Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
"I would like to know if similar retrogression (from the stated US objective of a stable, progressive Iraq) occurred in matters of tribal idenitity."
Cactus, could you expand here a bit? I don't think I understand unless you're suggesting that American policy-makers held a broad mis-conception about the roles of tribes within the Iraqi polity. If so, that sounds more than fair.
"So if the goal is simply to get any al Queda you can, it is a splendid strategy; but if the ambition extends to creating a modern state capable of destroying al Queda systematically, it may be a bit short-sighted in its after-effects, don't you think?"
...
"After-effects" are interesting. What after-effects do you imagine as a consequence of a modern Iraqi state capable of systematically destroying Al Qaeda? Perhaps you could expand a bit here as well?
|
US stated goal is a stable and progressive Iraq. To be a stable nation, a national identity must supercede religious, ethnic and tribal identities among the vast majority. To be progressive a people must adopt a broad mind to absorb positive values and ideas they cannot generate by themselves. To these ends, a revival of tribal identities is effectively retrogression (of Iraqis) for Americans.
Of course it may not be a tribal identity revival at all, but an existing state we just came to know about. In that case there is no retrogression for Americans. Its just how things were. They should be exploited now to what extent possible and discarded as progress occurs in other fields (especially national primary education infrastructure).
...
The "after-effects" I worry about is not of the establishment of a modern Iraqi state, but the "after-effects" of encouraging tribal forces: they may have long-term negative consequenes on nation-building efforts, even if the have short-term positive effect of killing a few local al Queda.