From an earlier thread
And this one definately gets an "A+"....
Kudos for posting this link!Originally Posted by jcustis
I just finished reading it carefully, and I'll tell you right now that I will be using it as a text / example in any course I teach on applied Anthropology. While it misses some of the bells and whistles so beloved by those of us in the academy (mainly those 5-sylable, Greek derived words that no one understands), it really does capture the basic structures and their operations.
The only additions I would really like to see are in two areas:
- What are the specific Rituals of Reconciliation?
- How does "historical memory" operate in these tribes?
On the specific rituals question, this is important not only for ethnographic detail but, also, for both theoretical and pragmatic reasons. On the theoretical side, any ritual of reconcilliation is a structural repair mechanism evolved to maintain a homeostatic condition withing a cultural group (cf. Max Gluckman (The Utility of the Equilibrium Model in the Study of Social Change, American Anthropologist, 70(2), April, 1968; Custom and Conflict in Africa; Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict). Or, translating this into plain English, all conflict resolution models serve to justify and reinforce a particular political and social model, and you have to use the approriate one for the culture you are operating in. On the pragmatic side, what are you going to tell the troops (and administrators!) to do in order to try and strat one of them?
The second question is more tricky but, actually, gets at the heart of the larger GWOT. How a culture constructs historical memory, both the mechanisms of that construction and the content, influences how current events will be interpreted. As one example, consider how the "Crusader" construction has been used agains both the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now let's flip it around and ask "How will the Coalition forces be constructed in the future?" as a result of current actions, and how will this influence future interpretations?
Well, enough of commenting on this paper. It is excellent, and I can't recommend it highly enough. The three authors get a fictive "A+" and a hearty "Well done, guys!".
And now, I have to go off and sing for three hours...
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Marc,
This paper addresses conflict resolution as influenced by Islam at the local level. I believe you will find the portion on Sulh and Musalaha of interest (beginning on page 11 of the pdf file).
Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle East Conflicts
Of course, there are significant variations in conflict resolution/mediation rituals and traditions between ethnic groups (i.e. Arabs vs Kurds) as well as regionally (i.e. the Levant vs the Gulf), that go along with the clearer rural-urban divide.
Roger Fisher and his work in the field of negotiation and conflict resolution was mentioned in another thread. I've found his work, and other material from the Harvard Program on Negotiation to be useful in training HUMINT'ers (with some modification for both integration with HUMINT collection methodology and application in the target culture). His book Getting to Yes, has been very influential in the field, and certainly has broad application. Prior to my retirement, I had some success in modifying and integrating aspects of Fisher and Urtel's Getting Ready to Negotiate with conventional interrogation planning and preparation methodology.
As has been stated many times and in several threads on this board, the problem with many in both the civilian and military arenas is lack of understanding when it comes to application. They just don't "get it". In my perspective "getting it" means far more than simply understanding the realities of the current conflict and the effective application of lessons learned - it means having the breadth of understanding necessary to implement valuable insights from multidisciplinary inputs with necessary adaptations for current context. Where the aforementioned lack of understanding enters into the picture is when inputs from fields outside the military - such as conflict resolution and reconciliation methodologies - are simply taken as a blunt whole without any real attempt to integrate and modify application in accordance with local realities and elements of existing methodologies that are proven to work. "Reinventing the wheel" and "throwing out the baby with the bath water" are more than just trite sayings.
What usually happens is that the troops & administrators are given a simple block of instruction on local culture and traditions (often repeatedly), but lacking any real insight or instruction into how to effectively synchronize culture and tradition with their operational methodologies.
I believe its a people issue - we don't have nearly enough people with the appropriate background and experience to leverage that sort of training and the scale required and those that we do have are fully engaged in doing other things.
Well, so much for Saturday morning rambling. Time for pancakes.
Last edited by Jedburgh; 10-14-2006 at 01:53 PM.
A very interesting article, and you're right, the parts on sulh an Musalaha were very interesting. Thanks for posting it. It was especially apropos, since I had just finished re-reading the first lecture in Gluckman's Custom and Conflict in Africa called "The Peace of the Feud".
I think that this goes back to the culture of the military. In general, it makes a lot of sense to create a "book" and then get people to "play by the book". This is esecially important in building militaries in cultures that otherwise have "individualism" as a central value, and has been a hallmark of armies since the Napoleonic era (okay, William the Silent if you will).
The problem with this, in this type of fight, is that all the training expectations, the "patterns of expected behaviour" are rote-learning - read this manual, follow these 6 points, use the following steps in the proscribed order, etc. Do you think it is a lack of insight or a lack of institutional support for insight? (I'd bet on the latter, myself, but I could easily be wrong).
It could well be, I honestly don't know. Even if it is mainly a "people issue", I suspect that there are lots of institutional factors stopping it as well. For example, if a Sulh ritual is considered leagally binding as the Irani article points out (by tribal law if nothing else), then what happens if a unit that engages in one rotates out and is replaced by another unit?
Things to think about but, for me at least, not today <wry grin>. I just finished singing three hours of Baroque and Rennaisance music and I now get to spend the rest of my weekend building a web site - Oh Joy! Oh bliss! Oh rupture!!!
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I'm replying after reading only the essay, so pardon me if this was covered in any of the responses. This isn't the author's central theme but I think it's related to the general idea.
I've long thought that a western style representative republic (it may or may not be democratic as we define the term) can only work in Afghanistan and Iraq, if it can work at all, if it's organized along tribal lines.
Representatives could be sent to congress by tribes, not American style congressional districts. The bigger tribes have more representatives but each tribe has the same number of senators regardless of size. Also, let the tribes select their congressmen however they want. Who cares if tribal congressmen are elected or appointed by a tribal chief? Who cares if some tribes do it democratically and others do it autocratically?
This still may not make Afghanistan and Iraq true republics, of course, but I think it's a lot more likely to work than trying to establish American style democracy.
Last edited by Rifleman; 10-16-2006 at 03:43 AM.
Hi Rifleman,
I s'pose that when it comes down to it, most of us have a "live and let live" attitude which, for us, gets expressed via a democratic mythos - whether that's republican or a constitutional monarchy (a la Britain and Canada). Afghanistan and Iraq have, historically, followed a somewhat different route.
"Tribalism", and there are some pretty significant differences between that of Iraq and Afghanistan, is, on the whole fairly similar to modern democratic states, at least as far as the power held by any individual is concerned. In other words, it's pretty darn limited <wry grin>. Honestly, that's really a function of population size and density (I really hate to sound like an academic, but cf Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society, 2nd edition or, for a more American take, check out Thomas Paine's Common Sense).
In most democratic states, with the possible exception of the US, people have turned over their right of self defense to the state. In tribals societies, the right of self defense is held by the individual and their "vengence group" - close friends and kin. In most democratic societies, security is a function of the state, whereas in most tribal societies it is a function of an implied blood fued. Both work fairly well to maintain a fairly stable society.
Coming out of this right of self defense is a placement of political power. In most republics, it is in the control of voting blocks and state institutions (take a look at Rome during Marius and Sulla, Athens after Pericles, or the US for the past 25 years or so). It's similar in constitutional monarchies, but the monarch retains some powers which may ofset the worst ravages of the political aristocracy (pre-revolutionary Russia and Britain in the 20th century are examples). In some cases, the monarch remains the chief of the armed forces and execises a moral suasion over them (e.g, Thailand).
In tribal societies there is always some mechanism to control the potential for conflict and guarentee safety. In Afghanistan, one of those mechanisms was the Loya Jirga, although the last one in 2003 was rather contentious.
Iraq is another matter entirely. Iraq is not really a "nation" in the same way as western nations are or as Afghanistan is. It was created in the aftermath of WWI with the breakup of the Ottaman Empire. While the area has been a centre of civilization since at least 6000 bce, whenever it was "unified", it has been under a strong centralized monarchy, usually a "god-king" of some type (Saddam was drawing on a long lineage from Gilgamesh on down). "Democracy" just doesn't mean that much in Iraq historically. It is especially difficult to encourage democracies of any type in areas where there is no history of them.
Well, I guess we have one now in Iraq, and it will be interesting to see what heppens with it. Personally, I expect that, barring a lot of good luck, sacrifice and some really intelligent operations, it will fall apart. Western democracies don't have a good track record with long wars, and we have a worse track record with nation building exercises.
Hmm, midnight, too much brandy, and I think I am feeling a touch pesimistic.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
This article speaks to several points that have been made in this thread:
Military Review, May-June 2007: The Power Equation: Using Tribal Politics in COIN
....Infantry officer courses and intermediate-level professional military education schools must incorporate courses on negotiating skills into their programs of instruction. Because tribal leaders are often expert negotiators, company commanders must be well prepared to win across the meeting table as well as on the unconventional battlefield. Cultural awareness means more than just being sensitive to a community. It is a component of the intelligence preparation of the battlefield and a capability that can help us achieve our objectives.....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks