I read this article with great interest. Excellent points and analysis. In responding, I am not trying to criticize, but further the anlaysis and discussion. God knows I can't hold a candle to Kilcullen.

Interesting that the actions of Iraqi tribes are characterized as an “uprising” or “revolt” against Al Qa’ida. This would seem to indicate that Al Qa’ida is the power or authority in the society. Seems like a better characterization would be a reaction against Al Qa’ida, or as Kilcullen puts it later, “flipping” or turning away from insurgents (and toward the government).

One of the mitigation measures described is “Linking tribal loyalty to local governance structures and then directly to the central government, through tradition control mechanisms...” By “local governance structures” Kilcullen implies formal local government (that is elected and appointed officials) but is suggesting that they follow tribal control mechanisms. This seems contradictory to me. If it’s tribal loyalty and tribal control, then we’re talking about tribal governance. Is there a role for the Western concept of local government? If so, what is it and what authority does it have?

One of the functions of government, and especially local government, is protecting and providing services for its citizens. Tribes, by their nature, serve only themselves (as Kilcullen points out). How can a tribal governance structure effectively serve all citizens? Is he advocating a form of decentralization whereby each tribe is provided resources and authority to protect and provide for its people? Can tribes really function effectively as a “…parallel hierarchy that overlaps with formal government structures and political allegiances.”

When Kilcullen talks about police bias, he writes that bias can only be removed over time by weeding out the sectarian actors and balancing the tribal forces. It’s not so much professionalism, but the balancing of competitive forces. Kilcullen further argues that the CPA approach of creating a “modern” democratic state that was non-tribal was unrealistic and did not work. He seems to be arguing for a balance of power approach whereby various power centers (tribes, religious political parties) compete and restrain excesses of power by any one group. He states that this will work if “correctly handled”. He doesn’t state this directly, but implies that it will be the central government that handles these competing forces.

Tom points out that the objective of balance in this analysis is optimistic if left up to tribes. I would tend to agree. I don’t see how the central government can handle the tribes or various factions either. Saddam was able to create an ordered society based on strong authoritarian rule. As I understand it, he essentially dominated and eliminated all power but that of the state. Outside of this type of control, how can these centers of power be held in check?

Going back to the concept of a modern democratic state, I think the issue with this approach is a modern and in this case, Western style democracy. I think we (everyone) shouldn’t throw out the baby with the Bath(ist) water. Democracy as we know it may not be right for Iraq, but I think they need a professional system of government. Kilcullen points out that there is no place for sectarianism in the police force. So it should go for the government.