That comes across as a bit of a non sequiter, Bowser. Though the article was written with a noticeable RightWing POV, it's also noticeably more reasoned than most such rants.

I think the book under review (which I haven't read; relying on the review) might make some useful points. A while back I started wondering about how the lack of a formal organization representing Islam affected its relationship with our formal nation-states, and reading now about Islam's tribal cultural matrix sharpens my understanding of the phenomenon. It's not, by now, any mystery why Cheney's "they'll welcome us as liberators" fantasy took a face plant in the desert of Iraq. Our system of a formal national government, operated by democracy, and establishing all-pervading uniform laws throughout the land, really is too alien and incompatible with existing culture to take root as easily as the Bush Regime's fevered dreams promised. There's certainly a vast amount of chauvinism and jingoism in the Bush fantasies, but that's not really what the book is about.

It's interesting how American Conservatives show a strong streak of tribalism themselves, and perhaps their love of jingoistic non-explanations like "they jes' hates us" reflects an aversion to acknowledging the similarities. Kurtz strayed dangerously close to this revelation, but sheered away just in time:

anthropologists commonly characterize segmentary tribal systems as intensely individualist, egalitarian, and democratic. This is arguably the central paradox of Middle Eastern social life. Muslim tribal society is both fundamentally collectivist and profoundly individualist. In the absence of state power and formal political hierarchies, no man of the tribe can, by right, command another. All males are equal, free to dispose of their persons and property and to speak in councils that determine the fate of the group.

The last bit, especially, sounds very much like Libertarian utopia. Then there was this:

Arab tribesmen are preoccupied with maintaining deterrence and prepared to use force preemptively, if necessary--rather like über neocons. The ironic but very real parallel is a function of the de facto stateless anarchy in which Arab Bedouin live--and the de facto global anarchy that hawkish conservatives rightly believe to be the underlying reality of the international system.

Puts the RightWing hatred of attempts to establish international institutions in a new light, doesn't it? They're as unwilling to give up the familiar international tribalism as Bedouins are to give up their way of life.

And then there's "segmentary feuding", which to my eye is a good description of RightWing politics the last couple of decades. On the Right, the normally-incompatible tribes of Big Business and populist social conservatives unite as "brothers" to fight their Liberal "cousins"; the extreme Right and moderates fight bitterly over who will be their candidate this year, then when the outcome is certain, come together to fight their common enemy.

I can hear the howls of outrage from the Right already. No, I'm not saying that American Conservatives are the same as Islamic terrorists...please, get a grip. What I am saying is that recognizing underlying similarities based on common human psychology and heritage is one hell of a better tool for understanding the situation we're in than "they jes hates us!". That kind of jingoism exists for one purpose only: To divide "us" from "them" and to maintain the segmentary feud with Islam. Those who actively work to obstruct understanding of our opponent are betraying our side by deliberately depriving us of our most powerful intellectual weapon.