« Previous · Home · Next »

Cultural Differences

By Richard S. Lowry

Last week, I had a forty-minute telephone conversation with the Multi-National Force-West commanding general, Major General W. E. Gaskin, USMC. His Area of Operations (AO) encompasses all of al-Anbar Province. We spoke about many things, but the subject that intrigued me the most was our talk of the Tribes of Anbar and how their tribal culture is different from American Society.

Here is what I learned about the tribes of Anbar.

Tribes have been the center of Iraqi life since the beginning of recorded history. Iraqi identity is derived from the tribe. In America, we have a country of individuals and individual rights are supreme. A man is known for his own actions and is responsible only to himself and maybe his immediate family. In Iraq, a man is an extension of a larger family – of his tribe. His actions are always connected to the group. If he is successful or compassionate toward others, it brings honor to his tribe. If he is a criminal or treats others unfairly, it reflects negatively on his tribe.

For generations, the tribe has been the cultural, economic and governmental center of the Iraqi society. And the Sheikhs lead the tribes. As go the Sheikhs and tribal elders, so goes the tribe. They are the glue that holds the Iraqi people together. In the Saddam regime, the Sheikhs spoke for their people. Even Saddam would not defy the local authority of the tribes. He allowed for tribal governance, as long as the tribal leaders pledged their allegiance to his national government. Iraqi Sheikhs never relinquished local authority over their brethren.

When the US moved in to Iraq in 2003, the tribal concept was not thoroughly appreciated. In the first few years, we did little to help the Sheikhs become part of the solution to ever increasing anarchy. Iraqi Sheikhs viewed the Americans as usurpers of the tribal authority. So, the tribes, especially Sunni, fought against our intrusion. They were easily convinced by al-Qaeda that the infidel would ruin the tribal system and that the Americans needed to be expelled.

Nowhere in Iraq are the tribes more important to the survival of its members than in Al-Anbar. The rugged people of Anbar have been struggling to survive in a harsh environment since the beginning of time and they are fiercely independent. When American forces rolled in to Fallujah and Ramadi in 2003, it was evident immediately that the local inhabitants were firmly opposed to American military authority.

The war never ended in Al-Anbar province. It became a haven for die-hard Saddam Loyalists and soon became a rallying point for foreign Islamic extremists. Local unemployed men and teenagers became willing recruits and U.S. Marines suffered heavy casualties clearing the cities of enemy forces.

Finally, the Sheikhs and tribal elders came to realize that America was not in Anbar Province to change the people’s way of life. The Americans were there to bring normalcy back to the people. It took some time for the Sheikhs to realize that al-Qaeda was there to impose its radical Islamic totalitarianism. It took some time for the Sheikhs to realize who their actual enemy was.

Once they figured this out, it took even more time to loosen the grip that the terrorists had on the tribes. For more than two years, al-Qaeda ruled through fear. If anyone would help the Americans, if they would even talk to an American – they would be killed. Sheikhs, tribal and community leaders and their families were killed regularly. Anyone who questioned al-Qaeda’s authority was brutally murdered. The lucky ones were killed instantly, most were tortured. Marine Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Starling described al-Anbar Province in 2005 as a cross between the “Wild West” and “Mad Max.”

As late as last year, some politicians and media commentators were claiming that al-Anbar was a lost cause. But then, last fall, the Sheikhs of Anbar realized that al-Qaeda was the real enemy and they said, ‘enough-is-enough.’ They came together and decided that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The Sheikhs went to the U.S. Marines and asked for their help to rid their neighborhoods of the al-Qaeda scourge. They brought forth the sons of Anbar to join the Iraqi Army and local police forces so that they could fight al-Qaeda themselves and eventually maintain their own security.

In a recent covenant celebration, two-hundred Sheiks came together in Ramadi. They all pledged to fight al-Qaeda and they pledged to support the Coalition. They pledged to rebuild their society and to do it all through the Iraqi government and the rule of law. And, the Marines pledged to provide a protective umbrella until the people are able to maintain their own security. Despite the continued threat of al-Qaeda attacks, the cities of Anbar are all now relatively safe places to live and work.

Today, Major General W. E. Gaskin and his Marines and soldiers are working closely with the tribes of Anbar to keep al-Qaeda away from the population; to clean up the rubble from four years of fighting; to restore vital services; and to rekindle commercial development. General Petraeus has said many times that the solution in Iraq is not purely military and General Gaskin’s work in Iraq’s “wild west” is proof of that.

The Marines, now with their tribal Iraqi allies, continue to chase and fight al-Qaeda. The military component of Operation Iraqi Freedom will not soon be over. But, General Gaskin has developed a close relationship, a covenant, with the Sheikhs of Anbar. He has asked each of them for a prioritized list of what each needs in his community. Using Iraqi money, he has started to work that list: by clearing rubble and restoring vital resources like drinking water, electricity, and a reliable flow of petroleum products.

Iraqis are being employed in these projects. For the first time in years, the individual Iraqi sees improvements in his daily life and has hope for the future. We have turned a corner in al-Anbar Province, but we have not finished the job. General Petraeus and General Gaskin would be the first to tell you that it is still too early to say that they have achieved their goals and that the security situation is stable. There is still much work to be done.

America used to be known throughout the world as a “can-do” nation. We had that reputation because we finish anything we set our minds to accomplish. We built the Panama Canal. We defeated NAZI Germany. We put a man on the moon. We built the World Trade Center, commercial jets, telephones and computers. The American worker is known for his ability to solve problems and his tenacity to stick to a job until it is completed.

Yet, there is an element today in this country that believes that the job at hand in Iraq is too difficult. These individuals believe that the cost is too great in wealth and lives. They believe that the Iraqi people are unworthy of our commitment. They believe that the best course of action is to quit before the job is finished. If we succumb to this desire, we will have done our nation and the world a great disservice. We will have abandoned thousands of brave Iraqis who are risking their lives to bring freedom and hope to their country. We will have abandoned 20 million innocent Iraqis to what would most likely become the largest, bloodiest, struggle for power the world has ever seen. And, we will have shown the world that America can no longer be trusted.

On the other hand, if we honor our covenants with the Iraqi people and tribal Sheikhs of al Anbar and the other provinces, we will win this war yet. Other provinces are close behind Anbar. Iraqi Army and police recruits are lining up in droves in Diyala, Baghdad and Arab Jabour. General Petraeus’ “Surge” is working. Sunni and Shia tribal leaders north of Baghdad recently pledged to work together to bring peace to their communities. The Iraqi people are beginning to see that there is hope for the future.

Richard S. Lowry is the author of "Marines in the Garden of Eden." Visit http://www.MarinesintheGardenofEden.com for more information on Richard and his writing.



July 29, 2007 01:02 PM    News From Iraq

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1131

Comments

outstanding write up Richard, thanks.

John   ·  July 29, 2007 02:02 PM

Why do General officers refuse to say to this President the best choice for America is for us to get out of the way of Muslims killing Muslims? Why do General officers refuse to say to this President the best choice for America is to back a independent Kurdish state which by its mere existence weakens Syria, Iran & a Turkey slowly turning away from Ataturk & the secular state? Why do General officers refuse to acknowledge that Muslims have ruined & killed themselves for 13 centuries; that America did not cause their problems & cannot end them?

Why do General officers refuse to say Muslims qua Muslims are hostile to the values of the West? Why do General officers refuse to read to read the Qu'ran, Sunnah & Hadiths to understand the fatalist/ predatory character of Muslims? Why do General officers refuse to talk to Ibn Warraq, Serge Trikovic or Robert Spencer? Why do General officers refuse to see the evidence Islam is not a great religion hijacked by a few impoverished fanatics?

Why do General officers refuse to say to this President the best choice for America is to take advantage of the contradictions & fault lines within Islam to weaken & cripple it? Why do General officers play Kennedy New Frortiermen & pay grasping corrupt Muslims jizya by: "clean(ing) up the rubble from four years of fighting; ... restor(ing) vital services; and ... rekindl(ing) commercial development"? Why do General officers refuse to say to this President the best choice for America is to husband our resources, to use them wisely & to decline to treat "Iraq" (or Egypt, the PLO or any Muslim polity) like the Grand Duchy of Fenwick?

This President could not find a better advocate for his policy than Mr Lowry. Mr Lowry writes of honoring some alleged covenants with the "Iraqi" people. Honoring covenants with skilled practitioners of taqiyya & kitman trying to get very well off the backs of the American people. Honoring covenants with people who hate everything we stand for. Honoring covenants to Shi'a or Sunni tribal chiefs who want us to spend our treasure & spill our blood to kill their Sunni or Shi'a enemies as they laugh at us from a secure location. Honoring covenants with people who believe in & strive for a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Honoring covenants with people who offer us the choices of submission to Islam, crushing taxation plus endless humiliation, or death.

No thank you.

John Quincy Adams   ·  July 30, 2007 04:27 AM

Richard, this is a good write-up. It makes me wonder why this didn't happen four years ago. A lot of wasted time and spilled blood forced our leadership to start coming to grips with reality on the ground. It maddens me to think that, if they had only gotten out of their two-dimensional, conventional thinking in the summer of 2003, that our troubles there would be significantly less than they are now.

As to JQ Adams, I agree with some of the proposals you make (esp. backing an independent Kurdish state to weaken Syria and Iran). However, leaving is not an option. As long as oil is under that part of the world, we ARE going to be involved there. Oil is a nat'l security issue and the lifeblood of our economy and society. Like it or not, it is worth killing and dying for. Without it, our country grinds to a halt.

Joel   ·  July 30, 2007 04:59 AM

JQA,

In the words of Stonewall Jackson; "The best defense is an offense."

RSL

Richard Lowry   ·  July 30, 2007 06:15 AM

RL - To Muslims, Mohammed is Uswa-e-Hasana, Al-insan al-kamil - the excellent example of conduct, the perpect man. This is what the perfect man teaches his followers:

Koran 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels [non-Muslims] out to the last.’”

Koran 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Koran 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

Koran 8:60 “Prepare against them [non-Muslims] whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah [non-Muslims], and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you.”

Koran 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war”lened, "radical Islamic totalitarianism".

Hassan al Banna elaborates: "Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come....It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb {House of War -- the non-Muslim world} every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfill the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard 'ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people."

Al Qaida believes the above. The (Sunni & Shi'a) tribal chieftains you put stock in believe the above. Most Muslims believe the above.

Who are we defending & who are we attacking & who are we conquering, when neither you ("radical Islamic totalitarianism"), MG Gaskin, General Petraus nor this President (war on "terror") properly identify the foe or dare to do so? Why is this?

I appreciate your mention of General Jackson. He was highly skilled, a masterful tactician. May I recommend for your attention Niccolo Machiavelli & Sun-Tzu? --JQA

John Quincy Adams   ·  July 30, 2007 08:32 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

David M   ·  July 30, 2007 10:00 AM

So, what do you propose JQA? Complete withdrawal? Total annhilation?

Joel   ·  July 30, 2007 12:08 PM

I believe that was Robert E. Lee that you're thinking of...

still, you'll make *great* strides with this crowd by quoting Stonewall.

John   ·  July 30, 2007 06:48 PM

Post a comment

Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Please enter the security code you see here