VIDEO BLOG
Episode 1: “It’s the Tribes, Stupid”
The real force in Afghanistan isn’t Islamism or jihadism. It’s tribalism. Mr. Pressfield compares Alexander the Great’s Afghan campaign (330-327 BC) to our own wars today.
View the credits and transcript for Episode 1.
DEAR STEVE:
MASTERPIECE, BRILLIANT BLOGSITE. CLEAR, BRAINY , PUNCHY, AUTHORITATIVE, PERSONABLE, UNPREACY, BEAUTIFULLY PRODUCED (AND ACTED). I PREDICT THAT THIS WILL CARRY FURTHER IN THE NATIONAL EYE THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY ANTICIPATE. GET SOME MOMENTUM TO PUBLICIZING THIS BRILLIANT BLOG, E-MAILING THE STUFF TO MAJOR MEDIA SEPARATE FROM THE BLOG. SUPER TIE-IN WITH YOUR BOOKS AND RESEARCH. ALL THE CUSTOMARY ENERGY FROM SUPER STEVE.
I WANT YOU FOR PRESIDENT, AND I WANT YOU NOW! LOVE, NORM
Is there a good reason why these videos won’t play for me? Do I need to have my own website to view them? When I click on them it takes me immediately to the blog for comments.
Steven, I am in awe of the clarity with which you write. The blog is so important today. The MSM does not know this type of history and will never put it on the air. I have viewed only the first of the Episodes, but I will finished them today. Well done. I have rarely seen such thoughtful and articulate comments by readers. This should be noted because so often the comments are nothing but name calling with little or no value. Your readers are smart people that appreciate the knowledge that you have given them.
Good luck and God Bless the USA.
Great stuff Steve!!! I just finished a book called ” Kill Bin Laden” by Dalton Fury. A really interesting read. It may have already been covered here. If so, pardon the note. Hope to catch up soon.
Be well.
Hugh
I have for a long time been of the opinion that the path of humankind has been from tribalism (The way we lived and governed ourselves for 100,000s of years.) to individualism. 7000 years ago agriculture and villages led to cities and specialization of labor. That led to sovereign nations and more sophisticated forms of government. The drive away from tribal values and customs accelerated in the British Isles with the Magna Carta, the separation of church and state, the acceptance of science as a method of improving our lives, Adam Smith’s views of commerce and other advances. This led to the industrial revolution which has in turn led to the information age. As all this happened the human condition has improved, but we still carry in our genes the instincts for the tribal way of life. We’ve only had 7000 years to transition from the way we lived for 100,000s of years. And many on this planet are still living as we all did more than 7000 years ago. IMO, it is hard for humans who resist change to make that big leap in such a short span of time. I believe (probably mistakenly) that the urge for socialism and communism is a yearning for the old way when the tribe (state) was more important than the individual and when the tribe (state) took care of its own.
In the tribe the group was always more important than the individual. Being cast out of the tribe was a death sentence and tribal members were kept in line through shame and honor. There was a pecking order, but normally the wealth and means for living were more evenly shared than is customary in a free enterprise system. Outsiders were always viewed as a threat, but if they were diferent looking, or practiced a strange religion, or ate different foods, etc. they were even more distrusted or hated. For hunter-gatherer tribes life was always a zero sum game. They could not and cannot envision a world where wealth can be created by human ingenuity. Today’s tribal societies have not progressed much beyond that view and it is extremely hard for them to grasp the realities of the situation.
Well, that’s my thesis. How does it relate to our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? We have to recognize how foreign our ideas are to these people. Throw in a bit of Islamic fundamentalism and it becomes that much worse. Unfortunately, we are in a bit of a quandry. These Islamic fundamentalists want to attack us and they have been able to use our own technology because they understand fighting and will use anything that helps them fight better. How do we deter them? How do we try to bring them into the 21st century? How do we do this without shedding blood unnecessarily? COIN seems to be the answer. The problem is that it is both labor and capital intensive. Less than 5% of the population knows anything about the issues today. Even if 80% understood COIN, how many would be willing to spend the next 10-15 years with our dollars and blood being shed on the project? I see this as a conundrum in search of a leader with a solution.
Found your blog from your interview with Glen Reynolds. I’ll be a frequent reader.
Mr. Pressfield, you are spot-on. While it’s always problematic to equate one war with another that may have different context, objectives, or strategy, I agree that radical Islam is not what makes our job so difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan (can only speak about Iraq from personal experience). In many places, especially away from the cities, tribalism perplexes our Western minds and we tend to require constant re-education from our local counterparts about its permeation into every aspect of indigenous behavior. I can only imagine how much more difficult Afghanistan is given that it less developed, more geographically predisposed to tribalism, and rich with a history of “throwing the rascals out.” I look forward to your future segments on this issue and will be sure to share them with my Lieutenants as we prepare for our next deployment.
I’m a special forces officer with varying experiences in Afghanistan. After reading some of your readers’ comments, I’d like to offer my own opinion on the matter. Tribalism didn’t give way to individualism… but rather the value of individual freedom and independence leads to the tribe. The tribe is a way to self govern. Democracy descended as an evolutionary step from kings and the perversion of kings… tyrants. Tribalism descended from the love of individual freedom and the realization that there is power in numbers.
The same holds true for the difference between Arabs with historical Bedouin values versus Muslims. Tribalism doesn’t aid the enemy so much as we allow it to hinder us. The enemy is merely a competitor seeking to occupy the power vacuum. We handicap ourselves by modeling the ANA into a western organized fighting force rather than allowing them to fight as they have for thousands of years… by replicating mature democratic institutions and forcing them upon a society which has no experience with them, inviting corruption and fraud.
America is more collectivist than Afghanistan. That collectivism is most inherent in our conventional army. For all the strides they’ve made in deciphering COIN and seeking to negotiate a successful close to this front, to be blunt they got lucky in Iraq. They didn’t win the support of people with the sons of Iraq, so much as Al Queda lost it. We just happened to surge at the right time and thankfully maintain an open hand to those willing to help. In that particular case we were simply offering a “less bad” government and way of life than the enemy was. They’re faced with several severe obstacles in Afghanistan. The conventional army is not designed to be flexible, adaptable, or trained to it’s lowest levels to be analytical in problem solving. They are risk averse and addicted to conventional drugs like helicopters, artillery, and armor which cannot reach far enough away from the FOBs to allow the soldiers to live among the villages of the people they’re trying to protect. More importantly, we suffer from a porous border where a significant source of training, men, and money enjoy sanctuary. And no matter what we do… if our competitor government is corrupt, fraudulent, and worse incompetent at providing basic services, security, and economic opportunity than those offered by another faction, organization, or tribe, then we fail.
The tribe is little more than a large family… protect the women, the land, the animals, the homes, and their honor, respect, and sense of manliness. There is nothing difficult in understanding the Pashtun. Reconciling them with the Tajiks and Hazaras is another matter.
Assuming our end goal in that country is to deny a safe haven for terrorist organizations to launch attacks against America from, then we need better ON THE GROUND access to Pakistan. Our fascination with cruise missiles, sig-int, satellites, predators, UAVs, and technology is no match whatsoever for a guy on the ground, talking to the people, developing the situation, personally observing the enemy, and executing surgical raids WITHOUT blowing the shit out of everything. The enemy is willing to kill himself to kill just a few of us. Without removing this crutch of “risk mitigation”, our Army literally handicaps itself.
Pete,
I am more interested in where the rubber meets the road in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of a highly theoretical conversation. Thanks for the practical comments. Maybe if enough people with experience and credibility speak up our leadership will tune in.
Steve,
Your video was a very thoughtful and insightful comparison. I am an intelligence officer and served in Iraq. What concerns me most is that we have forgotten how to win wars. To be blunt, war requires that we eliminate the enemy—by killing them or through verifiable submission to our will. A country does not go to war to help people; a country goes to war to win the unconditional surrender to enemy forces that threaten our security. A country should go to war only when the will of the people demands security from those who threaten it.
Before dismissing this statement as from some gun toting lunatic, consider the history of warfare—except for the last 50 years or so (from Vietnam forward). The Constitutional mandate for our military is to win wars; not manage them. War is not a management problem for the decades. When a hegemonic nation wages war, winning is the only option. The hegemony does not go to war for nine years. If a hegemonic nation is fighting for nine years without winning, that nation is no longer a hegemony. Soldiers do not go to war to “win hearts and minds.” Our military mission is to defeat the enemy forces or any force in order to create a secure environment for whatever government comes next. This requires killing those who threaten it.
Some call this form of military occupation imperialism. They are correct. Imperialism isn’t a terrible means to an end. Consider successes in India, Germany, and Japan in the 20th Century. Even during our own Civil War the Union Army occupied the Confederacy for greater than 10 years. We occupied ourselves using an imperialist model! In Afghanistan or Iraq, if so much a hair is harmed on the head of an allied service person the consequences must be severe and deadly, so much so, that no tribal leader dare challenge the occupation. Like in America in the late 19th Century, the imperialist “guests” were benevolent to those who accepted it. Those who did not were killed or jailed. The Union Army enabled a relatively safe and secure atmosphere for a return to a true United States.
Recently, NATO bombed a fuel truck that was hijacked by Taliban insurgents. Press reporting confirmed that 35 Taliban insurgents or supporters were killed. However, many of them apparently were “civilians.” How did NATO command respond? Commanders were apologetic and stated they were going the review criteria for striking such targets. What are we doing? This response is unfathomable. Commanders should have sent the message that it is un-Islamic to steal and NATO will bring Islamic principles back to truly good Muslims. NATO will kill anyone who steals or tolerates those who do. NATO needs to learn the value of strategic communication and establish a recipe for success. This type of strategy adopted by NATO suggests NATO is asking for Afghan cooperation. We are not (or should not be). We demand it.
We must win all wars as quickly as possible with whatever means necessary. Such was the case with extinction of German Nazi’s and the Imperial Japanese regimes. For example, we used one atomic bomb against Nagasaki to destroy this Japanese city that had no military value. We firebombed Dresden, Germany that had very little, if any, military significance. Our mentality was to win at all costs using total war. I submit there is no other kind of war. Anything short of total war when the troops are called is meddling with disaster by political figures. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, he should leave winning wars to military professionals. This is our job. His orders should only contain three letters: Win. From WWII and earlier, our way of life was secure because we chose to win using the most effective methods of killing possible to win at all costs.
We have forgotten how to fight and win.
CPT I assume. I hope you can develop quickly because until you break out of the conventional mindset paradimn you will not be much use to your commanders as an intelligence officer. There is a lot more to COIN than lethal targeting. I would recommend a book written by a career intelligence officer named Georg Allen called “None so Blind”.
I agree that the situation is the same today. The biggest and probally most difficult difference is the opium trade. The only thing that will win this conflict will be money. Just like Alexander. But it will be alot more expensive today due to the drug market. I am a Marine and read the Afghan Campaign and loved it. Your books are among the most popular for the marines.
your entire argument is based on a big “if” that is unfounded even “if” Islam/Christianity didn’t exist then, it does now even though you choose to ignore that, AND, this war is not the West against Afghanistan (people or the tribes), it is against the Taliban and those who aid them