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.
Hooah, Ray!

I agree on motivations--in fact I debated a guy on the AKO Intel forum a few weeks ago on this very point; he felt motivations were unattainable points of analysis. I argued that ignoring motivations is like ignoring the why and and only looking at the what; makes for decent basic journalism or even "history" but offers not a tinker's damn worth of predictive analysis.

On Iraq I would also agree that much of the violence is score settling in a society ruled by its own defintions of honor or just opportunism. When that violence occurs on an individual basis or a "gang" basis; I too would not call that political. But tribal conflicts when aimed at improving one group's status are inherently political. And yes that makes the situation very complex, one not given to the simple definitions and even simpler solutions that are tossed about by too many inside and outside the government.

On the other hand, I am equally tired of some very bright analysts like Keegan who seem to approach all of this as if he is going to be able apply very strict defintions to all of this when the truly operative definitions have to come from the Iraqi side--and then your points on motivation truly come into play.

Best

Tom