Scrutinizing Petraeus's Record

[Rank amateur]

I'd say I've had a chance to see the very worst of human nature and the very best.

In all years, and all your experiences, have you ever seen people who were more likely to resolve their differences when there was no pressure to resolve them?

Its not as simple as you make it sound

Honestly, it is. David Ogilvy said, "The consumer isn't stupid, she's your wife." Meaning, that if the ad sounded like BS to your wife, it would sound like BS to all the other customers.

If you wouldn't want a foreign company named Blackwater to be able to shoot Americans without fear of reprisals, they won't want that in Iraq. If you felt something was worth fighting for, you'd fight for it. So will they. If you were willing to accept help, but not a hand out, they're not willing to accept a hand out either. If you're willing to fight with the French, but would never trust them, your new "allies" in Iraq will never trust you.

People are people. They always have been and always will be.

the change is in getting them organized and responsible for portions of their area.

Before the Shiite dominated Army was responsible for security. This could just be a tactical change, but as a spin doctor I suspect that we are moving back to the Reagan strategy of using the Iraqi Sunni as a force against Iran and that no one has the cajones to admit that we've invested 100s of billions and 3,000 lives to go back in time 20 years to implement a strategy that would be more effective if Saddam were still alive.

(I fully admit that I'm cynical, and my cynicism is why I don't serve, and that I am sometimes wrong, but I'm not always wrong.)

[Rob Thornton]

RA - you argue well - I'm afraid this is just one of those things we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

You do bring good value to the SWC - and I'm glad you are here.
Best regards, Rob

[Ken White]

In all years, and all your experiences, have you ever seen people who were more likely to resolve their differences when there was no pressure to resolve them?

In the ME, pressure is more likely to create resistance. These are people who essentially do not discipline their kids much; the kid grows up not having any concept of the meaning of 'no.' For example, April Glaspies comment to Saddam that the US had 'no interest in his claim to Kuwait' was seen by him as carte blannche to take it -- and he did.

They are people that, if you admire something they have , will insist on giving it to you -- and will quite frequently be offended if you do not take it. Thery also believe they are supposed to tell you what they think you want to hear. This has caused a number of westerners to think they had agreement on a process or item only to find out they had no such thing.

They are people who will kill family members for bringing 'dishonor' on the family. They are studiously polite people who will be almost obsequeious in front of you and arrange your murder ten minutes later.

Honestly, it is. David Ogilvy said, "The consumer isn't stupid, she's your wife." Meaning, that if the ad sounded like BS to your wife, it would sound like BS to all the other customers.

If David erred, something would not sell. No real harm. If the soldier errs, someone dies unnecessarily. More to the point; they have finely tuned BS detectors and they have long memories. We have a reputation for BSing them. They have not forgotten. We are also kafir ferenghi -- they always remember that...

The counterpoint to that is they do like results, proven proper performance currently can outweigh previous sins. They are very pragmatic.

If you wouldn't want a foreign company named Blackwater to be able to shoot Americans without fear of reprisals, they won't want that in Iraq. If you felt something was worth fighting for, you'd fight for it. So will they. If you were willing to accept help, but not a hand out, they're not willing to accept a hand out either. If you're willing to fight with the French, but would never trust them, your new "allies" in Iraq will never trust you.

The first part of that is correct; they wouldn't want that. The second part is partly correct. If you threaten a fight with an area resident, he will look around. if there is no one in the crowd he knows, he will beg and whine, will get down on his knees and grovel. If there is someone he knows, depending on the closeness of acquaintance, he may or may not fight. If there is a family member present he will fight, possibly to the death. Again, they are a very pragmatic people...

The third part is way wrong. They will take a hand out in a second; will even ask for one. they're proud but that 'no hand out' routine is a western norm, it doesn't work in the ME; they will take all they can get and ask for more -- and if you offer a concession or compromise on anything, they will take that as a weakness. Haggling is an are pastime.

The fourth part is even more wrong -- no one in the ME will ever 'trust' anyone who is not family (preferably) or tribe / clan / moetie, etc (secondarily).

People are people. They always have been and always will be.

True -- but cultures vary. In the words of R. Kipling; "Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old. "

That, BTW, is quite important.

Before the Shiite dominated Army was responsible for security. This could just be a tactical change, but as a spin doctor I suspect that we are moving back to the Reagan strategy of using the Iraqi Sunni as a force against Iran and that no one has the cajones to admit that we've invested 100s of billions and 3,000 lives to go back in time 20 years to implement a strategy that would be more effective if Saddam were still alive.

Actually, Regan's approach was generally conciliation and avoiding conflict. Carter erred mightily in his handling of the Tehran Embassy seizure and started a downhill spiral in the ME -- show a weakness there of any kind and it will be exploited. Reagan's failure to react to the kidnappings and bombings in Beirut confirmed in the minds of the ME that we were morally weak. Bush 41 failing to go to Baghdad confirmed that in their minds and everything Clinton did just embedded it that much deeper. They, like you did not understand the very significant cultural differences. Every thing they did was correct in accordance with western values -- and totally wrong with respect to ME values.

(I fully admit that I'm cynical, and my cynicism is why I don't serve, and that I am sometimes wrong, but I'm not always wrong.)

No, you aren't, nor is there anything wrong with not having served. Your logic above is impeccable in western terms. Regrettably, the ME operates on a different wave length.

Another Kipling quote:

"Now it is not good for the Christian's health To hustle the Aryan brown, For the Christian riles and the Aryan smiles, And it weareth the Christian down. And the end of the fight is a tombstone white With the name of the late deceased-- And the epitaph drear: "A fool lies here Who tried to hustle the East."

[slapout9]

Ken,that was a masterful response!

[Uboat509]

Well said, Ken. Western thought processes will get you into a world of trouble here very quickly. That has been, and remains, a serious problem. I have even heard commanders wondering out loud why the locals will join a tribal militia but won't join the local IP. IP that are lead by a member of a different tribe.

Before the Shiite dominated Army was responsible for security. This could just be a tactical change, but as a spin doctor I suspect that we are moving back to the Reagan strategy of using the Iraqi Sunni as a force against Iran and that no one has the cajones to admit that we've invested 100s of billions and 3,000 lives to go back in time 20 years to implement a strategy that would be more effective if Saddam were still alive.

First off this is a bit misleading. The IA is Shia dominated...in Shia dominated areas. Go to a Sunni dominated area and you will find Sunni troops. I am sure that there are exceptions but they are few and far between. The other thing about this statement is that it assumes Shia troops will automatically be friendly to Iran because they are the same religion. But the thing is, most of the Iraqi Shia are Arabs whereas the Iranians are Persians. The ME is NOT a melting pot. Iraqi Shia may be willing to support the Iranians but for the most part, only as long as they stay on their side of the border.

SFC W

[Watcher In The Middle]

Ken:

Your post comes across to the "house dummy" here as a very practical, down-in-the-dirt understanding of some of the the culture differences existing over in the ME. It also clearly points out (in very practical terms) differences in cultural outlook.

It's a very thought provoking post, and raised all sorts of questions.

First, would many of these same "guidelines" also apply to the Persians (Iran)?

Second, if so, then you just provided the base outline for all our negotiations in any talks with Iran. I've often thought that maybe our best team of negotiators with the Iranian government shouldn't be from the DOS or the military, but should be a group made up of the best "Texas Holdem" players in the world. If the Iranians want to grandstand and play geopolitical poker, no prob. Sometimes you got to show 'em you can play the game, too.

[Tom Odom]

Ken,that was a masterful response!

Agree completely. What you laid out is very hard to get across to folks--It may be instinctually apparent to those with time in the region abd sometimes that makes it even harder to explain to Westerners who have not had the opportunity to really adjust to non-Western ways.

I was teaching some last week doing OEF update overviews for the OCs as we have an OEF rotation soon. I always start these things with the idea of Afghanistan as a tribal region versus a nation state and then relate all the issues back to that initial premise. You can see the light bulbs go on these days very quickly, especially compared to 3-4 years ago when most had never been exposed to these cultures. Two years ago many had but they were undergoing the "cross-cultural backlash" where the shock of the cultural differences prompts dislike among many if not most. Now they are old hands and they understand more and see the seams and oppostunities where effective cross-cultural interaction is possible and productive.

One young man came up to see me after one class to talk tribal relations versus a central government, which Afghanistan unlike Iraq has never really had. He was very astute because he was a Native American from the Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma. I asked him to join SWJ. Hopefully he will.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Ken:

Your post comes across to the "house dummy" here as a very practical, down-in-the-dirt understanding of some of the the culture differences existing over in the ME. It also clearly points out (in very practical terms) differences in cultural outlook.

It's a very thought provoking post, and raised all sorts of questions.

First, would many of these same "guidelines" also apply to the Persians (Iran)?

Second, if so, then you just provided the base outline for all our negotiations in any talks with Iran. I've often thought that maybe our best team of negotiators with the Iranian government shouldn't be from the DOS or the military, but should be a group made up of the best "Texas Holdem" players in the world. If the Iranians want to grandstand and play geopolitical poker, no prob. Sometimes you got to show 'em you can play the game, too.

Not "hold 'em"...real old-school draw poker players. Better to have someone there who is used to not seeing the other guy's cards and doesn't blink in the process. IMO they're much better at reading other players and keeping their own hand well-hidden.

[marct]

I especially liked your comment about

no one in the ME will ever 'trust' anyone who is not family (preferably) or tribe / clan / moetie, etc (secondarily).

The only thing I would like to note is that there is an extension to this that goes back to a critical error many observers seem to make in interpreting this comment. First off, every clan based society has to have some way of dealing with inter-clan feuds (and the mechanisms for doing so are really varied, but always there). Second, every clan system I am aware of has developed a system of bringing non-clan members into the clan; again, the forms vary, but it is always there. It strikes me that one of the really crucial things that we tend to overlook is the search for these two mechanisms.

It's on points like these that I disagree with RA, and agree with your characterization of his comments as great Western analyses; they are, but that doesn't mean they apply in any other culture area. For example, the process for dealing with clan/family feuds that has developed in Western societies is the legal system: "sue 'em, don't kill 'em" as it were. The history of that development is long (at least 2500 years) and is based around the state (and, usually, in the form of the crown or volkmoot) acting in a manner to break the power of the great families.

The same is not really true in the ME, which, on the whole, has a radically different conception of State organizations. Generally speaking, and this is really a broad brush generalization, ME cultures tend to produce God Kings who co-opt clan structures rather than Kings (or volkmoots) who mediate clan structures/disputes. This style of state organization goes back in many areas of the ME to at least the 4th millennium BC, and is still apparent in some current ME states and is also a major characteristic of Islam itself where Allah is the God King ("Muslim" literally means "one who submits [to God]").

There's a term in Anthropology - "segmented lineages" - that is useful here. Basically, it looks at degrees of "closeness in kinship terms, and there has been some interesting analysis of how these operate in real world terms (for example here). I believe that Dave Kilcullen's PhD dissertation looked at kinship effects in insurgency as well (Dave, if you read this a comment would be useful - also, I'd love to get a copy of your dissertation as well ).

Back to the point about inter-clan (tribe, lineage, etc.) mechanisms for a) stopping conflicts and b) incorporating outsiders into the system. These mechanisms are radically different from those in the Anglo Culture Complex as are the behaviours that they generate and we cannot afford to make the mistake of assuming that they are the same.

Marc

[Ken White]

Ken:
. . .
. . .

First, would many of these same "guidelines" also apply to the Persians (Iran)?

Definitely. It applies generically to the ME, Christians and all sects included. Not just Arabs and Persians but all races. The Arabs and Persians are most inclined that way but vestiges of it can be seen everywhere. I managed to spend some time in all the countries except Yemen and Israel and the traits were universal.

Second, if so, then you just provided the base outline for all our negotiations in any talks with Iran. I've often thought that maybe our best team of negotiators with the Iranian government shouldn't be from the DOS or the military, but should be a group made up of the best "Texas Holdem" players in the world. If the Iranians want to grandstand and play geopolitical poker, no prob. Sometimes you got to show 'em you can play the game, too.

Sorry, but I don't think so. My Boss and I were on the train from Tehran to Ahvaz many years ago. We traveled with two Iranian Colonels and were introduced to "Persian poker" -- the Iranian dealing made up the rules as he went along for that hand while the Emrikai dealing were held to Hoyle -- which both Colonels knew well. The Arab Legion in Jordan played generally the same way.

They approach negotiations with the same idea; they know their rules and you do not. Haggling throughout the ME is a blood sport. The south Asians do it also but not as well -- thus Khalilzad was only fairly effective as Ambassador to Iraq.

They really do not bluff -- and will generally spot one and call it quickly. They change the rules so they do not have to bluff. If you bluff and get called, you lose great face with them. You find that almost no stores have price tags on items for sale, they live to haggle. If you accept the first price offered, you'll lose their respect and they'll try to take you for everything you've got. If you hold out to the fifth or sixth, you'll get a little respect and a little less rapaciousness. Go to ten or fifteen and you're mildly okay in their book. You will never be fully okay because you're a westerner.

You may or may not have seen the picture of Bush in Iraq last time; one with Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha. Several leftish blogs linked to the picture and said the Sheik was showing his contempt for Bush. Don't think so. I think that look was seething hatred at being forced to consort with a man who had invaded his country and killed members of his tribe. As stated, they are pragmatic to a fault and will deal with anyone who offers them an advantage. But all deals are temporary...

I also left out two important items (it was late and I'm old... ). The bit about if you if you admire something they have, they'll insist on giving it to you -- and will quite frequently be offended if you do not take it. True -- and they emphatically expect total reciprocity.

It is considered not only permissible but desirable to lie (as we in the west see it -- they do not look at it that way) to a customer -- or a foreigner...

[Ken White]

...

The only thing I would like to note is that there is an extension to this that goes back to a critical error many observers seem to make in interpreting this comment. First off, every clan based society has to have some way of dealing with inter-clan feuds (and the mechanisms for doing so are really varied, but always there). Second, every clan system I am aware of has developed a system of bringing non-clan members into the clan; again, the forms vary, but it is always there. It strikes me that one of the really crucial things that we tend to overlook is the search for these two mechanisms.

I've seen that on both sides of the globe. It even extends to foreigners as individuals -- a grouping will reject all or some foreigners or other races as a class but still accord select individuals the rights of kinship, as it were.

The same is not really true in the ME, which, on the whole, has a radically different conception of State organizations. Generally speaking, and this is really a broad brush generalization, ME cultures tend to produce God Kings who co-opt clan structures rather than Kings (or volkmoots) who mediate clan structures/disputes. This style of state organization goes back in many areas of the ME to at least the 4th millennium BC, and is still apparent in some current ME states and is also a major characteristic of Islam itself where Allah is the God King ("Muslim" literally means "one who submits [to God]").

True -- and it's still apparent today. It has been said that in the west, one makes money in order to influence politics and power; in the ME one gets into politics and gains power to accrue money...

Back to the point about inter-clan (tribe, lineage, etc.) mechanisms for a) stopping conflicts and b) incorporating outsiders into the system. These mechanisms are radically different from those in the Anglo Culture Complex as are the behaviours that they generate and we cannot afford to make the mistake of assuming that they are the same.

Marc

Critical and accurate point. The British were masters at having a person accepted as a kinsman in societies around the world -- Freya Stark and Wilfrid Thesiger come to mind. We Americans don't seem to do that well. Yet we do have people who truly understand the cultures of regions of interest. That knowledge has been used, too rarely, to stop conflicts. Regrettably, the knowledgeable folks are too often ignored by the power structure...

[Rex Brynen]

I do feel it is important to underscore that the attitudinal and behavioural characteristics of population groups are mediated by a lot of additional variables: rural/urban, age, education, travel or diaspora experience, subregion, etc. Thinking of educated, urban middle class Egyptians in "Arab-bedouin-tribal" terms won't get you very far, for example (especially since their culture was urban and rural-sedentary back when semi-migratory tribes were still wandering parts of Europe!)

The social psychology data on bargaining shows that these factors can sometimes be just as important as religion or ethnicity.

Role can also be as influential as culture (or, perhaps, it can be said instead that that occupational culture counts too). To a certain degree, diplomats tend to behave like diplomats, taxi drivers tend to behave like taxi drivers, etc. In predeployment training it is not unusual for NGO or UN workers to receive, for example, cross-cultural negotiations training for dealing with that strangest of tribes... the military (and in the field, US and Indian officers or US and Indian UNICEF staff often seem more alike to each other than they are with their national compatriots in different organizations).

Finally, there are important idiosyncratic differences in bargaining style (as everyone will undoubtedly know from the bosses and coworkers around them).

I'm sure this is realized, but I did want to highlight it. Understanding cultural context is essentially--I absolutely agree with that thrust of the discussion that it matters, and often matters a lot. At times, however, it can be as dangerous to assume that you "know" someone's negotiation style or preferences from ethnicity as it can be to go in with ethnocentric cultural blinders.

On top of this, negotiators will sometimes play upon the other side's stereotypical perception of their presumed character and negotiating style to advantage.

I once found, for example, that "confused, naive Western graduate student/tourist" can work surprisingly well with Syrian secret policemen... They finally gave up trying to shake me down from the belief that, as a foreigner, I truly didn't understand that I was supposed to pay them a bribe.

[Ken White]

folks respond the same way to the appallingly ignorant American Farmer type in the same manner...

To underscore your point on context, it did not work in Iraq,. Even without a visa in my passport, they knew I'd been in Iran.

[Hacksaw]

Oblong,
Your questioning of the GEN Petraeus' venue is understandable but misguided. Despite the commonly held perception that a 4-star general is "in charge" nothing could be farther from the truth wrt this type of media engagement. "Experts" in DoD most assuredly directed who the General would speak to and who he wouldn't, at least on the record and in conjunction with official testimony. That's not to say that they control GEN Petraeus' testimony, I spent too much time in his company to imagine his intellect much less his ego would allow that type of manipulation. The man is not without fault, but he's far from a mouth piece.

Live well and row

[Armchairguy]

Ken, Marc, I appreciate the infomation. It is illuminating. Do these cultural attributes apply to Afghanistan as well? I'm betting the haggling is the same, but are there nuances of difference in other areas? For instance the obligation to defend a guest. Is this common across the ME?

[marct]

Hi Armchairguy,

Ken, Marc, I appreciate the infomation. It is illuminating. Do these cultural attributes apply to Afghanistan as well? I'm betting the haggling is the same, but are there nuances of difference in other areas? For instance the obligation to defend a guest. Is this common across the ME?

Haggling is pretty much universal - it has only disappeared in the West over the past 150 years, and not in all places.

The obligation to defend a guest is another universal at least in any tribal culture that has a warrior ethos (some don't, but not many). The obligation is also reciprocal - the guest must defend the house of the host while under guest right there. In the West (mainly amongst the Germanic and Celtic tribes), this was called something like "guestright" or the laws of hospitality.

Marc

[Ken White]

earlier. I agree with Marc, would only add that my perception is that the defense of guest effort is more solid in Afghanistan than it is in the ME -- other than among the Kurds, where it is quite strongly entrenched. Mountain folks the world over tend to have slightly different mores than their flatland counterparts.

The Arabs and Persians IMO occasionally seem to be inclined to a more, er, pragmatic approach...

[Armchairguy]

Thanks guys!

[oblong]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ostid-updateB3

If I were Col. Boylan, I would have handled things differently.

More here:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003664994

[J Wolfsberger]

Oblong,

I hate reading hard leftists - it gives me a headache.

Somebody needs to remind Col. Boylan why he shouldn't wrestle with pigs - you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.