, and bloodshed over a period of 400 years before the modern world slowly adopted the rule sets one by one. Can we expect it to be any different in the Islamic world?
That brings up the question of whether or not there is a kinder, gentler way to get the Islamic world to join the modern world? There must be many well-intentioned, moderate Muslims who see the advantages of joining the march of globalism. How do we get them to recruit their fellow Muslims to the cause? Is it possible that the way ahead could rely more on education and invitation? Can we mount a great effort to beam our truth into the Muslim world? My guess is that it couldn't hurt to try such outreach, and I don't think enough of that has been done. However, when we have attempted to proselytize Muslims to accept modernity it has been decried as vicious propaganda or worse by our own MSM and Left.
We have to be realistic. We have been repeatedly attacked by the Islamists since 1979. They have told us what their intentions are and we ignore them at our own peril. If history is any guide their rule sets will not change without violence and this conflict will go on for many, many years. We have to remind ourselves over and over that it is a marathon not a sprint. If we end up retreating from Iraq it will be a setback maybe even a defeat. No one can know how bad the effects of that will be. It could range from barely noticeable (The effect expected by the Left.) to near disaster. (The effect expected by the Right.) It is, however, just one battle in a longer war. It is certain that any cessation of violence following a retreat from Iraq will only be a temporary. The Islamists have promised as much.
Whatever way forward we take, it is going to require that the nation finally have the serious discussion to: 1.Recognize the enemy and their intentions. 2. Understand that the only way we can stop them from attacking us is to help them join the modern world where they can share in the benefits of modernity. If those things can be understood and accepted, then the national will can be gathered to do what is necessary politically, diplomatically, and militarily to win this war.
Recent Comments