I was going to post this as an RFI, but jcustis' post convinced me the wheels ae already turning here
There are parts of Iraq that are like Little Italy
. The sheikhs up here are a little like mafia dons, not exactly like the Gottis (but that is about as close as any US example (didn't Slapout mention a Patrick Swayze movie that might fit too?), but maybe closer to the ones you read about in Sicily.

I've been emailing back and forth between marct and a freind of his he introduced me to who works networks about trying to piece together how things are working up here. The sheikhs seemed linked to just abut everything. Example as in the "How to win in Al Anbar" cartoon, the sheikhs own all the good stuff (factories, mills, etc.); they are also tied to allot of bad things (corruption, AIF, crime, etc.); they have most of the real influence (muktars, government, people, mosques, foreign monies, etc.). Because they are somewhat low key to the Americans who only spend a year here, most of us don't really understand their role or influence. They sort of come across as the "wealthy uncle" because the Americans here mostly interact with the layers in between. We generally look for those people in roles we understand, and feel comfortable interacting with. The further west you from here, the less likely I think a person can make an association that makes sense.

They are the 4000 year old tradition behind the scenes who make phone calls and get things done, but they are also a kind of cultural icon; so much so that many officials wish they were sheikhs - kind of a strange 70s rock star idolation. The sheikhs are ancient compared to Ba'athism, but I think they more or less defined (or redefined) that political ideology to suit their needs.

To complicate matters in 2003 it seems we had a kind of 52 card pick up where all the cards got jumbled up. The sheikhs were the only face cards left after Saddam and crew were removed, and they more or less were left face up ( I mean we know who the sheikhs are). However allot of the sheikhs' men/buisness associates/friends of the family were put into positions of authority in the new government (includes the military and police). Now we have people who are in positions of authority where their loyalties should be to the government, but instead have interests more closely aligned to a sheikh or a group of sheikhs.

I think the IA (at least at the BN and BDE levels) should not be making deals with the sheikhs, maybe not even asking favors - here, deals and favors are two ways - (..and one day I'm going to need a favor from you...), and this would put the IA CDR with conflicitng loyalties and more then one master. However, the mayor/governor could probably pull it off, after all in a way - they are all politicians anyway, and all politicians are....well universal.

When it gets right down to it up here in Ninewa, it seems to be mostly about the flus (pronounced "floose" but meaning money) and influence and less about political ideaology and religion, those seem to be more tools to manipulate the populace. Make no mistake, they have their place, but it my observation that "cultural economics" drives the train here in Mosul.

So anybody out there got any thoughts on the sheikhs? Does it work this way in the other provinces?

The BN CDR for the IA BN I'm with told me one day, "you know Saddam either bought off the sheikhs or replaced them (those often referred to here as the 1990 sheikhs) in order to gain their influence; if the new government could get the sheikhs to go along, we could fix most of the problems." I'm not trying to minimize the influence of the big time clerics ( a kind of sheikh in their own right when it comes to influence), but after some of the stuff I've seen I'm inclined to agree.

Where does this tie in with Kilcllen? Maybe I'm paraphrasing way out there, but his work (and the body of work it has generated) has been useful to me in helping me see problems for what they are/might be vs. what I'd prefer them to be.

Best regards, Rob