Saturday, July 09, 2005

TCS: Tech Central Station - War in Pieces: The Blood Feud

Lee Harris has been pondering who and what we're up against with the Islamist terrorists. He thinks he might be starting to get things into focus:
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. Finally, wars, when they were fought, tended to resolve into a series of increasingly climactic battles, allowing each side to keep score of its position, as in a game of chess, and ending in some well-established gesture, like waving the white flag or slaughtering your enemies en masse.

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.
He goes on to explain the characteristics of blood feuds. Full commentary here.

Harris is the author of

Civilization and it's Enemies
Civilization and Its Enemies


Hat tip: American Future

1 comment:

Bookworm said...

I started Lee Harris' book last year, agreed with most of what he said, read energetically for a while, and then got exhausted halfway through. He's a brilliant writer and thinker, but I just didn't have the mental strength to stick with him!