SADDR AGAIN -HONOR/SHAME PLUS POWER CHALLENGE

He makes his play once again without the matrix of allArab state takeovers; he doesn't have the army. He can't just seize power. Now he has to be eliminated or he wins by default. His army must be slaughtered. This is a direct attack on the new government. It is up to the new government to fight or FOAD. It's that simple. The chain of honor and shame plays out. Saddr feels shamed. He must regain his honor and he does this no matter if he wins or loses.

There is a factor that is always in play with every Middle East political milk shake, a factor that Pryce-Jones has called the Power/Challenge dialectic. The power-challenge is always wrapped up in the Shame vs Honor cesspool. In the history of the Middle East Sadr can only be taken care of by assassination/murder, defeat and exile, or defeat and prison. The same is true for his family. They have to be dealt with permanently. (Note that Saddam's daughters are funding terrorists loyal to Saddam)

This is "normal" in the Middle East. That is why people like Nassar in Egypt kept concentration camps and prisons, murdered challengers, and died a natural death. Saddam was more vicious and if it were not for America and Britain he would also have died a natural death. By the "rules" of both the power challenge dialectic and the honor shame dialectic the only way Saddr loses is if he remains alive and a loser. Shame is the worst dynamic in this mix. The new Iraq government has to let him win by killing him. Allow him to keep his honor while the government also establishes their honor. That is it.

I think I was like that through the third grade, or maybe it was college, or maybe during my first divorce (you can all get that one). We all were, it's not so difficult to understand. What is difficult for Americans and Europeans to actually do, even when we understand, is that killing is the only way to handle this. The Brits could never bring themselves to just kill people for no other reason than to keep order. Neither can we. The reason Iraqis aren't upset by Abu Grahib is that they consider it normal for the victor to stomp on the losers. How else do you stay in power? Losing to somebody vicious actually preserves honor (how can I resist, I did the best I could). Once you know your leader is vicious it allows you to do the only thing you can do; just go with the flow with your precious honor intact. Keep in mind that while this has been going on for thousands of years, the Nazis made it seem even better. Never forget that the entire Middle East was within a moth's eybrow of joining with the Nazis during WWII. Only when the Brits got vicious and seized Iraq, throwing out the King/leader/dictator was the threat removed.

And how does government function under these circumstances? Bakshish. You buy your way everywhere, and a really good way to retain your honor.

Sadr is normal. Being nice is being weak. There is no room for nice within this convoluted "system". That's the way it is.