Discussion in 'Infantry' started by tomahawk6, Feb 19, 2005.
Tribe cums before nation with Arabs, so tribal based units make sense to me.
Yes, as Johnwilly says, the tribe is more important than the 'nation' - this ingrained ideal permeates Africa.
Perhaps we should look forward to not a democratic Iraq, but to a collection of smaller states who govern themselves - an opposite idea to the Grosser Europa which seems to be on the agenda in our back yard.
Look to the Indian sub-continent, originally a collection of principalities which were united under British rule.
Since independence we have seen a progression of breakaway states starting with Pakistan, West and East Pakistan, changing to Bangladesh, and the continuing independence struggles of various states.
Yes, the smaller countries have their problems, but is it for us to decide their future ?
There was another quite powerful place which presented a problem to a couple of generations of British soldiers that has now also become a federation of smaller countries.
There are a few on this site that remember the Soviet Union, are we more or less threatened by these re-emergent nations ?
Would these smaller nations in Iraq be better or worse than the problem with which we are now presented ?
Perhaps an example closer to home is Yugoslavia - a collection of independant states "united" under the forceful might of Tito, which dismembered into civil war once that grip was lost.
The parallel with Iraq is obvious
And of course, the UK is schizophrenic in this respect... whilst Europe marches towards unity the United Kingdom is being split up into "regions"
Never a true'r word spoken
Separate names with a comma.