| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| Lee Harris: The Blood Feud |
| 2005-07-08 |
| The author of the legendary essay on "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" takes the analysis to the next step. You really should read it all, but here's one of the good parts to get you excited: Immediately after 9/11, the general consensus was that we were at war. And yet this evocation of the concept of war bothered me because it did not quite fit. Wars were things that Westerners did. They were fought for economic reasons or for territorial expansion; they were instruments of policy; they had a point and an objective. You knew when a war started, and you knew when it was over. On both sides of a war you had diplomacy -- the breakdown in diplomacy normally started wars, and a recommencement of diplomacy inevitably signaled their termination. . . . If you try to make the random and scattered terrorist attacks since 9/11 fit into this pattern, you will soon realize that it takes a good bit of twisting and squeezing to make these events match the profile of Western warfare. Indeed, when I wrote "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," I argued that war was not the appropriate model to employ in order to gain an understanding of the enemy that we faced -- and yet at the time I was still unclear what model of conflict would make more sense. After the London bombing, I feel more than ever that the war model is deeply flawed, and that a truer picture of the present conflict may be gained by studying another, culturally distinct form of violent conflict, namely the blood feud. In the blood feud, the orientation is not to the future, as in war, but to the past. In the feud you are avenging yourself on your enemy for something that he did in the past. Al Qaeda justified the attack on New York and Washington as revenge against the USA for having defiled the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia by its military presence during the First Gulf War. In the attack on London, the English were being punished for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the blood feud, unlike war, you have no interest in bringing your enemy to his knees. You are not looking for your enemy to surrender to you; you are simply interested in killing some of his people in revenge for past injuries, real or imaginary -- nor does it matter in the least whether the people you kill today were the ones guilty of the past injuries that you claim to be avenging. In a blood feud, every member of the enemy tribe is a perfectly valid target for revenge. What is important is that some of their guys must be killed -- not necessarily anyone of any standing in their community. Just kill someone on the other side, and you have done what the logic of the blood feud commands you to do. In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges. You don't feud to win, you feud to keep your enemy from winning -- and that is why the anthropologist of the Bedouin feud, Emrys Peters, has written the disturbing words: The feud is eternal. . . . . . . Indeed, to those adept at the blood feud, nothing can be more absurd than provoking a feuding partner into an all out war of annihilation -- which perhaps explains why the Islamic terrorists tend to vary the locations of their attacks and to string them out over the course of years, rather than concentrating on a single target and hammering it repeatedly over the course of days and weeks, as in a normal military campaign. If the terrorists attacked the same people continuously, day after day, week after week, they would be bound to stir up a fury that would result in their own extermination. By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all. Even better, such sporadic violence permits the enemy to discount their own suffering, by realizing after each fresh attack that life goes on -- as indeed it does for those who chance to survive. . . . Contemporary Islamic terrorism has permitted the ancient practitioners of the blood feud to introduce its brutal and primeval logic into a world of modern technology and parliamentary politics. The sooner we grasp this fact, the sooner we will be in a position to know our enemy for who he really is. . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #32 "...nobody in the West has the stomach to pursue a strategy of disproportionate response." That's not really true, at least not literally: there are some, including me, who'd be perfectly comfy with it. But though that number is significant, I'd agree that it's disappointingly small. "I can't imagine the scale of an attack on the West that would get a majority of Westerners to sign off on a Carthaginian strategy." Really? I can: a couple of American cities-- or maybe even just one-- attacked by terrorist-born nukes, and you've got multiple smoking, glowing holes in the ground at several places in Ragville. Take out a half-dozen American cities, and it's The Big Sleep for nearly the entire Muslim world. And I'd bet the bank on it: the American people would DEMAND nothing less. "...eventually there will be generation that will just give up and start praying to allah 5 times a day. They can wear us down because not enough of us love what we have enough to sacrifice for it." I disagree. We're not going to just give up and surrender to Islam; not now, not ever. At worst, in my opinion, our lethargy and and our short attention span will end up keeping us from succeeding at what we're trying to do now, and that's winning clean. It means we'll end up winning ugly instead-- that is, with a couple of our cities in uninhabitable ruins and a couple of million dead Americans before we get off our lazy asses-- or we'll end up winning dirty, with a couple of hundred million dead Muslims. "But then I'm a bit depressed. Can you tell?" Uh, yeah. A lot of us are. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-08 22:35 |
| #31 All of these comments are smart and incisive, and all of them miss the one point that matters: nobody in the West has the stomach to pursue a strategy of disproportionate response. I can't imagine the scale of an attack on the West that would get a majority of Westerners to sign off on a Carthaginian strategy. I just don't see it. We're going to be caught in this feud for a long time, and eventually there will be generation that will just give up and start praying to allah 5 times a day. They can wear us down because not enough of us love what we have enough to sacrifice for it. But then I'm a bit depressed. Can you tell? |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2005-07-08 22:07 |
| #30 Fred: I think this is one for the "Classics;" one of the better discussion threads we've had here at the 'Burg. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-07-08 21:52 |
| #29 The Saudis especially need to understand that we'll level their damned snake pit if another 9/11 traces back to them. If there were sufficient support for that here, it would go a long way to cleaning up the Islamacist act. Maybe. But I suspect the ones who are deadenders don't really give a damn and half expect Allah to come down FINALLY on their side if we do. |
| Posted by: had enough 2005-07-08 21:42 |
| #28 I thought our post-9/11 message was pretty clear, starting with the cluster bombs in Afghanistan and leading right up to exterminating Wahabi infiltrators along the Syrian border. But Al Qaeda doesn't seem to get the message. Apparently we need to hang the guy with the hook from the Tower of London and vaporize some "tribal areas". Along the way, it wouldn't hurt to tell the Syrians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, and the Iranians that we've got a few thousand nukes we can target on them and we're going to be in a very foul mood the next time we get struck. The Saudis especially need to understand that we'll level their damned snake pit if another 9/11 traces back to them. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-07-08 20:47 |
| #27 Very thought provoking. But I can't stop thinking about Binny's fatwahs. It's pretty obvious that Binny and co. have big aspirations and for them this is war with specific objectives and big goals. They may be inspired by the phenomenon that Harris describes and, consciously or not, their attacks will follow such a pattern since it has a long history in their culture and orgainzed warfare does not. But in the end, Binny et al want to be more than Beddouin pirates. They want to be Salladin, or the 8th century Arabs, conquering lands, sweeping the infidel before them, converting the globe, purifying the corrupt and theheretics (Shias and Sufis too) imposing the shar'ia. |
| Posted by: John in Tokyo 2005-07-08 20:36 |
| #26 Interesting article. VERY interesting; Harris may be onto something, here. I'm not convinced yet by his argument, though, and I'll have to noodle on it for a bit, let it ferment in the brainpan and all. I also want to re-read his essay, "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology", again. Might also behoove me to get off my ass and read the copy of "Civilization and its Enemies" that's been gathering dust on my bookshelf for the last six months. But whether what's been going on is best understood as a "blood feud" or as a "war", it's certainly clear that the muzzies' behavior is influenced by their origins in primitive, blood feud cultures. And either way, I agree with Mike said above: "The reprisal should not be proportionate to the attack, since that's just buying in to the rules of the blood feud game. No, make it disproportionate, and deliver a message: if you start a blood feud with us, you, your house, and all you value in life will be exterminated." Make it disproportionate, indeed: horribly disproportionate, because these people don't seem to be too swift at getting messages. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-08 17:30 |
| #25 ROFL!! Mee too, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 15:34 |
| #24 No problem -- as #21 proved, I'm only capable of shutting up for about 8 minutes. =) |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 15:29 |
| #23 BA - "In fact, I wish we'd get on with it!" Amen, bro - while W is still in charge. Y'know, I'm kinda partial to your action items there, 'specially that first one, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 15:28 |
| #22 docob - I wuz just funnin' bro, cuz it was skeery, lol - don't you dare leave! :-) SPo'D - I think you made perfect sense... and raised a helluva good question regards encoding blood feud into a military strategy. You know the Congresscritters won't be able to make sense of this, so it will have to be done stealthily. We MUST find a way to make certain that the"front" is always manned by our military - not the cops or the Fibbies or any other domestic element. The troops are the only element capable of and mentally prepared to do the deeds that must be done. It certainly sounds like a heavy focus on SF, to me. Lessee, isn't the current Joint Chiefs Chairman a guy who might "get it"? Heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 15:21 |
| #21 Actually, BA, I think seizing the oilfields would be sufficient. The second two would end up being counterproductive, IMHO. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 15:18 |
| #20 Seize the fields now. Then tell them the remainder. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-07-08 15:16 |
| #19 Me neither, .com (the hand-wringing comment). In fact, I wish we'd get on with it! I'm sick of the hand-wringing, as that only invites larger attacks. I'm ready for Rummy or someone with cojones to say "Ya know what, next terrorist attack leads to the seizure of Saudi oil fields. The one after that leads to the seizing of the almighty "black rock." The third leads to the nuking of Mecca. Any questions?" We need a new alignment of countries (a'la NATO) that'll go to bat for each other like NATO ("If one is attacked, we consider it an attack on all of us"). |
| Posted by: BA 2005-07-08 15:12 |
| #18 #17 in reference to #15 |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 15:11 |
| #17 Nah, that's okay. No need for that, as I have probably already amply demonstrated. Shutting up now! And a good day to all. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 15:10 |
| #16 Blood Feud is the is the perfect discription. Getting the people in this country and in western civilization to wrap their heads around that is the problem. Why did 47% of the country vote for Flechter? Because they are to lazy to find read the truth and wrap their heads around it. They will let guys like Feltcher, Dean and Galloway think for them. Do you think thast 47% or, even a full 98% in this country, has ever read what is in one typical allenist sermon of friday? Do they even understand the truth about the death cult. My guess is a full 98% of this country hasn't and will not bother to get the facts about allenism. You have to surmount that mountain of a problem before we do more than poke this with a 8 foot stick. What we have going now is only scratching the scab. Finally how do you put blood feud into a military doctrine? Going the Carthage vs Rome route is an option but are there others? I likley didn't do well communicating what I think. PD knows how hard it is for me to accurately explain anything. If you don't understand what I put down don't worry you won't be alone. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-08 15:09 |
| #15 Oh shit! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 15:05 |
| #14 Thanks, .com, but I'm afraid I'll never be good at this troll-whacking stuff (at which you are, BTW, the best I have ever seen). My emotions get in the way. But hey, maybe practice will make perfect. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 14:40 |
| #13 docob - That the 7/7 perps appear to have been homegrown is the answer, IMHO. Once that's confirmed, you'll have a sizable stick to whack the 'tards with. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 14:25 |
| #12 "That Skeery got 20%, much less 47% is mind boggling to me." Amen to that! We can thank the NYT/CBS/CNN/BBC et al super-slanted MSM for many of those 47 points, but I was still flabbergasted that it was as close as it was. Shades of Lincoln's narrow reelection, I guess. Speaking of MSM, have y'all noticed the latest bullshit meme-in-waiting, THE LONDON ATTACK MEANS FLYPAPER DOESN'T WORK!!!?? I've been fighting that one on a couple comments sections, but came too close to popping an artery. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-08 14:19 |
| #11 Just for the record, I want to make it clear I'm not hand-wringing or giving up. I'd do some sawing myself, if that was needed. If it makes it to our shores and it's big enough (since so many, especially the MSM fools and tools, seem to think it's a numbers game, sigh), then pity the poor Muzzies. If identified, pity their entire countries. All bets will be off and Carthage will seem like a trip to Swenson's. Sure wish we could get there without being whacked. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 13:56 |
| #10 Sadly, I agree with you, .com! I (personally) haven't been there and "done what needs to be done," but you're completely right...if 9/11 didn't wake people up here at home, I'm afraid we're destined to another attack. As long as we're on the offensive, we're good. But, you're right, we're looking at borrowed time post-Bush. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-07-08 13:42 |
| #9 CG - overlapped with you. I see it this way: If 9/11 wasn't enough to convince every person in the US this is for all the marbles, then nothing will. Obviously we have a significant portion of our citizens who are, sans the niceties, on the other side. That Skeery got 20%, much less 47% is mind boggling to me. I do not have much confidence that our remaining non-idiotarian population has the stones or the brains to stay the course when it gets bad -- unless it comes home to roost. If the fight is here, then they'll finally get it. I'd prefer the fight was over there. Timing is everything ("You can't wait for good timing.") and it looks like Bush will be around and sitting in the big chair when Iran (and its puppet Syria) pop up for resolution. Who will be sitting there when the time comes to deal with Saudi? When the PakiWakis stop fighting each other and turn outward? Etc. Etc. Post-Bush looks very bleak to me, right now. The last year or so of Bush might be bleak, too, due to our sizable insane population segment. Just thinking aloud. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 13:24 |
| #8 You've identified the rub, Mike. "If it does..." Where is that line? I came to a very harsh conclusion, after much coffee and cheese danish, that we have to free ourselves of some treasured notions - especially our self-image. It's part 'n parcel to the hue and cry over Bush making pre-emption an acceptable policy for the US. I'm sure you know the still ongoing chattering class mantra of the "illegal war" - a direct result of pre-emption policy - even though he checked off every box along the way, UNSC, etc. Bush can't buy a break. And if they hated that one, just wait til they get a load of going down 'n dirty, fighting fire with fire. To "win" against these guys, we will have to do, as you say, "erase, not arrest" -- and that will cause yet another round of BS memery and wailing and gnashing of teeth - demonizing all involved. The closest example I can conjure up is the Pacific island-hopping campaign against Japan. Holed up in honeycomb caves, we were forced to use grenades and flame throwers - even tank round fired point-blank into the cave mouth. My uncle told me first-hand stories that literally blew my young mind. The public only "gets it" on a very general level - WW-II was the last time that will be allowed to happen. The vets of that series of fights were some tough SOB's, cuz they did the deed and suffered in silence. There were similar Vietnam episodes, of course, but most who might be inclined to talk about the shit they did as tunnel rats, for example, have had enough of being demonized for doing the only thing they could. My point here is that our internal enemy, the Moonbat / socialist / LLL / MSM "cabal" is poised to blow anything done out of proportion and lead Johnny Dumbass and Madge Quiltmaker to conclude we are bad for fighting fire with fire - even if it was to secure their lives and permit them the freedom to bash the good folks who had to do the deed. Gonna get ugly and no one who hasn't been there before, personally, is prepared for what that will entail. If we can keep the Whack-a-Dick game on the video-game level, ala Gulf War I, then they'll shut up and marvel at the tech. If not, well, it's going to be a nasty nasty revelation. Recall the reaction to the "highway of death" as the Iraqis fled Kuwait City with their stolen goodies. What did they think it would be like? Disneyland? Six Flags? TV? Fucking morons and lying whores. Just my take. I've written about this several times, waaay back, and found myself in a shit-storm. And that was on RB. Imagine the NYT and it's tools and how they will react. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 13:15 |
| #7 .com Did we have to kill every Native American? Seems the Army did destroy directly or indirectly a number of tribes and clans. Others, paying attention, learned not to bother the wrong people. Its not nice, but I don't think by the time the actions occurred, those with the power care much anymore. Didn't have to do everyone. Just enough. There is a trigger event to yet occur for our culture. When the idiots playing primitive war stupidly cross that point, they'll release any constraint from us to do what we are fully capable of. When the Japanese thought they could raise the cost of continuing the War in the Pacific to a level that will alter the American intent to finish it in a Jacksonian manner, Truman appearently had no problem with the option he took to get their undivided attention. Note even then, the 'die hards' still tried to prevent a resolution to the issue, but others overcame their dead end influence cause they had a self preservation motive whether it was individual or cultural. We'll start with the hotbed locations [like we don't know where those are]. Just waiting for that trigger event to happen. |
| Posted by: Chavish Grilet6152 2005-07-08 12:54 |
| #6 Fair question, Brother .com. I am specifically thinking of the Israeli approach. Don't hit back just at the cannon fodder, go for the bosses; don't arrest, erase. Incidentally, this is largely what we're doing in the ME--regime change is the Israeli approach writ large. I don't, and Pres. Bush doesn't, want this to become a general war between the civilized world and Islam, or between the civilized world and Arabs as a class. Arabs, and Moslems, are created just as equal as you and me, and endowed by our Creator with all the same inalienable rights we have. They have goons for rulers, and an arguably messed-up culture, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a shot at something better. All that having been said, if it does come down to a general war between the civilized world and Islam, or between the civilized world and Arabs as a class--because they choose it to be that--I have no trouble figuring out what side to root for, and no qualms about doing what needs to be done. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-07-08 12:40 |
| #5 Time to clarify... and that means Devil's Advocate... CG / mm821 - Carthago delenda est? 1) Pray tell, in precisely what locations would this be exercised? 2) And the collateral damage - those who were "Moderate Muslims", innocently going about their lives? 3) And those who are embedded within other societies, such as the UK and US? Will Detroit have to be burned and salted, as well? ... Mike - A Law Enforcement approach? How would you identify the baddies you want to hunt down and erase, exactly? Or are you saying the Israeli Whack-a-Leader game? ... I'm asking these questions of all of you because without the answers, and the stones to back the selected soluition up without hesitation or moral prevarication and quibbling, we don't have dick. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 12:24 |
| #4 By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all. This is why the John Kerry option ("get back to where we view terrorism as a nuisance") won't work. In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges. Therefore, what might be called the "modified Carthaginian option:" identify those who perpetrate and benefit from the blood feud, and ruthlessly, systematically erase them--not Arab populations generally, but the terrorist/thugocratic elite; the Saddams and Osamas and Arafats and Rantisis and Imam Whatsisnames and Prince Al-Whoevers. The reprisal should not be proportionate to the attack, since that's just buying in to the rules of the blood feud game. No, make it disproportionate, and deliver a message: if you start a blood feud with us, you, your house, and all you value in life will be exterminated. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-07-08 12:13 |
| #3 I love the Carthinian option. Notice, after the third Punic War, the romans never had problems with the Carthinians again. Same with the Greeks and the decimating of Athens, same with the Gauls, Britains..... We have history on our side, man! |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-08 11:53 |
| #2 *slaps forehead* Thx, Mike! Lee, you magnificent son of a bitch! You're absolutely right. Massive Duh! A blood feud it is. I wonder how folks are gonna deal with this. It, uh, doesn't fit the usual Western scenarios, models, world-views, solution sets, or psychodramas. It's, um, in yer face and nasty. It's uh, guaranteed to harsh yer mellow. I'm thinkin' it'll break some folks' minds like dry twigs... "Nope, can't wrap my mind around, it, so it can't be true!" Uh, huh. Time to plug in, wiretrippers. Remember, you use cold water to get the blood out. Hollyweird will love it, cuz it means the WoT can be serialized - w00t! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-08 11:30 |
| #1 He ignors the Carthaginian option. Certainly solves the old blood feud problem. The difference between a society that practices modern [objective based] warfare versus a society locked into primitive [social based] warfare. |
| Posted by: Chavish Grilet6152 2005-07-08 11:26 |