By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« Barnett and Berman Network Security (CompSci And PoliSci Makes NetSci) | HomePage | Chris Bowers on Political Demography »

Saturday, June 11, 20051118547000

Delusional Iraqi Arab Sunnis (Slouching Toward Lakotization)

"5 Marines Killed, 4 Wounded, 21 Bodies Found, Sunnis Reject offer on Constitutional Committee ," by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 11 June 2005, http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/5-marines-killed-4-wounded-21-bodies.html.

Juan Cole makes a startling comment in response to Sunni Arab demands that they (who boycotted) should get more seats at the Constitutional Convention than the Kurds (who participated in the election):

The Sunni Arabs want 25 additional seats, more than the 15 that the Kurds have. In part this demand reflects their unrealistic estimation of the size of their ethnic group. They often assert that Iraq has a Sunni Arab majority.

This may be one reason for the Sunni Arab boycott in election. If Sunni Arabs believe that they are an electoral majority, having a "Sunni Arab" list come in third would be evidence of massive fraud. So the Sunni Arabs could not have accepted the outcome of a free-and-fair election. Therefore, their leadership made them boycott, to prevent them from either perceiving a failed election or realizing the truth (and so isolating the Sunni Arab masses from the Sunni Arab leadership).

Of course, this would imply that the latest Sunni Arab gestures are just feints, and that a lakota option might be the only answer to the insurgency...

One last point from Dr. Cole:

In fact, Shiites probably form 62 percent and Kurds may be 18 percent. Given that Christians, Turkmen and some other small minorities make up 5 percent, Sunni Arabs could be as little as 15 percent of the population.

Which means that an ethnic chart of Iraq looks like:


For the sake of the 85% of Iraqis who are not Sunni Arab, how long do we let the daily murders go on? How long do we jeopardize the future of that 85% in an attempt to appease the fifteen-percenter rejectionists? We have lakotaed the Lakotas. We can lakota the Sunnis.


It won't work because they can just cross into Syria, shift into Egypt, scatter across the Maghreb. Worst of all, they can simply go to Europe. Lakota style humiliation of Sunni arabs in Iraq is simply not feasible because escape is possible into places which will harbor their dysfunctional culture.

Posted by: TM Lutas | Monday, June 13, 2005

TM, Lakotization is separate from humiliation. While humiliation of selected network nodes can be part of a lakota strategy, full lakotization involves the obliteration of the enemy's pre-modern networks (family, clan, tribe, &c). It is a long-term strategy, involving a generational effort. But we know that it works, and that it is achievable by local forces without the intervention of foreign forces. Off the top of my head, lakotization would involve

First Stage: Conquest. This is readily achievable, as the enemy's insurgent strategy involves fighting a conventionally powerful opponent. To be successful, our side needs police control over an area for a month or so.

Second Stage: Deinfantization. Remove all children ages 4-11 to state boarding schools in another part of the country. Younger than four, and the child requires intensive nuturing that the parents can best provide. An advantage of lakotization is that it involves respecting the fundemental human rights of the enemy, and inhumane nurseries would not be conducing to success. Older than 11, and the child is already a warrior and so inappropriate for boarding schools. Remove both boys and girls. Boys are the future warriors, and so removing them from the enemy's Pre-Modern Networks is a mid-term success in itself. Girls are future culture-transmiters, as traditions are passed down by mothers; removing girls from the enemy's Pre-Modern Networks perpares for long term success.

Third Stage: Renormalization. The child grows accustomed to life under the State and apart from the enemy's Pre-Modern Network. All contact with the enemy should be ended. To accomodate institutionalization, clear life-paths should be available for the future youth under the State.

Repeat steps 2 and 3 as needed.

Fourth Stage: Victory. The enemy's networks are severely weakened after several 2-3 cycles. The enemy is neutered and unable to form an effective fighting force. The remnants of the enemy are now dependent on the State, permanantly shifting the correlation of forces.

Escape of individual members is not a warrior, because the State's concern is ending the internal Pre-Modern War. Their escape helps the state in this goal.

Posted by: Dan | Monday, June 13, 2005

First, your terminology is offensive. Saying we have "lakota"ed a people by destroying their culture is about as wonderful as saying people in Darfur were "jew-ized."
Second, the Lakota culture is not dead. It's alive and kicking. The problem is the culture of alcoholism and extreme poverty that go along with it.
Third, your understanding of Lakota history is about as advanced as that of Frederick Jackson Turner's understanding of the American West. You rely entirely on folklore and mythology.
You also seem to completely ignore recent and ancient Mesopotamian history, in particular the Persian Gulf geopolitics and power structures since colonialization.
As such, I find your analogy pretty tough to stomach.

Posted by: Seth | Wednesday, June 15, 2005


For the term, I was trying to base it on "copenhagen," which in some circles is a verb implying "destroy a fleet in harbor" (after the British "copenhagend" the Danish fleet in retaliation for siding with Napoleon). You would be right to say the term is not "to dane." I certainly am open to a different phrase to describe the act.

I agree that there is still a Lakota culture. That is a negative effect of lakotization (or whatever you call it) -- a distorted and dysfunctional version of the culture remains. It prevents assimilation.

Do you have any references to help me learn Lakota history? Or Mesopotamian and the Persian Gulf?

I agree the presentation is tough to stomach. A better presentation would emphasize lakotization's "happy ending."

Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, June 15, 2005


Glad I could help! Right now your website redirects to a French commercial site. Just wanted you to know.


Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Yes it is because some terrorists raped me and the id of my site and they changed the ftp password :(

Posted by: John | Sunday, August 21, 2005

French terrorist monsters! CRUSADE!

Posted by: Catholicgauze | Sunday, August 21, 2005

Lakotization? A dubious conception.
For one thing the Lakota were a relatively small tribal grouping, they did not have millions of compatriots waiting across several borders, nor millions in potential financing available from those compatriots. Herd Sunni kids into "boarding schools" on the faint hope that they can be socialized into good democrats? This is a joke. Perhaps back in Ottoman times, or back in the 1800s in the US West, but this is 2005 folks.

No dramatic "Lakota" option is needed in reference to Iraq. The insurgency can be defeated just as many other insurgencies are defeated: clear and hold with clear political objectives in mind. Clearing operations will break up big conmcentrations of guerilla/"Lakota" forces, and holding operations involve political reforms and restructuring, effective small unit operations, and hard-hitting targeted interdiction, or "sweep" ops internal to the territory or against external supporters of the guerillas when needed.

The Brits did this successfully in Malaya, as did Magaslay in the Phillipines. The US made considerable progress along these lines after decimating the VC Order Of Battle post 1968, post Westmoreland under Creighton Abrams. The US Marines and their joint Marine-Viet patrols and security showed how effective small unit ops could be once big enemy concentrations had been broken up, and are often cited as an "if only" option in the literature. Heavy interdiction ops in Laos and Cambodia undertaken only in the final years with primarily second-rank forces (Viet, rather than first run US troops like Marines) bought SVN several years of extra time, but somehow never were made earlier when they could have been also effective. Of course major external supporters like CHina or Russia could not be attacked directly, and the VC/NVA did have several hundred thousand hard core troops on the ground, plus a helpful anti-war movement in their enemy's heartland, making for a much more favorable situation for their insurgency than the Sunni in Iraq.

We all know there are major differences, but the essentials of these examples show that no miracle cures or "Lakotization" is needed in Iraq. We already know how to defeat the insurgents. The crucial question is are we willing to apply that knowledge and do we have the political will and staying power to do so?

Posted by: Enrique Cardova | Wednesday, October 19, 2005


Thank you for your comment. My ideas have evolved somewhat since this, from the name ("family liberation" http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/06/29/lakotization_is_family_liberation.html) to the belief that family liberation can be made to happen on its own (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/06/25/lakotization_of_the_iraqi_sunni_arabs_family_disintegration.html).

Agreed that Malaya and South Vietnam are examples of successful counter-insurgencies. Family liberatoin is the best option when "clear political objectives" are unacceptable to the existing tribal networks. As in Sunni Arab Iraq, where tribes are violently rejecting a world where they lose power over the country.

Likewise I agree that the anti-war movement in the West, and America specifically, was the Viet Cong's greatest ally. Retired USMC Col. TX Hammes has written on this very well (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/05/mao_s_3_stages_of_4gw_now_with_tractors.html).

Family liberation is not a miracle cure. It is painful medicine. The negative effects of family liberation are still with the Lakota. But their campaigns of mass ethnic cleansing are over.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, October 19, 2005