Tag Archives: kkk

Federalism, Counterinsurgency, Christianity, and the Klan

Barnett ponders Brave New War

One thing Robb’s book made me realize: Core states tend to be bottom-heavy (more government below and thinner on top–e.g., the U.S. police structure), whereas Gap states tend to be top-heavy (and capital-centric to boot). The former structure disincentives the insurgent (the locals have vibrant local government), the latter is far more vulnerable to their penetration and supplanting.

Federalism (states rights, whatever you call ti)is an example of political defense-in-depth. By making it possible for insurgencies to win local vicotires, it discourages them from attacking the entire system. Further, the fact that the insurgents might actually win forces the local political elite to actually care about defeating them. Otherwise, regional governors will think that “I will leave, then this place will be someone else’s problem.”

Two fate of variations of Christianity, early Christianity as preached by Jesus and Paul and the Ku Klux Klan as devised by Nathan Bedford Forrest, show this well. The Christians were attacked by a centralized system where no limited victory was possible. However, their local opponents were only lukewarm in their opposition. This attitude went back to the Crucifixion, with both Governor Pilate and King Herod generally unconcerned about Jesus’s fate. The centralized nature of the Roman state meant that Christians would be persecuted until they took over the whole country. So they were persecuted for a long time. And then they took over the whole country.


The United States government, however, abandoned its war against the Klan after about a decade. While militarily defeated, the political wing of the Ku Klux Klan (in the form of local Democratic Parties) soon gained power across the South and were able to implement their policies. Then the violence against the State stopped. This was unfortuante for the victims involved. However, while the centralized Roman persecution of Christians meant that time was on the side of the insurgents (just wait long enough and some mircale will happen), the decentralized American system meant that time was against the insurgents (the nothern states merely waited until they were politically powerful to reinvade with minimal bloodshed).

symbol of early christianity


Read the rest of Tom’s thoughts on his blog.

Chilling Interview with Iraqi Insurgent Leader

Chilling Interview with Baathist/Qaedist Insurgent Leader

A very well connected reader of tdaxp has, in the last few days, conducted an interview with a man he believes to be very high up in the Iraqi insurgency. He is safely out of Iraq. His interview is now online, and I suggest it be read in full. The nature and aims of the Iraqi insurgency cannot be properly understood without knowing our enemy.

After being seated in his office, I said: “Colonel [name withheld], I came especially to learn your views in regard to the condition of your civil and political affairs in Anbar Provence, and the Sunni areas generally. I desire them for publication in [newspaper withheld]. I do not wish to misrepresent you in the slightest degree, and therefore only ask for such views as you are willing that I should publish.

“I have not now,” he replied, “and never have had, any opinion on any public or political subject which I would object to having published. I mean what I say, honest and earnestly and only object to being represented. I dislike to be placed before our countries in a false position, especially as I have not saught the reputation which I have gained.”

I replied, “Sir, I will publish only what you say, and then you cannot posssibly be misreprsented. Our people desire to know your feeling toward the Iraqi Government, your men both inside and outside of Anbar Province, and upon the question of the Shia electoral majority.”

“Well, sir,” said he, “When I surrendered my 7,000 men in 2003, I accepted a parole honestly, and have observed it faithfully, up to today. I have counseled peace in all the speeches I have made; I have advised my people to submit to the laws of the State, oppressive as they are, and unIslamic as I believe them to be. I was paroled, and not pardoned until the issuance of the last proclamation of general amnesty, and therefore did not think it prudent for me to take any active part until the oppression of my people became so great that they could not endure it, and then I would be with them. My friends thought differently and sent me to Mosul, and I am glad that I went there.”

“Then I suppose, colonel, that you think the oppression has become so great that your people should no longer bear it?”

“No,” he answered, “it is growing worse hourly; yet I have said to the people, stand fast; let us try to right the wrong by legislation. A few weeks ago I was called to Ramadi to counsel with other gentlemen who had been prominently identified with the cause of the former government, and we then offered pledges which we thought would be satisfactory to Mr. al-Maliki and his government, and we told them that if they would not call out their army we would agree to preserve order and see that the laws were enforced. The parliamentary committee certainly led me to believe that our proposition would be accepted, and no soldiers mobilized. Believing this, I came home, and advised all of my people to remain peaceful, and offer no resistance to any reasonable law. It is true that I never have recognized Mr. al-Maliki’s government as having any legal existence, yet I was willing to submit to it for a time, with the hope that the wrongs might be righted peacefully.”

“What are your feelings towards Mr. al-Maliki’s government, Colonel?”

“I loved the old government in 2003. I love the old regime yet. I think we have the best State in the world, if administered as it was before the war. I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it. I believe Mr. al-Maliki’s government to be composed, as I know it is in Anbar, of the worst men on God’s earth – men who would not hesitate at no crime [sic], and who have only one object in view – to enrich themselves.”

“In the event of resumed operations against you, do you think there will be any resistance offered to their acts?” I asked.

“That will depend upon circumstances. If the soldiers are simply called out, and do not interfere with or molest anyone, I do not think there will be any fight. If, on the contrary, they do what I believe they will do, commit outrages, or even one outrage, upon the people, they and Mr. al-Maliki’s government will be swept out of its existence; not a radical will be left alive. If the militia are called out, we cannot but look upon it as a declaration of war, because Mr. Malikihas already issued his proclamation directing them to shoot down the “terrorists” wherever they find them, and he calls all Muslim men “terrorists.”

Read the Rest