Introduction
The tribe is a sociocultural phenomenon with a physical kinship system and socially constructed reality model. What binds a tribe together can be geography, shared ancestry, or a certain legal code demanding allegiance between the members or a mixture of the above. There are thousands of tribes in the Middle East and hundreds in Iraq. In the Middle East, tribal society is seen as traditionally ordered on a number of levels through tribe, clan, or through extended family. As Al-Mohammad posits, in the Middle East, a tribe is a term used to describe a relation where a leader offers to protect a member for certain compensation. There is a need for a better understanding of the term tribe in the context of the Middle East. An analysis of the term tribe in the modern context reveals the fact that the term has evolved to imply an outfit formed to offer protection to societal members for monetary consideration and not necessarily people from the same lineage.
In the Middle East, most individuals normally identify by plagiarism checker search engine, as belonging to a certain tribe. The tribes are made of clans but when amalgamated, they form federations. The tribes anywhere have their uniqueness but in the Middle East, they are mainly used to offer security. For example in Iraq, tribes are a vital part of the social and political fabric. It can be argued that the case for tribal power is mainly due to the lack of a strong state in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Colonialism divided the Middle East into artificial states along tribal or ethnic lines. The tribal outfits were however dealt a blow in Iraq after the country adopted a new constitution in 1970 and President Saddam Hussein campaigned against tribalism. However, that changed after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and as Al-Mohammad notes the invasion of Iraq to oust President Saddam Hussein created the space for tribal outfits to remerge in Iraq.
Basra for example, a town that lies on the Kuwait and Iran border, was a hotbed of all of Iraq’s conflicts. Basra is mainly inhabited by Shiites while Saddam was a Sunni. As with all other people, a Sunni will likely prefer to nominate fellow Sunnis to a country’s strategic positions. This is exactly what Saddam did and the Shiites in Basra felt that that was outright tribalism by the president. The wars Iraq waged against Iran and Kuwait were precursors for greater turmoil and conflict for the ordinary Iraqis and mainly Basrans. Ordinary Shiites in Basra could have waged a war against people from other tribes occupying important positions in their own backyard. As Al-Mohammad notes, an intifada (an uprising) was waged against Saddam’s rule by the Shiites in Basra. Feeling threatened, any president would have tried to quash the uprising and this is what Saddam did. Al-Mohammad further notes that Saddam was reluctant to develop the city and instead diverted its resources to his hometown and Baghdad killing Shia leaders who opposed him. Normally in such cases, the people being discriminated against or persecuted will protest against the government. They will look upon their local leaders to guide them forming outfits that they will feel more connected with. This will give birth to new distinct tribes, out to help the vulnerable poor and offer them much-needed security.
After a war, the people remain terrified but life has to go on. In the Middle East for example, due to the proliferation of guns, tribes will fight against each other to see who gains control of certain areas. As Al-Mohammad conjectures, a new period was heralded into Iraq's history after the US invasion in 2003. People looted, were kidnapped or killed. The country and indeed Basra descended into lawlessness. Iraq’s army and security apparatus were in confusion and failed to take charge of security in the country. This is what caused the country to be separated along tribal streaks. As a result, Iraq was split into tribal identities with no government to offer security but militias. This was true to Basra as militia gangs terrorized innocent citizens. This is what will force people to belong to certain gangs that will offer them protection in Iraq. For example, Al-Mohammad notes that the Garramcha tribe intimidated people by intentionally ramming other cars in the street and demanding to be compensated. Failing to honor that, they can kill or harm motorists. The tribes were therefore important in protecting individuals from gangs or other tribes.
When one belongs to a certain tribal gang, they are assured of their safety. This is what resulted in Basrans accepting the tribes to offer them protection. As Al-Mohammad asserts, the modern tribe in Iraq is a new phenomenon with each tribe laying authority with respect to its historical lineage. The presidency of Saddam Hussein silently morphed tribalism in Iraq by ensuring people from his tribe were posted in crucial organizations while the majority of Basrans were shunned. This is what many people think gave rise to the tribal groupings in Iraq formed to offer security.
Conclusion
The emergence of modern tribes in Iraq was a haphazard collection of like-minded people who offered to protect others for a token after the Iraqi government failed to provide them with security. It is clear that the emergence of tribal outfits in Iraq was a result of the changing political landscape that failed to offer protection to its citizens leaving space for gangs. Wars against Iran, and Kuwait and later invasion by the US saw Saddam Hussein use the tribes to consolidate his support across the country. Ordinary citizens in cities like Basra were only left with the tribes to offer them protection without which they had nowhere to turn to.
