« "The Longest Morning" | Main | Officials: Why the Violence Has Declined in Iraq »

Mohammed Fadhil explains a nuance of Iraqi society I'd failed to fully grasp on my trips to the region:

In order to make a comparison, and try to predict what's likely to happen in the south, one needs to first understand exactly what happened in Anbar.

The core of the struggle there is an old conflict of interests between clerics and tribal sheiks. The two groups competed for leadership of the society for centuries. Even though the sheik might show loyalty to the cleric he still hides enmity for him; they're each other's nemesis.

This conflict of interests was evident in what happened during the revolution of 1920, less than a century before the division between those who supported the clergy's revolt and those who kept their allegiance to the tribe and preserving its interests.

The difference between clerics and sheiks is huge; the first do not believe in negotiation and speak in terms of "halal" and "haram" claiming to be representative of heaven's justice. Obviously you can't negotiate deals with God so as far as the clerics are concerned, society must follow them, without asking questions.

By contrast, the tribal sheik was raised and taught to know how to lead productive negotiations. Tribal leaders have long played the role of judges to settle disputes among individuals within the tribe or between different tribes and when they do so they try to make sure that decisions are reached through consultation with the two sides of the dispute and would acceptable to both as well. In other words a sheik has to be a good negotiator, willing to hear both sides of the story and convince them to make concession in order to contain the problem and restore order -- it's an important part of his job.

Read the rest for his assessment of how "Awakening" prospects in southern Iraq are different from Anbar.

(Via HA)

Posted by Bill at November 8, 2007 10:38 AM | TrackBack (0)