Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
Ray,

I agree with your assessment of Keegan in this realm; the good historian is better at analyzing more conventional arenas of conflict.

I disagree with your dismissal of ethnic or sectarian violence as non-poiltical. Such a dismissal is very much a mirroring of what we as as westerners consider political and what we do not--with an equally large fudge factor on our on behaviors. See the 700 Club et al for an example of sectarian based political activity--or the Pope for that matter.

***snip***

Merely dismissing these schisms as non-political will get one into trouble.
quickly.

best

Tom
Darn, I knew this was going to come back to bite me.

Just to clarify...on the one hand I'm very much a Clausewitzian when it comes to war being an extension of policy/politics by other means, and I agree that his trinitarian concept of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity applies even in the Iraq situation. I also agree that in a general sense it still applies as you stated above.

I most certainly agree that religious goals are still political goals -- even Al Queda's stated goals are political; driving westerners out of Saudi Arabia (Islam's home), destroying Israel, and converting the west, specifically the US to Islam. We've also heaed of the stated (political) goal of reestablishing the Caliphate. (Of couse, the integration of the political with the religious in Islam makes it difficult for we westerners to understand because we generally see religion as separate from the state, although our European ancesters in the 1500s and 1600s (and later in some cases) would have a better understanding of the integration of religion and state.)

However, I think we do have to consider "motivation" more specifically when it comes to analyzing the threat in Iraq. For example, violence that is directed at forcing the US and its allies out of Iraq is clearly political as is the violence being carried out by Iraqi groups to achieve political dominance within Iraq. However, revenge killings, tribal and family feuds, kidnappings for the purpose of making money do not have political motivations at their root.

My argument is that we have to understand the motivation of the many different groups in Iraq that are carrying out violence. I didn't mean to "dismiss" sectarian or ethnic violence as non-political because in many cases it is definitely political; but at the same time some sectarian and ethnic violence is nothing more than revenge killings. The complexity of all the motivations at work in Iraq is what makes it difficult to find a solution; there is no single or simple solution, and any strategy must include social.

If the threat was limited to finding a solution for those who want political power in some form it would be a bit easier to find a solution. Unfortunately the politically driven violence sometimes disappears into the tapestry of violence that has different motivations at the root.

The reality is that there are some forms of violence, that can appear as acts of war, that are not politically driven. We need to be able to differentiate between the two in order to find solutions for how to deal with the differing threats.