Yes the elders are quite happy with their system and their traditions, of course since they are in a dominant position in this system. But there’s other people in this community who may gain from destroying this “good” tribe. This is not a simple opposition between the bad taliban and the good tribesmen. Maybe the tribesmen like the taliban, maybe they find their elders to be a bunch of useless power-hungry cowards, maybe they are annoyed because the elders monopolize the reconstruction aid, or maybe it’s something else. The point, the tribe is not a homegenous group and there is varying actors with varying interests, including people who have an interest in supporting the taliban.

Yes, in this particular valley (because of course, it depends on the region), the old tribal order maybe your ally but you shouldn’t be under any illusion that it’s good in any sense. By choosing one set of allies, you’re also choosing one set of enemies.

Last, point there is actually some “good” tribes who support the taliban. The taliban were not tribal in the traditional sense but under their rule some groups were favoured and other sidelined. Likewise, when the taliban fell, these groups were sidelined by the new governement. So some traditonal tribes are in fact our enemies for now.

Now, you can see wy I have a problem with this. I see it as a big simplification that isn’t very useful because local conditions vary from region to region and your friendly-looking bearded tribesmen has its own agenda that you barely understand. This isn’t some idle talk, you can see it concretely: this document ( http://easterncampaign.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/behind-closed-doors-coin-chatter-on-afghanistan/ ) gives an idea of the reality on the ground.

I have big troubles with your presentation. I am no expert of Afghanistan but I see a problem.

First, “good tribalism” and “bad tribalism”. That strikes me as a useless distinction. Maybe Al-Qaida behaves like a tribe, but it’s not, not at least in the traditionnal sense. It’s certainly a community certainly but not all human communities are tribes and I really don’t understand why we should give the taliban the label “tribal” when they obviously don’t have much in common with a traditionnal tribe rooted in the tradition, the blood ties (real or imagined) and mutual support.

On the “good” tribalism. The problem is that “the ancient, proud, communal system of family- and clan-based local governance that has been practiced in Afghanistan and many parts of Central Asia for millennia” is neither good nor bad. More specifically, it may good for some people and bad for others. Yes, the elders a

Some are mild, like mainstream Catholicism or Presbyterians, others are more violent like the sect that shot the Kansas doctor in church. Same in Islam. Those radicals who wanted to establish a caliphate in Ramadi, or those who want to destablize Central Asia – northern Pakistan and put a caliphate there, are most definately enemies of the west. And many Afghan-Iraqi-NW Territories thugs and warlords hide behind a religious title. While it’s difficult to keep track of who is a muslim extremist and who is just an Islamic Tony Soprano, perhaps avoiding using blanket labels will help us address the situation on the ground more accurately.

People take what they want from religious “authority” and twist it into their own hammer. In reality, it has nothing to do with religions, any more than the British landlords and Irish farmers were about Protestant/Catholic (It’s About the Rent, Stupid!) “Good” tribes, “bad” tribes? Of course, like there are good Christians, bad Christians, good neighbors, bad neighbors, ec. (Can’t resist paraphrasing G. K. Chesterton’s great observation that there’s nothing wrong with Christianity—it just has really been tried yet.) Way back when, Pope Urban II was facing political unrest and needed a distraction from his own corruption and negligence. Solution: A Holy War against the Mohammedans, re-take Jerusalem, sure to fire up every God-fearing man in Christendom. That was the beginning of the end of any chance for co-existence. The British made sure of that with their 19th century colonial rampage into the Middle East. And now we have grabbed their baton and are slogging with it. Today’s big diff: the stakes are nuclear.

Today, there’s such a long, dismal catalog of ill will between the American/European and all Islamic tribes that it might never get worked out. That is, unless we all reach way back and restore both Mohammed and Jesus and Abraham’s teaching (along with Buddha and Krishna) into our daily lives and national/tribal policies. Knowing human nature, the odds don’t look good—it’s not where the money and macho is. Could be a Long War after all. Ya never know . . . .

As far as tribalism just belonging to primitive peoples… Please, we’re all primitive then. Tribalism is alive and well in modern day western society. It’s never gone away. It’s changed, sure. But you can see examples of tribalism at every turn.
In some ways, our tribes have merely gotten larger. In other ways, tribalism has also “specialized”. Do you really think that sports fans don’t exhibit tribalism? Do you really think that most sports aren’t a more “civilized” version of tribal warfare?

Mr. Pressfield, I’m finding that more and more I agree with your perspectives on this. Very interesting.

Tribalism

No, there is no “good” tribalism, and there is no “bad” tribalism — there is merely tribalism; so-called “good” and “bad” tribalism are merely two sides to the same coin. Tribalism is a primitive social form suitable for a primitive people; if people decide to remain in a primitive state, then tribalism is a good fit for them. The problem is that it’s a package deal; if you belong to a tribe, it won’t allow you to quit, because that weakens the tribe, and the tribe responds negatively to whatever will weaken it. Europeans were tribal, too, over a thousand years ago — but we’ve changed since then, and most people would agree that those changes were a good thing. They are, indeed, “incompatible and irreconcilable”.

Islam IS the Enemy

Islam is an oppressive totalitarian ideology with which no co-existence is possible. Most people refuse to accept that fact because of the religious angle; but the religious dimension merely means that God commands the Muslim to conquer the world, rather than the mechanical forces of history as with the Communist. Those who do not belong to the Dar al-Islam belong to the Dar al-Harb, the House of War, and will get war whether they want it or not — it only takes one side to make a war, and the side that refuses to fight (or refuses to acknowledge that there is a war on) LOSES.

Wakey, wakey.

We are in The Long War, and have been ever since the 7th century. Our choices are (1) fight or (2) lose. That’s all the choice we have. Better get used to it.