Comments on: Part 2: Warlords http://agora.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/interview-with-a-tribal-chief-part-2-warlords/ Website of author and historian, Steven Pressfield. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:07:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: MBMc http://agora.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/interview-with-a-tribal-chief-part-2-warlords/comment-page-1/#comment-1980 MBMc Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:49:12 +0000 http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/?p=990#comment-1980 That should have been "importance of educating your western allies" not "impotance". That should have been “importance of educating your western allies” not “impotance”.

]]> By: MBMc http://agora.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/interview-with-a-tribal-chief-part-2-warlords/comment-page-1/#comment-1979 MBMc Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:45:35 +0000 http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/?p=990#comment-1979 Chief Zazai: I admire your courage and appreciate your wisdom. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and increase our understanding. In the cauldron of hard choices, many that should have known better have neglected the tribal leaders in favor of warlords, and indeed many educated opinion shapers on this side of the Atlantic do not know there is a difference between the two. If history is to be our guide, arming bad men often brings unwanted consquences down the road. Perhaps we are now seeing such consequences as violence abounds and many call Afghanistan "unwinnable". Yet, as many American and Afghan warriors have made clear, it is not too late to turn the tide and stop those who are fighting to turn Afghanistan back towards theocracy or anarchy. Thank you for putting yourself on the line to help turn that tide, and for undertsanding the impotance of educating your western allies. Chief Zazai:

I admire your courage and appreciate your wisdom.

Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and increase our understanding.

In the cauldron of hard choices, many that should have known better have neglected the tribal leaders in favor of warlords, and indeed many educated opinion shapers on this side of the Atlantic do not know there is a difference between the two.

If history is to be our guide, arming bad men often brings unwanted consquences down the road. Perhaps we are now seeing such consequences as violence abounds and many call Afghanistan “unwinnable”.

Yet, as many American and Afghan warriors have made clear, it is not too late to turn the tide and stop those who are fighting to turn Afghanistan back towards theocracy or anarchy.

Thank you for putting yourself on the line to help turn that tide, and for undertsanding the impotance of educating your western allies.

]]> By: Jay Taber http://agora.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/interview-with-a-tribal-chief-part-2-warlords/comment-page-1/#comment-1978 Jay Taber Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:40:56 +0000 http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/?p=990#comment-1978 Native American tribes and other indigenous forms of governance worldwide today have indeed struggled to overcome genocide, assimilation, and incorporation in maintaining their societies. The cosmopolitan nature of the world indigenous peoples' movement, as they band together to confront globalization and privatization through venues at the UN and elsewhere, is the result of studiously raising consciousness about the unfairness of state-centric standards of the original international human rights regime. As they prepare to challenge the UN member states over such issues as climate change, the indigenous peoples' greatest strength is legitimacy, something many governing state entities lack. Native American tribes and other indigenous forms of governance worldwide today have indeed struggled to overcome genocide, assimilation, and incorporation in maintaining their societies. The cosmopolitan nature of the world indigenous peoples’ movement, as they band together to confront globalization and privatization through venues at the UN and elsewhere, is the result of studiously raising consciousness about the unfairness of state-centric standards of the original international human rights regime. As they prepare to challenge the UN member states over such issues as climate change, the indigenous peoples’ greatest strength is legitimacy, something many governing state entities lack.

]]> By: Gene http://agora.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/interview-with-a-tribal-chief-part-2-warlords/comment-page-1/#comment-1977 Gene Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:51:14 +0000 http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/?p=990#comment-1977 As I have monitored this blog from day one, my perception of the situation in Afghanistan has evolved from what I perceived during Alexander’s invasion (that I learned from the ‘Pressfield histories’), the British occupation (that I learned from Flashman), the Soviet invasion (that I learned from Rambo II), and now the U.S. involvement that I’ve monitored since 2001. No, I’m not ashamed to display my ignorance because in doing so, I’m learning a lot. I find this discussion with Chief Zazai very interesting and thought provoking. The Chief’s distinction between the ‘tribal chief ‘and the ‘warlord’ is very enlightening. Can the Chief or some one help clarify this? For years, every time I heard the word ‘Taliban,’ I thought in terms of ‘tribe.’ It seems that was a great misconception. I’m beginning to understand that ‘Taliban’ is a ‘religious and political movement,’ not a tribe. 1. Are tribes in Afghanistan designated by names as tribes in America are (Apache, Iroquois, Cheyenne, etc)? 2. Can a tribe or a member of a tribe be Taliban or is that relationship incompatible? Why or why not? 3. IF “the tribe is the most primitive form of social organization,” and IF “You can’t sell freedom to tribesmen any more than you can sell democracy [because he] doesn’t want it. It violates his code. It threatens everything he stands for…” Why is the tribe so concerned with freedom? Why can the tribe/s not stand against these extremist elements because they have got no support from the American forces? Question three is probably rhetorical. I’ll point to Mr. Pressfield’s defining tribal narrative “The Last of the Amazons” that continually refers to the Amazon tribe as the tal kyrte, the free people. While the tribe may be the most primitive form of social organization, I believe that freedom, independence or some more appropriate variation of that word is the fundamental basis for the tribe’s existence. I further believe that the current technological environment explains why the tribe/s can’t stand against these extremists without American support. Consider the alliances made in the 18th century between the Iroquois Nation with the French, British and Americans. The Iroquois Nation could not avoid involvement with one side or the other if it was to survive the European invasion and the technology that came with it. In the final analysis, no treaty was able to protect any Native American tribe from being swallowed by advancing technology. Sad, but true. As I have monitored this blog from day one, my perception of the situation in Afghanistan has evolved from what I perceived during Alexander’s invasion (that I learned from the ‘Pressfield histories’), the British occupation (that I learned from Flashman), the Soviet invasion (that I learned from Rambo II), and now the U.S. involvement that I’ve monitored since 2001. No, I’m not ashamed to display my ignorance because in doing so, I’m learning a lot. I find this discussion with Chief Zazai very interesting and thought provoking. The Chief’s distinction between the ‘tribal chief ‘and the ‘warlord’ is very enlightening.

Can the Chief or some one help clarify this? For years, every time I heard the word ‘Taliban,’ I thought in terms of ‘tribe.’ It seems that was a great misconception. I’m beginning to understand that ‘Taliban’ is a ‘religious and political movement,’ not a tribe.

1. Are tribes in Afghanistan designated by names as tribes in America are (Apache, Iroquois, Cheyenne, etc)?
2. Can a tribe or a member of a tribe be Taliban or is that relationship incompatible? Why or why not?
3. IF “the tribe is the most primitive form of social organization,” and IF “You can’t sell freedom to tribesmen any more than you can sell democracy [because he] doesn’t want it. It violates his code. It threatens everything he stands for…” Why is the tribe so concerned with freedom? Why can the tribe/s not stand against these extremist elements because they have got no support from the American forces?

Question three is probably rhetorical. I’ll point to Mr. Pressfield’s defining tribal narrative “The Last of the Amazons” that continually refers to the Amazon tribe as the tal kyrte, the free people. While the tribe may be the most primitive form of social organization, I believe that freedom, independence or some more appropriate variation of that word is the fundamental basis for the tribe’s existence. I further believe that the current technological environment explains why the tribe/s can’t stand against these extremists without American support. Consider the alliances made in the 18th century between the Iroquois Nation with the French, British and Americans. The Iroquois Nation could not avoid involvement with one side or the other if it was to survive the European invasion and the technology that came with it. In the final analysis, no treaty was able to protect any Native American tribe from being swallowed by advancing technology. Sad, but true.

]]>