Afghan Behaviors Explained

Why they do what they do, and how to understand and

work with it in Battlefield and Staff Environments

FACS

=======================================

John Kirbow, GS-13, Human Terrain Team (HTT) AF3, RC-East,

Afghanistan

Contents
I.

Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 9

II. The Art of making complicated things simple-a Barstool approach to everyday
understanding.............................................................................................................................. 11

III.

Understanding the Commonality of Human Behavior................................................. 12

1.

Examples of the universality of human emotion ........................................................................................ 13

2.

Its not just Afghansits universal ........................................................................................................... 14

3.

The Universal Layer explained further ....................................................................................................... 15

IV.

The Tribal Nature of Afghans Explained ...................................................................... 17

1.

A Brief Intro (to clear up possible confusing between Islam vs. Tribal)

2.
The Origins of Tribalism, Honor Codes, and Cooperative Behavior: An Anthropological and
Satirical ( and very short) Summary
3.

Tribes, cooperative behaviors, honor systems and reciprocity Where did it come from?

V.
John Cena, Prison Hierarchies, and the Pashtun concept of Manhood. . .......... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
3.

Prison rules ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.

If you understand the WWE, you understand a lot about Afghans........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

VI. Lies, Contradictions, and Cognitive Dissonance: Understanding Afghan

posturing31
1. Polygraphs and panhandlers
2.

VII. Why are Afghans so corrupt? ...................................................................................... 40

1.

Corruption explained ................................................................................................................................... 40

2.

Comparing corruption in our world to theirs ............................................................................................ 40

3.

Do they distinguish between acceptable corruption and bad corruption? ......................................... 42

4.
Rule of thumb: normal corruption vs. bad corruption(and the right balance)
42
Why are they so angry at this guy being corrupt, when they are just as bad?

5.

6. Main Point: Afghans are corrupt because they respond to incentivesjust like
everyone else on earth
48

VIII.

IX.

Routine smuggling vs. bad smugglinga general distinction x.

1.

Sowhat is the right balance? Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.

In summary Error! Bookmark not defined.

Projects, Gratitude, and Lies: Why generosity doesnt (usually) buy a village

1.

Big Question One: Why do they often ask for projects they dont really need?

2.

Big Question Two: We do so much for them, and yet they dont seem to help us in return. Why?

3.

The Analogy of a Low-Income Community in America

4.

Now back to Afghanistan

5.

X.

Scoring and Foreplay: To Score the Rapport, you need Cultural Foreplay

Poverty, Projects and Life Contentment: What Afghans (Really) Want

Introduction
This work will hopefully help soldiers and those who view Afghanistan from any lens, from the
Combat Outpost to the TV screen to not only better understand Afghans but to better humanize
them, to make their often complex, confusing and seemingly bizarre, backward behavior more
discernible, and more relatable from a human perspective we can all share from different cultural
and geographical vantage points. While the unwritten but widely stated and tacitly enforced rules of
political correctness and multicultural diversity often demand that we avoid generalities and metaphors in
describing something as complex and as human as the behavior of one culture or another, this is
sometimes the best and only way to do it. In the case of Brigade Combat Teams, Agribusiness
Development Teams, Civil-Military Operations cells, UN liaisons, Peace and Reintegration Council reps,
USAID and PRT personnel, and many others across the geographical and human Battlespace, I see this as
the best way to convey such a complex subject in its multiple parts and pieces to a wide audience of nonspecialists in the behavioral science realm, and if there is a better way, I am certainly open to it. The
approach here is somewhat unorthodox, as it uses what some may consider informal, barstool narratives
and everyman language to encapsulate real, scientific concepts about human behavior across the
cognitive, psychological, social, tribal and moral landscape of what is arguably the most rugged, complex
yet fascinating place on earth.
The paradox and catch-22 of our Coalition and NATO mission to Afghanistan is that it seems to
overlay a warfighting culture of Western military forces into a place that even Eastern Studies professors
have a hard time truly understanding; that we are fighting in one of the most widely misunderstood
cultures on the planet, with soldiers many of them quite young - who rarely have the time or resources
to devote themselves to this understanding, even as many are quite smart, learned and thirsty for
knowledge. Challenging and problematic still is that on todays Afghan battlefield, these same soldiers
actually do need to understand much of this human landscape and how to navigate the behavioral terrain
spanning its rugged peaks and valleys of lies, truth, deception, friendship, betrayal, loyalty, honor,
reciprocity, survival, livelihood, and a living, breathing cultural entity of social balance called
Pashtunwali.
While it may sound uncouth, the truth is that Afghan behaviors are quite confusing and bizarre to
many non-Afghan forces. This is true not only in Afghanistan but many of the places we have been
sending our soldiers to over the last decade. This perception does not in and of itself mean that any one
facet of behavior or culture is bad or good but rather that there is a gap that needs to be bridged if we
are to foster optimal relationships with the population and human reality in which we are confined to

working.
This paper is based on a grim reality that soldiers and others working with Coalition Forces,
NGOs and governments typically have a limited window of time and energy to devote to really
understanding their fellow Afghans, yet must attempt to do so to the best extent possible. This daunting
task is problematic on several fronts. Firstly, it adds yet another task to the already strained and often
stressed members of the OEF Theater, who must survive, fight, shoot, and communicate while balancing
personal, spiritual and family demands. Many of these people would love to devote more time and effort
to grasping the wonderfully hospitable, historically rich and culturally intriguing human landscape of
what is modern Afghanistan, but cannot afford this luxury in what is often a less than permissive
environment. This is because they must hold personal and team survival, unit mission accomplishment,
and life back home as understandably higher priorities, making this otherwise enjoyable task more of a
burden than a positive endeavor or personal adventure. Add on the fact that many oversees are physically,
emotionally, and psychologically over-extended, and you begin to understand why a rigid academic,
exhaustive approach to explaining Afghan behaviors in such a short and generalized way is not only
useful but morally and operationally necessary.
I have personally and very regretfully - postponed the completion and publishing of this paper
for fear of compromising aspects of my professional and academic credibility due to the near-impossible
nature of this task, at least by the standards of the academia and social science world. Any attempt to
encapsulate a robust, workable, discernible and widely readable explanation of the behaviors of any one
nationality or population will bring an unavoidable onslaught of microscope-level critique and objections
from the intellectual and especially social scientific community. However, the truth is that this is not
written for them; it is written for the soldiers and civilians serving abroad in what is perhaps the most
confusing, complex, rugged society on earth. If there are points of technical flaw, shortcoming, or
problematic wording or explanation in this paper, I will take the hit on it. This needs to get to the soldiers
and key decision-makers downrange, and this is the purpose of this paper.

A Note to the Reader

No one national population is homogenous in its ethnicity, behavioral profile, history, demographics, or
racial composition. This does not literally assume Afghans in general to think and behave alike, and is
admittedly more based on the Pashtun areas of the country in which myself and many others operate.
There is a sizable array of differences alongside the human and behavioral landscape, as anyone in the
social sciences will eagerly testify to. This paper is meant to be an explanatory narrative for a large
and diverse audience those working in Afghanistan, especially soldiers to understand an entire
population in the most direct, straight-forward way possible. Though it delves into behavior science and
cites its sources, it is primarily for the layman, not the academic. It is not meant to be an exhaustive or
highly specialized ethnography on the vast array of differences mentioned above, and any criticism
should at least bear this in mind.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive or rigid academic work on the admittedly subject of Afghan
behaviors, as much as I would like to finish such a work down the road.
As is often attributed to Freud, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not every tell or behavioral indicator
is what it appears, and different motives underlie different behaviors. Sometimes a lie will be the truth, or
a complex answer will be wrong and a simple, obvious one right. There is no substitute for human
intuition, reserved judgment, humility, and common sense in discerning the hidden (or obvious) layer
behind behaviors.
It is necessary (though perhaps should not be) to state the obvious fact that is not intended to literally
depict how all Afghans behave, think and act, but to give the best summary possible for such a complete
spectrum of human behaviors in predominately Pashtun regions of our Theater of War, in the most
expedient, useful manner possible to aid and assist in closing the understanding gap.

A disconcertingly rugged, winding cliff-side road very similar to

the one we took multiple times to a remote community on the Pakistan Border. Our mission was to discuss weapons,
local security forces, and money. The real-life account is used later in the chapter on The Game.

Purpose and Objective

There is a serious understanding gap in Afghanistan between Coalition Forces and Afghan
(especially Pashtun) culture, as well as behavioral norms and informal rulesets. This has
consequences and impacts sometimes serious on people (both CF and local) and on missions.
This paper seeks to help close this information gap as much as possible.
The specific behaviors listed in this paper are derived from what Ive found during my time on
the ground and with staff to be most operationally relevant, and therefore most useful to soldiers
and civilians

Please think of this as a rule of thumb guidebook and a critical thinking aid. It is a tool in the
toolkit and not a complete or perfect set of answers, nor are the explanations offered here going to
always be the right answers in a given situation. It is aimed to help guide and assist people to
think and critically process the environment and behaviors around them just as much as it is to
explain things.
This work is specifically for the soldiers and civilians serving in Afghanistan, to equip them with
a toolkit as best I can, in the most expedient, useful and relevant manner possible. This is meant
to be practical and helpful more than academically rigid. It uses behavioral science, analogies and
explanatory metaphors, to help soldiers and other CF members better avoid harm, reduce
uncertainty and risk, and accomplish their mission.

Bottom line: If better local interaction with the population, or decisions made - as a direct or indirect
result of Coalition Forces reading this paper - leads to even one person coming home alive or unharmed,
it will be worth the effort, and the follow-on criticism by academics that may well ensue.

About the Author

John Kirbow is a Veteran of the US Army Special Operations community, having

served in Nigeria, Baghdad, Basra, Europe, and US Central Command (CENTCOM) Tampa. A devout
linguist, John speaks Arabic, Farsi, German, and Spanish as well as near-fluent Russian, and some Pashto,
Urdu / Hindi, and Serbo-Croat. He also served in his civilian life as a high-level cultural and language
specialist in Afghanistan as a DoD GS-13 with a Brigade Combat Team, which included working with
tribal leaders and helping negotiate face-to-face peace offerings with high-profile Taliban. He also did a
personal venture to the Andes community of Cusco, Peru, doing sustainable development and
sociocultural research with the indigenous Quechua population. As a member of SOF, some of his main
specialties were communications, language, social and cultural terrain mapping, and Information
Operations (IO).
His background includes sociocultural and linguistic immersion in South America, Western
Europe, Southeast Europe (Balkans), Africa, Middle East, Central Asia. His background directly relevant
to this paper includes social and behavioral science, to include psychology, sociology, applied
anthropology and ethnography (including participant observation and rapid participatory assessment) in
the US and various places abroad.
After being honorably discharged in 2008 he decided to put his knowledge and experience into
several large-scale endeavors. Chief among them is applying behavioral science to some of our pressing
social problems, to include poverty, social isolation, prejudice and conflict, ethno-sectarian and religious
conflict, inter-tribal dynamics, and common cognitive biases with hurtful consequences to human
wellbeing. Aside from several full-length books still in the edit stages, he is publishing several white
papers and promotional pamphlets to convey a variety of ideas and approaches, to everything from rebuilding American communities to assisting soldiers in Afghanistan and other conflict zones better
understand and work within the cultural framework they fight in.
He is also partnering with people and serious talent, alongside a diversity of skill, experience and
background, to contribute the tools of behavioral science and Special Operations to the world of social
innovation, not only to help tackle some of our most pressing social problems at home and abroad, but to
cultivate new models of profitable, sustainable business in which everyone benefits, from the local village
economy to the multinational.

I.

Purpose Re-Stated: A Short Treatise on Human Universals

Special Note: If you are in a hurry to find answers to a specific question about Afghan behavior,
refer to the Table of Contents highlighted portions, for convenience and operational relevance.

It takes a great deal of time and effort to understand Afghans and their behavior as it is relevant
to the ISAF mission. The goal of this paper is to make this effort much easier and time shorter,
by conveying the complexities of Afghan behavior to soldiers across the Battlespace in the
simplest, clearest way possible.
While using simple bar language, this paper employees a multi-disciplined approach of various
social and, specifically, behavioral sciences, chiefly sociology, social psychology, cognitive
psychology and cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, game theory, and even the
rapidly emerging and specialized field of neuroeconomicsand attempts to simplify it into a
South Park-Style Narrative of metaphors, examples, and barstool conversation, in a way that
the average Soldier can understand with relative ease. Not an easy task but I will attempt it here
as best I can.
Afghan behaviors have been perplexing soldiers, civilians, leaders and decision-makers for ten
years. 100s if you take it back to the Mongols and 1000s if you take it back to Alexander The
Great. The Afghan-especially Pashtun-people are widely considered the most complex on earth,
operating off of primal yet highly sophisticated rulesets of behavior and action that all but the
experts have been able to wrap their heads around. This has created massive barriers to rapport,
decision-making, and relationship management; understanding such behaviors can go a long way
in protecting lives, money and mission success. The purpose of this paper is to break these

complex behaviors down to a level of understanding that the average soldiers can easily
relate to and use to their advantage on the battlefield and staff environment.

II.

The Art of making complicated things simple-a Barstool

approach to everyday understanding.

The art of taking a complex subject and making it simple is often lost among scientists and
academics. The average specialist in psychology or behavioral economics can write endless
amounts of complex, specialized commentary far more easily than they can break it down into
laymans terms for the average person. That, in a nutshell, is why I am using what I call the
barstool approach to illustrate the concepts in this paper. I have found over the years that
difficult concepts are best discussed and understood at the bar, its that simple. Afghans operate
off of an incredibly complicated and confusing behavioral rule-sets, often near impossible for the
mainstream military to grasp no matter how many formal academic papers are written on it.
What makes this problem worse is that any attempt to explain and de-cipher the complexity of
Afghan culture and behavior on any serious or useful level will likely be met with sizable
amounts of disapproval and offense by many in the social science and wider intellectual
community in general. I will take the hit. Equipping soldiers and others in harms way with
accessible answers takes priority over academic correctness.

In a nutshell, simpler is better. The more I can reduce complicated concepts to simple
illustrations and analogies-i.e. the more I can simplify Afghan behavior into a short, attentiongrabbing paper, without cheating or oversimplifying the explanation, the better. Afghans operate
off of a complex system of behavioral rule-sets widely misunderstood by many, if not most, CF
members (especially if they are new arrivals). I think the best way to explain these behavioral
rule-sets to solders is to speak a language that most soldiers are fluent in: bar-language. That is
correct. I mean exactly what I just said, and for good reason. While some higher-ups will tell me
that bar-language is inappropriate for official papers and products for the military, I beg to
differ in this particular case, and the reason is simple and straightforward:
(1) Afghan behavior is highly complex and unconventional, so an unconventional
explanatory approach is needed if it is to convey a reasonable understanding to a lot of
troops quickly in a relatively short number of pages
(2) A Behavior is also incredibly important, mission-essential and operationally relevant for
both soldiers and staff, and can save lives, limbs, and endless CERP funds if properly

understood. It therefore matters less how it is taught, than that it is effectively taught in
the first place.

(3) The barstool approach seems like the best way to popularize and spread this paper
across the ranks of the military (and civilian) ranks, period. If I can keep it short, simple
and informative, on the most essential aspects of Afghan behavior, then my job here is
successful.

III. Understanding the Commonality of Human Behavior

The key to understanding and deciphering Afghan behavior is to understand universal human
behavior, as seen across different cultures. In short, we all have certain ways of thinking, acting,
and reacting, what social and behavioral scientists call universals. We as humans are governed
by some amount of universal instincts and universal behaviors, but we conceal and manifest theses primal instincts and behaviors differently in different cultures.
Afghans have the same basic emotions that we do, as humans. They get insecure. They
experience fear, both physical and psychological. They get excited or relieved. They experience
jealousy, just like we do. The main difference is, they experience these things for very different
reasons and express them in very different ways.

FiG. Classic reference of the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) and Microexpressions, from the popular TV
show Lie to Me

i.

Examples of the universality of human emotion

That being said, certain facets of human emotion are not only universal, but rooted in primal
instinct. Our ancestral tendencies, such as inter-tribal conflict, sexual rivalry, procreation-seeking
behaviors, fight-or-flight syndrome, heightened alertness, protection of offspring, instinctive
mate selection, reciprocal altruism (tit-for-tat favors, helping someone to get help in return),

blood feuds, are seen today in everyday situations, but concealed behind modern social norms.
We see it all around us:

the polarized cheering and jeering between opposite sides of the bleachers at a sporting
event (concealed tribalism);
the passive-aggressive tension at an upscale cocktail party (often a result of innate
competitive instincts, stemming from primal insecurity) ;
the cringing faces of lying politicians faced with a tough question (the difficulty in
resolving cognitive dissonance, self-contradiction, or concealing an untruth);
insecure cheating spouses (often tied to primal insecurity and the need for selfaffirmation);
a yuppie with a new Ashton Marton or Porsche he can barely afford (often an expensive
penis extension)
a woman flashing the number of children she has to a woman without children whom she
doesnt like (fertility exhibitionism, using offspring and fertility to re-affirm
reproductive desirability or survivability)
a suburban family taking out a nonsensical, risky loan for a new home well beyond their
means (conformist pressure to live up to a perceived norm of the tribe or herd-i.e. home
ownership)
group bullying in middle school (herd-behavior and in-group tribalism);
the excessive price-gouging of engagement rings (due to conformist pressures,
affirmation pressures, competitive fertility pressures, social proof, and the false
consensus effect i.e. falsely thinking that everyone else agrees on something, like the
ideal or obligatory price of a ring)
adult bar fights (in-group vs. out-group tribalism, analyses in depth later in this paper,
as a way to explain Afghan showboating/posturing during many KLEs)

Long story short, the point here is that we all are driven by basic, instinctive emotions, shared
across all cultures, but we express and conceal it in different ways. When examining Afghan
behaviors, we will break them down to these basic emotions, showing that they are human just
like us no matter how off the map their actions may seem. This should help give a sound,
relatable understanding to soldiers and civilians, since universal human emotions and behaviors
(jealousy, rivalry, pride, insecurity, etc) are all things we can relate to.

ii.

Its not just Afghansits universal

While people in Puerto Rico differ significantly in culture and behaviors than people in
Afghanistan, who in turn differ (to a less but still important degree) in culture and behavior from
people in Iraq, and while such differences occur even within countries, cultures and sub-cultures,
there is a universal set of common ancestral habits, norms and ingrained survival behaviors seen
across every culture. These are universals, common facets of our human nature, concealed
differently beneath layers of culture and social norms, but discernible nonetheless if one looks
closely enough. . Such commonality is seen across the fields of environmental psychology,
cognitive psychology, neuroscience and neuroimaging, and interestingly, the emerging sub-field
of neuroeconomics.*

iii.

The Universal Layer explained further

People and cultures differ greatly in how they react to events. In general, it goes without saying
that Arab Muslims react differently to religious satire than secular Swedes. Some parts of Africa
and Latin America will have some ingrained, instinctive distrust within and between certain
communities (more than one will find in, say, Belgium or Canada), due to a long history of
tensions, poverty, exploitation and conflict in these areas, both from within and from without.
This is especially true in Pakistan or Kashmir. Despite maxims of political correctness, it may be
fair to say that some cultures (or, better stated, sub-cultures) tend toward more sporadic violence
and action than others, even within the same area. (*)
However, in spite of these cultural and historical differences in how people react to stress, there
is a core to it all. There are some observable, mostly universal rules of behavior that apply across
the globe. These are, in effect, classical rule-sets of how humans respond to and perception of
stressors, such as information constraints, instability, uncertainty, and the threat of loss. Much of
these rule sets involve opportunism, impulse, and an aversion to long-term cooperation under
uncertainty.
These core trends in human behavior are a sizable and highly problematic contributor to the
failure of efforts and institutions to build up a village, a community, a province, even an entire
part of the world. Unfortunately, they are more or less present across cultures, as a reflection of
finely ingrained and universally shared human nature. This human nature and the
maladaptive or counterproductive behaviors that arise from it, can be explained from an
interdisciplinary perspective psychology, economics, etc-down to the neuroscience levelwith
multiple examples across highly diverse cultures and geographic locals, from Peru to
Afghanistan to Haiti to Brooklyn NY.

We all have the same brain. We are all human. Understanding Afghans is about reducing, or
breaking down, their confusing, strange behaviors to the most basic, universal pieces of human
nature and human instinct.

V.

The Tribal Nature of Afghans Explained

1. A Brief Intro (to clear up possible confusing between Islam vs.

Tribal)

We tend to focus so much on the radical Jihadist side of violence in places like Afghanistan that
we overlook another source of violence: that of honor and revenge. It is not uncommon in
Afghanistan for a woman to be killed by her immediate family for various reasons, such as
initiating a relationship with a man without marital consent. Many such acts of in-family
violence occur in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. These are known as honor killings,
and occur within immediate and extended families, often to women, for real or perceived
violations of Islamic and tribal codes of conduct, especially regarding sexual behavior.
In addition to killings within families, honor-based revenge killings between families, tribes and
sub-tribes occur as well, for a variety of reasons, mainly with the central aim of keeping pace
with a system of public honor and the ability to maintain manhood among friends and
enemies alike. While honor killings within a family (typically targeting women in perceived
violation of sexual norms) and honor/revenge killings between groups have many categorical and
cultural differences, there are at least (among others) two factors that tie them together, one
obvious to outsiders and the other less so:
(1) they occur in Islamic countries within the US CENTCOM AOR, and
(2) are based on pre-Islamic concepts of honor and public image.
People often believe that the system of honor killings we see in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well
across the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia to Palestine, particularly in the more rural areas) is
intrinsically tied to Islam and Islamic religion. This is an ongoing myth that has, unfortunately,
gained traction over the years and decades off the lubricant of ignorance and misunderstanding.
Islam is often invoked as a reason to continue the tradition of family-based honor killings (as
well as revenge killings between families and tribes), adding catalytic fervor to the revengetaking ethos. It is, however, not the main engine driving this tradition-a tradition which pre-dates
Islam and has been present across much of the Middle East and Central Asia for arguably
thousands of years*.

That being said, I wish to discuss more on Pashtun culture and how it is misunderstood by many.
Pashtun tribal narratives, while often unique to Pashtuns in both their specific traits and their

intensity of character, share much in common with other parts of Central Asia and the Middle
East. In the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan, Pashtunwali a very old, pre-Islamic system of
honor, customs, and rules of behavior-drives much of what they do, to include tribal exchanges
of violence. It contains many practices most would consider heavily barbaric, as well as practices
most would consider heavily respectful and hospitable. In the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan,
being Muslim is a sub-set of being Pashtun. Hence, much of what we see in Afghanistan is a
Pashtun thing, not an Islamic thing, to put it in laymans terms.
This is critical when talking about Islam in places like Afghanistan, where their Islam is
confused with their Pashtunwali system of tribal honor. The entire concept of honor in Afghan,
Iraqi or Palestinian cultures is vastly different than what we understand it to be in the West. For
Pashtuns, Islam holds central importance in their expression of inner faith and public image, and
they invoke Islam in much of what they do-but it is Pashtun culture, and Pashtun honor-that is at
the heart of so much of these actions, both peaceful and violent. Please continue reading, as
tribal-based violence and honor killings are a pressing and inhumane problem in much of the
Islamic world and color a wide spectrum of geographical conflict, yet are tragically seldom
understood by most Westerners.
The following is a point I made in the Raleigh Examiner as their writer on Islam and Western
Religions: Most Pashtuns are illiterate, and receive their knowledge of Islam from local Mullas
and oral tradition. Resultantly, the Islam they learn is fused with something called Pashtunwali,
which is their trial-cultural system of honor and living, and the two sometimes become
indistinguishable (loosely speaking, like the folk influence on Islam in Somalia or the fusion of
African, Spanish and native religion on Puerto Rican and Haitian Catholicism).
Eastern Afghanistan, at its 4000-6000 year old Pashtunwali core, is the real heart of how this
Islamic country really works and behaves. This is critical when talking about Islam in
places like Afghanistan, where their Islam is confused with their Pashtunwali system of tribal
honor. As Pashtuns, Islam holds central importance in their expression of inner faith and public
image, and they invoke Islam in everyday life, as does Pashtunwali. To many, they are one and
the same.

Some closing (introductory) thoughts

To return for a moment to an earlier statement, it may be fair to say that some cultures (or,
better stated, sub-cultures) tend toward more sporadic violence and action than others, even
within the same area. Lets examine this more closely. Let us ask ourselveswhy? Is it about
culture, or more about human circumstance? Or both? Or does it depend in each case? Many
factors are likely involved, as are circumstances of time and locationas is the fallibility of our often false or biased - perceptions and observations. Do Dari-speaking Afghans and Tajiks tend
(in general) to be less prone to certain reactive behaviors than their Pashtun neighbors? Or are

Pashtuns actually quite restrained in their emotive outbursts, and deliberating in their decisions,
far more so than we think? Orare these all potentially misleading over-generalities?
These are important questionsand the most important point, perhaps, is to never stop
questioning our assumptions and observations about other humans. From the opposite sex, to
other ethnicities and groups, to the motives of peers and rivals, to the behavior of insurgentsupporting Afghan goat farmers. Never settle into a comfort zone of assumptions. It can be
costly.

2. The Origins of Tribalism, Honor Codes, and Cooperative

Behavior: An Anthropological and Satirical ( and very short)

Summary

This is a wonderfully enticing journey, the science of seeking informative insight into the
ancestral roots of our own behaviors something that can make us quite human. And humbled,
and possibly in a better position to learn how not to repeat the mistakes of the ancients before us,
time and again. A journey into the universality of much of our human traits and our human
nature, as we start to see patterns across cultures, across languages, and across groups we thought
could not have less in common. Across a socio-religious spectrum, and a wider tapestry of
human geography and human diversity. What does a Kunar goat farmer or a tribal warlord in
Afghanistan have in common with a beer-drinking rural white conservative, and what would this
person have in common with an urban black voter in another state?

An anthropological and behavioral context

Decades ago, Carl Sagan looked at the hard sciences of astronomy and astrophysics as gateways
into the human possibilities frontier, of where we could go and who we could become as a tiny,
dwarfed yet highly unique species. His Cosmos predecessor, Neil DeGrass Tyson, carries the
same ethos into promoting our public understanding of science, including space exploration,
astrobiology, and astrophysics. The social side of science - the science of understanding and
explaining human behavior - is no less exciting, nor any less important. I look at behavioral
science as an attempt to seek and provide answers to why we do the seemingly crazy, backward,
and perplexing things we do. And it can help us a great deal, especially our soldiers and thoe
who send them into harms way.

A pressing issue in modern America- and a gateway parallel universe to our Afghan tribal
brothers and sisters far, far across the blue oceans and rugged mountains is political alliances,
group thinking and allegiances, and partisan tribalism. If we want to help mend this broken land
of ours, we should want to know how to explain, truly understand, and work with the irrational
behavior underpinning these political alliances. The solider on the ground has a pressing need to
understand the bizarre tribal behavior of Afghans. Interestingly enough, one can enable the
other.
Lets start with the central purpose of this paper: the help people in Afghanistan understand
Afghan behaviors. The starting point of this is to admit and understand that we are all human.
From there, we need to understand that their behavior like anywhere in the world has some
explanation in human ancestry and the things that drive us as people. And- equally important how we can better understand it from the vantage point of our own behaviors, wants, needs, and
ways of making decisions. We can relate better to other people, and entire other groups, if we
understand ourselves. If we step outside of our normative context of everyday routine, and our
pre-supposedly normal way of modern, civilized living and co-existing, we can take a step
back, reflect, and look deeper into the wondrous abyss of behavioral clarity and self-awareness.
We can de-code the primal, perplexing but all-too-human behaviors of other strange cultures
by folding back the layers of our own culture and social norms masking our inner tribalism and
innate, raw humanity, often veiled behind thousands of years of civilizing changes, norms and
rules. This reflection and inward, ancestral gaze gives us a better vantage point and social lens
from which to see Afghan culture, perhaps the most raw, unfiltered yet surprisingly sophisticated
and complex culture on earth. For soldiers and civilians serving in the Afghan Theater, I would
argue that this heightened understanding can rely just as much on street smarts, intuition and
human experience as it can on academic study and book-smarts. And in many cases, the former
is all people have time for.
That said, this understanding should be informed by our own inner tribalism, our
primitive, emotion-based decisions, and our striking tendency to Balkanize into separate
ideological and moral communities. A deeper look, in a sense, at the behavioral tides, rifts and
currents underpinning our modern lives, our interactions with others, our decision-making and
our schemas of bonding with in-groups and looking at out-groups.
Beneath all of our perplexing layers of culture lies the undying tendency to act as tribes,
to think as tribes, and to form our own tribes in everything from sports to politics and partisan
ideologies. Take Howard Sterns interview across both poor black neighborhoods and poor white
neighborhoods - the former abound with staunch, often blind supporters of Obama and the latter
full of those fearful of his socialist / communist / atheist / radical Muslim takeover of healthcare /
democracy / free market capitalism / the church / heterosexual families - with neither community
exercising much knowledge of either candidates actual positions.

An Honest Letter to the Liberal and Conservative Sub-Tribes (of the Political Clan of the
America Supertribe)

Whether you are a die-hard conservative in Texas or a microphone-toting liberal in Berkeley,

California, you may think you are smarter, better, or more moral than the political rivals you so
distrust and despise.
Odds are that you are not.
Let us for a moment delve into the ugly world of American tribes. Try to remove any
preconceived notions of rectitude or any demonizations about others, and please leave any
political correctness at the door. The following pages only touch the surface of a deeper science
behind our tribal natures, something I am writing several books about titled The origins of
American Tribalism and The third Voice. For the moment, lets explore this sobering venue
of human fallacy and the false deification of our own political talking points and self-reassuring
narratives:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Stern website posted this description for October first show:
"Howard started off the show playing a few clips of Sal asking black people if they were voting for Obama, and
attributed all of McCains political policies to Obama to see if they would still vote for him. All the interviewees
readily agreed with Obama when Sal lied to them about his pro-life, anti-stem-cell research and pro-war policies.
Howard said the clips were revealing, and Sal came in to say he thought the election had become less about ideas
and, instead, some kind of race war."

Just one example:

Interviewer: Are you voting for Obama because he wants us to stay in Iraq for another hundred
years or because he wants Sarah Palin as his vice President
Resident: (you can only imaginejust Google it)
This was done again by Stern in 2012, with a description from The blaze (*)
And if you thought it was funny (and/or depressing) in 2008, youll really enjoy the
2012 edition. Yes, Sterns cohort once again descends on Harlem to ask a fistful of
Obama supporters about the president, his accomplishments, and his GOP rival Mitt
Romney.
What did the Stern crew learn? Well, among other things, they discover Osama Bin
Laden isnt dead, Romney is pro-choice, Obama is pro-life, and Paul Ryan is Obamas
running mate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yesquite telling. Interviews in many pro-Republican rural poor white communities are just as
frightening, almost a medieval throwback to the Dark Ages of superstition, sages, paranoid
villagers and vaguely literate charismatic figures. Not most of Americabut a disturbing portion
of it, is, yes, really this stupid
But is it stupid? Or it is more likely to be ancestral and tribal?
Lets take the pro-Obama statements above during the Stern interview. Obvious intellectual
back-peddling to support an emotionally arrived at position, via a confirmation bias and
hindsight justification. We do it all the time, from our sports teams to defending the honor or
correctness of our family and friends, local business, and other tribes we subscribe to as part of
our wider human narrative.
The Stern show did a similar interview in a white community with a sizable amount of
radical conservatives, lower-income white Republicans and hardcore Tea Party supporters, and
got similar results. Terrifyingly similar results. And yet both sides of this tribal display of
modern primatology are likely to see this fallacy appear in their opponents, while downplaying
or ignoring it as it occurs on their side in similarly mind-blowing amounts. One could argue that
much of the time, some of our news channels and political entertainers on both sides are both
in opposite ways - playing the same one-sided game of selective tribalism, with each side of the
coin showing the same double standard of the same big picture.
This is a veiled but telling and scientifically lucrative insight into the baseline tendencies
and nuances of our primal nature as tribal beings, and we share more with Afghan tribes than we
think. Our politics, from our flag-waving right-wing dynamics to our liberal intelligencia to the
streets of low income black neighborhoods and low-income white traitor parks, we share more in
common through our ancestral nature with the people of Afghanistan than millions and millions
of us would ever admit, be it through that 40-ounce we ( are assumed to ) drink while talking
about white trash, or that can of Skoal we (supposedly) dip while talking about scary black
ghettos. The stereotypes we entertain (including the stereotypical examples of alcoholic and
tobacco beverages I just cited, partly for demonstrative effect) as part of our affiliation with our
various American Tribes and Subtribes lend themselves to many of the cognitive and emotive
fallacies we see across todays daunting political landscape.
Chief
among these are FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, a huge driver of everything from hasty
marriages to Nixons Southern Strategy, still effective today), the in-group and out-group
fallacies, and the homogenizing psychological stigmas on those people, be it Muslim Arabs,
black food stamp recipients, white progressives, or gun ownersall stereotyped regularly to
arouse fear and even distain or hatred for the out-group. Fear and Loathing author and
journalist Hunter S. Thompson documented the effect and widespread use of fear as a political
tool all throughout the 80s. Many will agree that much of it continues today.
Just take a step back for a second and ponder the baffling amount of paranoia and motive
attribution we have in America. Even borderline hysteria. It really is something to think about.

Blacks, whites, Hispanics, liberals, conservatives, black Panther activists and gun-owning Tea
party protesters they are all prone to these behaviors and the behavioral, ancestral roots from
which they sprang. FUD, In-Group / Out-Group, and the fallacy of Those People - all are huge
parts of classic, small-band and clan-based tribalism enshrined in our neurobiology over millions
of years and eventually over a hundred thousand years of hunter-gatherers, manifested
behaviorally in different ways, from the Khyber Pass mountains of the Pashtun-speaking
Nangarhar or Khyber Paktunkwa (formerly Waziristan) to the upper-middle class TV-dinnerfilled home of sweater-vest wearing real Americans who thinks the vast majority of the people
in poor communities are exactly described by people in the political entertainment industry. Or,
the lower working class small town church-going good-ole boy (GOB) who votes zealously for
his local sheriff and thinks that NYC, Chicago and SF are communist havens of homoerotic
Godless apocalyptic debauchery and hate for middle America. All the way to the NYC hipster
or LES yuppie who thinks on the flip side of that coin that the average small-town
churchgoer is an un-evolved pseudo-Cro-Magnon about 4 steps beneath his Columbia-educated
intellectual and moral platitudes. And dont forget the Upper West Sideer who has never left the
Upper West Side and could be mistaken for a scary old person in a 90s episode of Seinfeld.

This tribal dynamic is extremely pronounced between racially diverse groups of similarly
lower socioeconomic status. Millions of Americas poor and working white people angry at the
status quo can be heard talking about those people on welfare, a late remnant of the Reaganera horror story about the obese welfare queen who had no job and drove a $250,000 car and
had 3 homes. (*) Or at least the narrative went something like that.
Most of the time, ideas and stereotypes of those people, on all sides of the racial,
economic and political spectrum, are partially or wholly inaccurate. However, our tribalism helps
keep group stereotypes and truisms alive and well as we exaggerate these issues and react out
of fear and uncertainty, with out-groups taking the hit.
For a real testament to how effectively our FUD-regions of our brains and their fearcenters such as the amygdla* will bring out primitive tribalism in modern Americans, take one
look at our modern American political landscape, and the visceral reaction to all the outgroups
we have between the extremes of right and left.
The truth backed by science (not just your local EO rep) is that it is not a white
thing or a black thing. It is a human and an evolved behavior thing. Ignorant whites stereotype
blacks and vice versa. The insightful irony here, possibly a tip off to longstanding black
libertarian intellectual Thomas Sowells book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, is that these
two groups are actually of the same tribal cloth, with different surface narratives and outward
embodiments of politically-formed, tribally shaped self-identity. One only need observe devout
viewers of their favorite Fox news or MSNBC programming, or the stereotypes that come out of
poor white and black communities, to really get a sense of just how un-evolved we are as a
modern evolved species. At the end of the day (*), beneath our grandiose, self-serving platitudes
of modern wisdom and enlightened talking points, tribalism wins almost every single time.
It is how we recognize this and work around it, while maintaining humility and self-awareness,
that makes us evolved humans, that makes us truly moral creatures.

3. Tribes, cooperative behaviors, honor systems and reciprocity

Where did it come from?

A brief note to Peter Singer, Michael Shermer, Jared Diamond, and other popular voices in the human behavior
field: Yes, for its scope of explanation, this is painfully short, summarized, and very general. Please go easy on
me if this paper ever reaches your desk or inbox. (or refer to A Note to the Reader and Intro sections)

Why do we as members of the Coalition Forces so easily misunderstand Afghan or Iraqi

concepts of honor? Why do they so confuse, confound, infuriate, baffle and frustrate us? For
the same reason we misunderstand honor as a historic construct to begin, for many societies that
practiced it. It is perhaps because our Western and especially American - constructs of honor
come more from Gladiator, Jet Li protagonists, or the Star Wars universe than they do from most
of human civilization. This is not a bad thing I love these views of honor and morality. I try to
live by them, as have millions before me. But it does not help from an anthropological point of
view. Ever heard the term, Dont hate reciprocate? There is a reason for this phrase,
unbeknownst to most of its users. Lets take a quick journey and survey where most of human
cooperation, respect, and honor codes actually come from.
Back in the ancestral days of hunting and gathering, groups i.e. small bands of people
living and roaming together - were small enough to allow a kind of horizontal cooperation and
decision-making without the need for a chieftain, king, or centralized top-down burocracy to
oversee them. That is, they were small and by proxy tight-knit and familiar enough amongst
themselves for decisions to be made, issues to be settled, and disagreements to be worked out, all
within the group. Hundreds of thousands of years of behavioral evolution was a driving force
behind this cooperation (imagine the military without a working system of order, even among
unsupervised troops) as people had to cooperate and make things work, or literally go extinct.
An over-seeing burocracy or central government wasnt typically needed because the group was
small enough that the people knew each other and could operate within the formation of trust and
reciprocity.
If you are reading this as a soldier, think of your class at Basic Training or Boot Camp
as a limited analogy of course, since these are heavily managed by top-down, highly-structured
burocracies with brown round hats. But for the purposes of understanding familiarity, trust,
reciprocity, cooperation and order within a comparatively small group, recall for a moment back
to this lie event. Within your Company, you knew the other people, or at least knew their faces
after a few weeks of dealing with each other. Even ones you didnt know, you still knew. Oh
yeah, that guyI dont know who he is but hes an a$$hole. Or, Yeah I know that guy, forgot
his name but hes in 3rd Platoon. Additionally (Blue Falcons aside), if you lent someone a boot

shining kit, you are pretty sure they will most likely return it or get you back, due to familiarity
and peer pressure; same thing if you borrowed one and wanted to return the favor. The same
goes with trusting your close Battlebuddies not to rat you out for snaking Skittles or that can of
Coke into your wall locker.
With groups under or around 200 or so, this can work. Things happen in-house, because
the formation of trust, cooperation, and resource sharing were well in place. Now to return to our
ancestral history. Eventually, after hundreds of thousands of years hunting and gathering in this
tight-knit warrior culture, the phenomenon of agriculture allowed people to move around less,
settle down, grow their own food, hunt less, breed more, eat better, and populate in far larger
numbers. This meant that we no longer could do everything by simple interaction within the
group. People needed a more centralized way of making decisions, discussing important
manners, resolving disputes, preventing or mitigating conflict, and - as one would imagine
distributing resources among the group. Theres no one way to do it, and no one overlapping
standard for each village, band, tribe, clan or region of the world, other than the fact that it has to
work. It will, more or less, gravitate toward a system that keeps things from falling apart, that
keeps order, respect, and relative peace and security within the group in place, at least enough to
keep things going. These tools still remain with us - Pashtunwali being one of them, perhaps one
of our best examples in the modern world.

Me and Afghan
government and tribal leaders negotiating and conversing within the context of the honor system

This explains the pressing question on many peoples minds about why so many of these
honor societies have such seemingly contradictory edicts of barbarism and subordination of
women and minorities throughout the course of history. If honor is so important, why is this

hoard of honorable warriors sacking, raping and pillaging village after village? Why is such an
honor-bound community, social sect, or entire society so eager to enforce brutal codes of
respect on its own people, from honor-based suicides or revenge killings, to the
institutionalization of womans suffering? Doesnt seem very honorable does it? Why is this?
Where did these maxims of human mistreatment come from throughout our history of
honorable societies? Often an underpinning religious fanaticism or particular interpretation of a
holy book is culpable - many small civilized, Christian towns in Puritan American spoke in
grandiose platitudes of morality while burning people at the stake and confining women to a
place in the social order unthinkable to us today.
However, the honor systems we often balk at while snapshot-viewing the tapestry of
human history are far more often grounded in the preservation of order described above, rooted
in ancestral human survival as groups got larger and the need for order became more
pronounced. The famous historic codes of honor we know and often love, from Japanese feudal
warriors to the Wild West (which wasnt very wild at all, due in part to these codes of respect,
decency and social order), were typically not about honor in the altruistic sense of higher
values we think of, but more about keeping society together, or keeping the pack or tribe intact
and the bonds of kinship strong; honoring alliances and pacts, as this honor system or code is
less about morality and more about making sure the rules of the game can be counted on. We
need to know that things will work the way they are supposed to. Think about the NCO who
reiterates this as an Army imperative. Then apply it to entire societies.
With this understanding, you probably understand honor as a historic construct.
Domestication: The Transition to the Modern Person
Alongside this expansion of human settlement and population meant a corresponding
decline in alertness, combative intuition, hunter skills and warrior ethos. This is not necessarily a
bad thing as even the biggest meathead will eventually prefer relaxation, good eating and lovemaking over non-stop surviving and fighting.
While post-hunter-gather life certainly wasnt easy by todays standards, it was a
dramatic change. More breeding, more feeding and less need for those warrior-skills we still
have buried somewhere deep down inside us yes, even that kid you may know who drinks
Rockstars and plays World of Warcraft all day rather than chase girls, play sports or learn a little
MMA. His inner woman-chasing, headhunting, tribe-protecting fighter and warrior is in there
somewhere, somewhere hidden deep down beneath that cheese-puff covered t-shirt.

Think of tribal in-group dynamics, primal

warrior ethos and the tribal honor / exchange system like an M-4 or a 9-mil: It is not evil or bad in
and of itselfonly in how it is used or misused to protect or kill other humans. One can protect a bad
person (i.e. Bin Laden) and kill innocents, or protect innocents and fellow comrades and kill the bad
people, using these same tribal rule-sets, tendencies and toolkits.

This primal instinct to fight and breed and protect the group has manifested itself in a
multitude of ways across the spectrum of decency. From horrendous acts of illiterate barbarism
and superstitious lunacy (such as Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of Nigerian girls or Taliban
beating women for leaving the home without a full burkha) to lighter acts of doucherocketry (the
prototypical football star harassing the women, the petty bar brawler, or the large bouncer trying
to fight a friend of mine for a simple Roadhouse joke) all the way to unfathomable acts of
courage in war and peacetime defending friends and even total strangers. All of these acts lie on
different points along this primal spectrum.
Like firearms, these instincts are arguably not good or bad in and of themselves; they
have no innate moral content outside of how one uses them. If you are a soldier, think of human
tribalism and in-group protectionism like your weapon: there is right way to handle and use it,
and a wrong way.

On a closing note, try to think in general terms of the modes of respect, honor and
reciprocity in the Afghan tribal context as a currency to not only survive but to maintain a
reputation, and seek mobility, status, power and marriage. One must abide by this code and work
within this system of currency to pass on their offspring. In other words, Afghans, as a general
rule, must maintain their honor or go extinct. Think of these systems of currency almost like
standards of customs, courtesies, respect, order and rules within a military unit. Or a football
team. Or infantry or Ranger unit. And its not just oneself each Afghan must look out for in this
regard, but the wider family, village, sub-tribe and even tribe in some cases. Make yourself look
bad, make your unit look bad is a good analogy. They act and think as a unit, with the welfare
of the unit (tribe / village / etc.) in mind before themselves, as they are not autonomous
individuals removed from this wider system, but part and parcel of the Team. Additionally,
when collective honor, mobility, marriages and lives are at stake, the importance of this becomes
all the more amplified. From the squad and platoon to the football teameach of these is a
tribe in its own way, and things work to ensure survival, competitive advantage, and even a
degree of camaraderie and flourishing, morale and motivation to fight and live on to another day,
no matter the environment.
That is the core of Tribal Warrior Ethos, and appreciating it, respecting it, and understanding it
from our own lives and practices will give us the key to working within the Tribal systems of
others.

VI. Lies and Contradictions: How Afghans resolve their

cognitive dissonance and rationalize conflicting words and
actions

In a nutshell, Afghans learn to lie and believe their own lies in order to fit a
situation with a desired outcome or perception, because it allows them to
survive, socially, tribally and sometimes physically. It is their currency, the
way they operate in a sense.
BLUF:
We have a natural tendency to feel a basic, instinctive discomfort when we contradict
ourselves. This is a universal instinct across cultures. What is not universal, however, is
how we view the nature of such contradictions, and what we believe to be a contradiction in
the first place. Afghans are comfortable telling lies and contradictions because they have
been taught and conditioned to feel comfortable with it, and dont see these contradictions
the same way we do. To them its less about whats true and more about what fits the
situation best at the given moment.

i.

Lying in Afghan culture: What we must understand

What is a lie? Why are some people such good liars? Do some cultures tell lies easier than
others? Boldly speaking, the answers lay in how we as humans perceive our lies and
contradictions. When a village Malik looks us in the eye and tells us that there are no problems
in our village, there are no Taliban sympathizers here, even when everyone in the room knows
this is a load of shit, is he lying? Yes. Does he see it as a lie, the way we do? No. Sounds a bit
confusing, and at first glance it is.

There is a need here to briefly discuss the science behind lying and telling lies, as this is key to
understanding how Afghans are so good at lying, and to understanding the cultural differences
between lying in their culture versus most Western cultures. While the science behind lying and
deception is vastly fascinating, both from social, psychological, physiological, neuroscientific
perspectives, this paper mainly requires a brief overview. However, further knowledge is highly
encouraged and links to such will be provided at the end of this section.

Here is an overview
When we lie, there is a physiological component to it. In a literal sense, we have bodily
reactions-hemodynamic (such as blood pressure), neurological (such as pupil dilation or
activity), and other types-which can be registered and measured to some degree by modern
science. The polygraph is the most common frame of reference here, but a polygraph is widely
misunderstood. Polygraphs dont actually measure if you are lying per se-rather, they measure
your discomfort in lying, through registered changes in the above indicators. Blood pressure, skin
conductance*. These are physiological indicators of the natural discomfort humans feel, even at
a subtly subconscious level, when their words contradict what they understand to be true. In
other words, these bodily reactions arise because of our discomfort, not because of lying
itself. Lie detectors, or polygraphs as they are called, measure not the lie itself but our
physiological bodily reactions to discomfort, which tends to naturally arise from telling a lie.
(* similar arousal can occur by sexual stimuli, and elicit seemingly similar results or tells on a
traditional polygraph. While the cognitive and neurosciences are working to envision lie
detection technology which can one day remove much of this doubt and save lives, costs and
false conclusions about liars and truth tellers*, for the moment we are stuck with the reality that a
Maxim foldout poster can trigger the same hemodynamic response in a suspect as a lie itself.)

But what if someone is perfectly comfortable with lying? What if they have become so
accustomed to telling untruths, lies, whatever you wanna call them, that he has removed the

discomfort? This is why sociopaths can pass a polygraph, because they dont feel this guilt, or
guilt about much of anything.
Now, lets talk about Afghans. It seems obvious to many with time on ground that they are
some of the best liars in the world. Even Iraqis, pound for pound, probably cannot out-circle
talk many Afghans. But they are good liars for different reasons than sociopaths. While Afghans
obviously are not sociopathic (no one culture is) by any means, they have become accustomed to
removing the guilt of telling lies. This is not because they are bad people-they feel guilt, sorrow,
sadness, surprise, and other universal emotions just like everyone else. But they dont feel the
same discomfort with telling a lie that many others do. At least not certain types of lies.
What kinds of lie are we talking about? The kind of lies that change and adapt to fit the situation.
People can learn to lie. They can literally become conditioned over time to lessen or completely
remove the guilt, or basic discomfort, of lying and telling contradictions. This is because they
learn to reinterpret the nature of these contradictions. We see it all the time in many panhandlers
and hustlers who tell lies daily to get by and survive and play the game as they see it. To
an Afghan, a lie or contradiction as we see it is not necessarily wrong as long as it helps them
maintain their honor or attain an advantage in a situation.

ii.

Lies, Contradictions, and Cognitive Dissonance: Understanding Afghan

posturing

As explained in the last chapter, the ability to say what fits the situation and makes the right
impression in front of others, and avoids public shame, is their currency in a sense. It is how
they live and breathe and get by and get ahead. It is intrinsically tied to their culture, and the
ability to lie and not see it as a lie per se is something they learn early on-it is part of their
livelihood, esteem, and even basic survival.
People learn to reconcile this cognitive dissonance and, in short, believe their own bullshit why?
Because it is how they survive and gain advantage, they learn it as a core component of their
everyday behavior, the same way that people learn to be polite at a cocktail party to avoid
embarrassment or to downplay their limitations and weaknesses at a job interview. Or to play
certain attraction games on a first date, or flirtatious bar encounter. In a nutshell, Afghans learn
to lie and believe their own lies in order to fit a situation with a desired outcome or perception,
because it allows them to survive, socially, tribally and sometimes physically. It is their
currency, the way they operate in a sense.

______________________________________________________________

Practical applications: They keep lying to us! Why? What can I do about it? A few
examples

I and countless other soldiers and leaders have shared the same complaint all across our
respective areas of operation in Afghanistan, from Helmund to Kandahar to Jalalabad, Kunar and
Nuristan. We dont understand why they cant just be upfront with us. If we all dislike the
Taliban (depends on the person, of coursebut you understand what Im saying overall) and if
were all working for the same thing, why do they not just give us straight answers. Why do we
have to keep playing this guessing game? We understand that they sometimes lie, and that face
saving is part of the culture, but why so often and to such absurd extents? There are no Taliban
in our villages, we keep them out. We do not see any problems with corruption in our
compound, we have a handle on things. Really? Seriously? Were not stupid. We know better.
Why do they tell us this stuff?

A problem you will encounter is quite often is that Tribal Elders wont tell you the truth. Nor the
commoners. Sometimes the answer and degree of objective truth between responses- varies
considerably, making some atmospherics and information gathering difficult. Bottom line is that you get a
line of BS and dont quite understand why. In many cases this is not a lie as we perceive in western
culture, but has to do with the Qawm or Qam (Pashtun Language). As explained in many writings on
Tribalism and Pashtunwali, Qawm is basically a recognized unit of belonging in Afghanistan and some
of Pakistans Pashtun tribal frontier province. Qawm is a basic social unit in Afghanistan, typically based
on kinship, residence, or even an occupation (think of former Mujihadeen, militia or Army units).[1] It is
sometimes translated as "tribe", but crosses tribal or ethnic boundaries. (Like many boroed words in the
Dari, Pashto and Urdu lexicon, qawm is of Arabic origin, and is used in Afghanistan to refer to any form
of solidarity)

There is no one hard and fast rule, but it is fair to say that this lying to fit or remain in line with the
local narrative of the tribe or the village is quite common. Why do the Afghans do this? Simply stated,
there is a general rule of thumb: collectively, the tribe will generally support the tribal elders whether they
believe they are right or wrong. At least in group settings, especially if there are reasons to appear strong
or composed relative to a competing tribe or sub-tribe.

Howeverbehind closed doors, or even one on one in the right relaxed atmosphere (especially with
youth...often the more honest ones!), you may well get private dissent. Our AF03 Human Terrain Team
did well more than once. My second OIF deployment witnessed the same thing, as I saw when I used my
Iraqi Arabic and knowledge of the Quran and Islam to foster a bond with individual Iraqis. In
Afghanistan, I managed to get some honesty from people out of earshot of the crowd, and this is great if
someone on your team skilled at asking the right questions-or who has a pre-made laundry list of the
right questions ahead of time to get offline with a few people or even just one person to ask their
private opinion. It will often differ considerably from the one they give in public.

From a US perspective, perhaps soldiers can better understand this dynamic. Here is one way, in
summary, that my Team Leader would frame to help bridge this understanding gap:
It is sort of akin to the in-group protectionism and dont snitch cultures in many parts of
America. The gangbangers in, say, Detroit or Los Angeles will typically support their gang
tribe and will rarely rat out their gang members. If there is someone who rats on a member
of the gang, the gang will kill them ( some of the harsher facets of Pashtunwali have some or
even arguably much in common with some of what we see in tight-knit gangs, or gang
communities). How does a soldier overcome this and not write reports or patrol notes and KLE
notes that are wrong? One possible approach, depending on mission and feasibility, is to ask the
next village about your village or Tribal Elder you are focusing on. Just like a rival gang, they
will not have a problem diming out a rival. But (amend) if youre in the same village you will
get a more accurate response if you ask a different tribe about the other tribes activities.

Few analogies are perfect, but this one should convey the basic message.
In summary, try not to over-rely on the US militarys perceptions. Always ask Afghans about
problems in Afghanistan. Even then, we often cant simply rely on Afghan testimony either.
Local population feedback and the distance between what is said vs. what is actually the truth
can be problematic as well. Think of it as a puzzle, one which becomes easier to put together
with more and more corroboration with other Afghans, ideally from different areas or
backgrounds such as different families within the village, or different villages entirely. And, of
course, as any sociologist knows, different positions on the socioeconomic scale, and different
positions on the political totem pole. Bottom line - ask as many as you can, because it often takes
a while to get to the truth amidst all the polite answers (i.e. lies).

Yes, easier said than done during missions with non-permissive security environments in body
armor. Anthropologists have the luxury of systematic collection of testimony and conducting

corroborative research; soldiers often dont. With that unpleasant fact in mind, these tools in the
kit can only help.
Early works of evolutionary psychology

emphasized the importance of some universal facial expressions in

establishing the unity of mankind, challenging the racist assertions of
his time that Europeans had descended from a more advanced
progenitor that Africans. Those findings and the conclusion that all
human beings have a shared set of facial expressions remains
unchallenged.
Dr Paul Eckman, March 2014, http://www.paulekman.com/uncategorized/darwins-claim-universalsfacial-expression-challenged/

VII. Afghan Posturing The lies, the truth, the spectacle, and the
big picture

Posturing is a universal facet of human behavior and interaction from the suburban
couple during an argument in front of the kids, to the politician or CEO at a press
conference, to the Afghan warlord at a Jirga

Its just a matter of understanding it for what it isand recognizing when and why it is
going on around us.

i.

Back to the WWE analogy

You know how people, including adults, willfully suspend disbelief when watching Wrestling,
and go along with the storyline? Afghan society works a lot like this, loosely speaking.
Especially during engagements, negotiations and meetings with elders and leaders.
In short, the scripted nature of the WWE Universe has a strong parallel to the Afghan universe.
Afghan public life is scripted. It is not literally written down, but it is, in a sense, 'fake'. It is realvery real in fact, where decisions and words and gestures can make a difference between
marriage and non-marriage to a certain family, peace or conflict, even life or death. But it is also
fake. In short, it is like WWE: the people put on a facade, a character, to match the situation and
take advantage of what the people want to hear or what will benefit them in the immediate
opportunity. People say and do what looks right in front of others, and play the stage as a means
to maintain respect and gain more of it, when possible. Not only respect, or status, or wasta*,
but often resources of various sorts. This often involves putting on different faces for
different occasions. There is The Rock in the ring, who is at unfiltered war with John Cena or
Stone Cold, and there is Dwayne Johnson, who has little to no real beef with either behind the
cameras. When he's at home, Dwayne is a nice guy who (like many pro-Wrestlers) engages in
charitable outreach for children. In front of the crowds-i.e., in 'public', he is The Rock. There is a
difference, and the crowd will willfully suspend disbelief to reap the benefits of the situation. In
other words, fellow Afghans know to an extent that a lot of it is BS, but will often go along to
fit the situation and play out the story as it is perceived to be most appropriate to the given

situation. This is a sizable generality but it does guide behavior to a sizable extent, as many in
Iraq (a very different culture but with similar face-saving dynamics) saw firsthand.
Now, for a real world example below, and a very important one.

ii.

The flaming anti-CF guy who was actually cool with us in private

Sometimes Afghans posture for status, or social correctness. But sometimes, its sheer survival.
During an important meeting, we were warned many times about a particular individual who had
a reputation as a firebrand anti-CF hate monger. When we met with him behind closed doors, he
was pretty much the opposite. In reality, he did not care for the insurgents at all, and had little
against the Coalition. In public, however, he hated the Coalition, and would spew flaming
rhetoric like a pro. He talked this way in front of others because he felt he had too. To avoid
personal threat and keep his position in politics. Behind closed doors, he told us, more or less:
Dont listen to me when I say that crapI have to say that stuff in public to avoid losing my
position.
Although not named in this paper for obvious reasons, he is a real character we dealt with during
negations. He is a prime example of the different faces they puts on. Just like John Cena and
'the Rock' are constantly at war in the public eye, John Cena and Dwayne Johnson are probably
facebook buddies who drink a beer together now and again. Ditto to Dwayne and Steve Austin.
Do these two worlds sometimes overlap? Is there often truth to the showmanship? Yes, it can be
ambiguous, in both pro-Wresting and Afghan culture. The point is that it is real while
simultaneously semi-scriptedbut without a rigid script; and along with this scripted
performance, the crowd willfully suspends disbelief.
More confusing than when you started this chapter? Or more clear (hopefully)? Or both?
Welcome to Afghanistan. And much of the Middle East and Central Asian world.

i.

The Mirror of Truth: Understanding moral, pragmatic, and in-group posturing

from an American perspective

Let us use the word posturing as the operative word for individuals and groups openly
accepting BS and even lies for the sake of appearance and conformity to outward expectations
and pressures. Soldiers, Marines and Sailors in the US military understand posturing. People on
the police force understand it. People in gangs get it. People in low-income communities, and
within the more impoverished sections of many white, black and Hispanic enclaves get it. Drug
dealers get it. Drug prosecutors get it. District Attorneys get it. Every politician alive gets it.

Nonprofits seeking to appease archaic rules of the nonprofit world get it. Men and women on
both ends of the sexual, romantic, and relationship spectrum get it. HR departments of large
companiesdont seem to get it (they often hire the posturing liars and deny employment to the
more sincere, honest candidates, which has been documented quite well *), but their CEOs do.
And lawyersperhaps they get it best of all. The list goes on and on.
Please think for a moment just how much monumental BS we willingly go along with in
American culture, and in all the modern world to some extent, even discounting strategic or
business reasons. There is a common thread here: different forms of posturing across different
cultures, including American subcultures in the corporate world, job interviews, dates, sex,
politics, the drug war, and the moral majority mindset, much of which will be addressed here
soon. In such cases, the crowd will willfully suspend disbelief to reap the benefits of the
situation. So it is with Afghansit just looks more raw and unfiltered as a system of social
norms than we are used to. In other words, fellow Afghans go along with lies and BS while often
knowing to an extent that a lot of it indeed is BS, such as statements about our village having no
problems with Taliban or none of our local Maliks are corruptbut the next village is very
corruptyouve probably heard these lines before in some variation. And we find this
shocking, confusing, frustrating, and mind-boggling. Including myself many times over.
We not only find it confusing but often quite problematic in telling truth from falsehood,
and assessing our Afghan friends, foes, and ambiguous neutrals alike in their willingness to be
cooperative partners in everything from peace negotiations to information gathering to the most
seemingly simple goodwill projects or security operations.
Let us ask ourselves, with honesty - is this much different- in its basic underlying concept
- than our games and performances we put on in the civilized modern world? We supposedly
value truth as a facet of Western culture. In some waysyes. But in many ways, we actually
prefer lies. We institutionalize lying in most every sphere of social and civil activity, from the
corporate boardroom to the bedroom. (*REFRENCE SEP Chapter)
Lets inventory this for a second. Starting with our honesty is the best policy load of
unadulterated shit we hear about the American job market. How many job interviews have hiring
manager knowingly asked a stupid, nonsensical (and often loaded) question to a prospective hire
about where they see themselves in 5 years, while following through with a corporate-driven
protocol to avid hiring anyone with aspirations to one day become owners of their own company
or small business, and hence become possible future competition. Or, by way of their higher
aspirations, go their own path rather than remain corporate middle-managers or cogs in the
system. This hiring manager will engage in the usual rhetorical horsequeeze about selfmotivation and type-A personalities and natural leaders and dreaming big, praising all
these traits that lead to someone going their own path in lifeyet secretly blacklisting these
same people for voicing such a desire. In the most self-refuting manner, they avoid hiring the
very people who embody all that motivation crap on their poster-adorned hallways and break
rooms and offices, all out of some reductionist corporate style of seeking yes-men, blanketed
under the rhetorical smokescreen of talent-seeking. People who simply reply to the ever-tiring
question of tell me why you want to work here with honesty, such as Id like some of those
awesome stock options or its a job, and I think I could do it well, and it pays well too will
often get shown the exit sign within the same minute of uttering that sentence. *. Instead, we
have to utter some line of BS about how awesome the company or its founder is or how we align
ourselves with its mission statement and values. If I were to start on outright posturing and

acting roles in the realm of sex and romance in America, it would require an entirely new paper
altogether.

ii.

Moral outrage

Think of how we posture with our moral outrage over the sex scandals of our leaders, where we
pretend to be shocked by the behavior of our rich and powerful. As a slew of characters
(including Obama) said in an episode of South Park on why powerful people have sex scandals,
Theres a Turd in the Punchbowl. Inside South Park reference, of course*.
Our bogus moral outrage with marijuana offenders is more than telling. The ways Bill
Clinton postured on having inhaled, and that consenting adults in the late 20th century would be
engaging in this quite alarming when we really think about it. Our police acting upset (and
genuinely believing their outward faade to an extent) when they approach and apprehend a 20
year old drinking at the same age they did before they received a badge a personal favorite
example of how deep rooted that moral posturing and facades are hardwired into our culture, and
how little we think about this. Military life has plenty of it. While the exception and not by any
means the rule, I know of times where officers would drink plenty downrange while going
out of their way to attack the careers of lower enlisted caught with so much as a beer. Dont get
me started on double standards during dry status I have heard of throughout my career.
Think about the moral posturing in GOB (Good Ole-Boy system), especially in small
towns. Or the double-standards of rich lawyers, prosecutors and DAs who have done plenty of
cocaine in law school (not to mention the occasional hooker) ruining the record (and possibly
life) of a young marijuana offender. There are countless examples to expand on which would
warrant an entire book, perhaps to be written another day*. Many of these cases involves the
posturing perpetrator actually believing their own BS and buying into their own scripted faade,
often to the point of outright self-deception. So much of our own moral or more accurately
perhaps, cultural landscape and narratives of American morality is categorical founded on
BS..and we embrace it to the fullest.
The reason for saying all this? To help people better understand why Afghans do it, by
referencing a raw human perspective.

iii.

How this applies to KLEs (Key Leader Engagements), government meetings,

Shuras, Jirgas, and even everyday interaction

When you are in a KLE, understand that you are part of a scripted performance of willing
participants. The dynamics are both real and fake at the same time, depending on the issue at
hand and whos listening. We have no problems in our villages with Taliban. This is usually a
scripted answer, which the others (who may or may not suspend disbelief) know is, while
basically bullshit, used to display status or a need for respect. Our sub-tribe has done nothing
wrong Our village has no bad people in it We are loyal supporters of the Coalition, we are
bravely fighting the Taliban every day (they often say the same but opposite thing to the

Taliban at night, literally switching the rhetoric to match the situation, for understandable
reasons).
I have been the only one in my Village who stands up to fight the Taliban. Everyone else is
bought off.
We are better Muslims than the next village
I fought off twenty Taliban during that engagement *
*He likely ducked and ran off while his subordinates killed 3 Taliban, then he multiplied that
number by 5, and claimed it a s a half-truth-this is known as Afghan math, similar to Iraqi
Math. The actual number doesnt really matterthe idea they want to communicate and the
impression they want to make is what matters. At least to them. And of course, this matters to CF
in that we need to understand what were dealing with, hearing and seeing around us.

Quick tip: The eyes are NOT a reliable indicator of lying. As stated in
(http://psychupyourlife.com/how-to-spot-a-liar-part-1-body-and-facial-cues/ ),
Our culture has embraced the idea that the eyes are the windows to the soul, but when it comes to
lying, thats simply not true. We seem to think that if someone is looking us in the eyes, that
person must be telling the truth. Actually, if anything, it is the opposite; most liars think that if
they look you in the eyes, youll believe them. So they may tend to overcompensate and look you
in the eyes a little too long and a little too intently.

Finally, please do not try to arrive at conclusion based on immediate observations alone; they can
be helpful, but the science of lie detection is more complex than reading faces. Expressions
indicate discomfort or emotion, but dont necessarily indicate lying. Reading up on Paul
Eckmans works or Joe Navarros tips on deception detection will help put this in perspective.
The show Lie to Me is a good source of entertainment and the science (most of it, as Eckman
was their advisor) is based in truth, but is not something to base ones reporting on, as its
(unfortunately) not nearly as fast or simple as it looks on TV. Rememberthese are tools in the
toolkit, not foolproof skills.

VIII. Why are Afghans so corrupt?

i. Corruption explained (from different lenses)
What is corruption? How do we define it and understand it?
In short, we tend to define it as:

In a basic sense, corruption is deviation from an ideal.

In economic terms, corruption is payment for services or material which the recipient is
not due, under law.
In general, it means sidetracking or outright breaking the rules of transaction for personal
social and material gain`.

This is a fairly standard definition. Standard, that is, by the eyes of the modern Developed
World. It encompasses the basics: pocketing money that is not supposed to be pocketed,
receiving or giving favors of undue promotion, looking the other way when smugglers slip you a
five dollar handshake. By this definition of corruption, Afghanistan is certainly the most corrupt
country in the US CENTCOM AORwhich puts it pretty high in the runnings for Most Corrupt
worldwide. What matters to decision-makers-and to some degree to the soldiers having to deal
with the frustrating sting of this reality-is why. What human factors, emotions, and
rationalizations are behind this ridiculously high level of corruption? And how do we make this
understanding operationally useful?

ii. Comparing corruption in our world to theirs

Corruption is a somewhat subjective term. In short, we are accustomed to things working the
way they should. We follow rules because we can rely on the rules to generally work. We all
agree on it for the most part, and are used to a relatively clear, defined way to do things. We rely
on the fact that others agree as well, and that this decorum is generally going to be there for us.
We take this reliability for granted, and complain loudly and swiftly when this trust is broken.
When it is, it is seen as the exception, not the rule. Corruption, to us, is the exception, because
things tend to work. In Afghanistan, things work by way of corruption. In other words, it is the
rule. And people are (ultimately, in a sense) fine with it. In general, few people are shocked for
the most part when a Malik or mayor pockets contract money for his family or patrons.
The distance between the written rules and the unwritten common sense is enormous, and
everyone pretty much agrees to this, in the same way that everyone pretty much agrees to follow
the rules in our world. The rules of the game are set, and people respond accordingly and
follow them as a means to get by and attain goals. It is basic goal-directed behavior in one of the
most human senses of the term. In short, Afghans are corrupt for the same reason that men use
pickup lines,
Our society and way of life, from the US military promotion system to the legal system and
money system to everyday correspondence with businesses and corner stores, does tend to work
alongside a system of formal legitimacy. The system is thee if you need it, and in spite of many
errors and imperfections and shortcomings, we can usually fall back on it and sleep better
knowing this. Sure, I know what youre probably thinking if you are an enlisted soldier, or even
an officer with some good time in service: The promotions system has problems-last week that
shitbag got promoted and my buddy got passed up! I get it, completely understand, trust me. Its
imperfect and sometimes downright frustratingbut overall, it works. Take the worst, most
backward unit or leadership environment you have personally experienced or heard of, within
the US military or law enforcement communities. Odds are, even on a worst day, it far outshines
the average Afghan system even on a best day. At least in terms of following a predictable set of
rules according to legitimacy. The two are just not comparable. Ditto the many other developing
countries-though many would describe Afghanistan is high in the runnings for Most Corrupt.
Is our banking and financial system corrupt? You bet-pretty much everyone agrees on this. But
its level of corruption pales in comparison to Afghanistan, where the basic institutions and rules
we are so accustomed to, the way things generally tend to work as a simple matter of principle,
dont exist the way they do here and the lack of education and inability to connect/ communicate
through the formal, standardized channels we are used to in Western society also plays a large role.

Things we take for granted, like (somewhat) responsive customer service or the (generally
reliable) ability to store money in a secure account and pay a transparent fee with the papers to
back it up-do not exist in the developing world, at least nowhere near to the standard we are
accustomed to. Sure, corruption is everywhere, but is a huge matter of degree, and degree
matters everything. If we lived in a world as corrupt and dysfunctional as theirs, we would
better understand why they play along with it to get by.

iii.

Do they distinguish between acceptable corruption and bad

corruption?

In short, yes. They do.

Rule of thumb: normal corruption vs. bad corruption
In short, corruption is accepted in Afghanistan, up to a point, there is a line after which its
considered to be wrong. Taking a modest share of funds for ones family or patrons is normal
and often tacitly accepted; taking enough to really screw over a group or village is not. When
people personally feel the sting of the corruption, when it actually disrupts their lives, its seen as
wrong. If its just routine pocketing, its not. This is a very broad generalization, but surveys
and research has found it to be pretty much true.

iv.

Why are they so angry at this guy being corrupt, when they are just
as bad?

Many people-well, humans in general-are prone to envy, self-comparison and jealousy. They are
upset when other people get off on something, such as a big tax break, a cheated deal, a hookup
of some sort. Often, this is not about the morals of cheating, stealing or lying; rather, its about
jealousy. Behavioral science around the world has demonstrated this over and over.
Think about the following examples:
This guy got off on a hookup because hes corrupt. I get off because Im a hustler.
Wall Street is greedy; Im just a successful insurance salesman, playing the game.
That guy is a womanizer, but I get laid a lot.
I might hit on other peoples womenbut no one better hit on mine!

(Think about it: how often is someone angry at you for unknowingly flirting with their female
companion simply out of an altruistic philosophical desire for all women to be safeguarded
from male flirtation? Answer: never. Its about his woman, not women in general)
How dare that guy cock-block me! Its ok when I do it to other people, but God forbid someone
does it to me.
(Same deal as above)
Sound familiar? We as humans have an ancestral tendency to get off on our own advantages,
especially when done to the disadvantage of others. It makes us feel special and gives us a
primitive sense of self-affirmation. * FACS
In the Facial Action Coding System (FACS - Facial Action Coding System (FACS), a system to
taxonomize human facial movements by how they appear on the face, based on the work of Swedish
anatomist named Carl-Herman Hjortsj[1] and adopted by Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen, and
published in 1978.[2]), this is seen as a one-sided a fleeting smile, a micro-expression - If this fraction of
a smile is present for less than 0.5 seconds - that appeared on some liars faces as they were attempting to
manipulate another with lies. It is often witnessed during poker games by less controlled players who

feel theyve duped a hand in their favor. Good to know if youre playing for ISAF pogs or nearbeer downrange.
For one of countless real-world example, check out this video of duping delight in action, Anthony Weiner style look closely
for the grin at 3:01-3:02.

On Dupers Delight,
The Navy warrant officer John Anthony Walker, Jr. was convicted as a spy for the Soviet Union
in 1987, and is serving a life sentence. The New York Times said he had been the most damaging
spy in history, having helped the Soviets decipher over 200,000 encrypted naval messagesWhat
motivated this smart, devious fellow to be so foolish? Probably what I call duping delight, the
near irresistible thrill some people feel in taking a risk and getting away with it. Sometimes it
includes contempt for the target who is being so ruthlessly and successfully exploited. It is hard to
contain duping delight; those who feel it want to share their accomplishments with others,
seeking admiration for their exploits.
When Hitler so successfully lied to Chamberlain concealing that he had already mobilized the
German army to attack Poland, he asked for a time-out from their meeting. With his generals who
had been witnessing his most successful lies, Hitler went into an anteroom, where he reportedly
jumped up and down with joy, and then having reduced his duping delight, he returned to the
meeting.

-Written December, 2009, Dr. Paul Eckman.

The Sack Lodge analogy

If you can spare a movie moment for illustration purposes, recall the scene right at the pivotal
turning point of Wedding Crashers, when Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn (I cannot remember
most of the fictional character names at the moment) are finally caught once and for all,
conclusively, to be well, wedding crashers. Imposters, intruding into the sanctity of
Christopher Walkins affluent family circle by deceiving, lying, and smooth-talking their way
into the innermost corners of the familys life, all the while entertaining a complete rouse. And
all for the purpose of sleeping with girls. At least thats the perception of Bradley Coopers
character, Sack Lodge, the infamous archetypal douschrocket of a fianc and well-off fratboy
with a propensity to be a living, walking asshat at every opportunity. During this scene, he
chased them out onto the front lawn, broke the news to Rachael McAdams character, and
punched Wilson in the face, protecting his undeserved fianc from the clutches of anyone who
would dare intrude on his turf, be it a wedding party, family, home, or future wife. He angrily
tells the entire family that they are wedding crashersthey crash weddings so they can sleep
with girls.

As much as we were rooting against him and for the protagonist crashers, his outrage was
perfectly understandable; however, it was far from altruistic. His reasons his very underlying
emotions and motives - for being upset and outraged at the wedding crashers behavior were
fundamentally different than those of the average person viewing the scene.
Think about this for a second, from the vantage point of hindsight and reflective honesty: was
Bradly Coopers character in Wedding Crashers really, genuinely outraged and morally upset
by the idea of what they had done? Was he actually infuriated by their action out of some
altruistic belief in safeguarding women from deceivers, or of upholding some ideological edifice
of sexual purity?
The answer is probably not.

He was upset by the fact that it was done to his woman, on his turfand most of all, that he was
the one being deceived. If one of his yuppie-frat buddies did this same exact thing to another
family of complete strangers with the stated purpose of consummating every attractive woman in
sight, and actually carried this out with shameless, unrestrained zeal, his character would likely
have responded with congratulatory laughs and shots of booze upon completion of mission. He
was not offended by the actions of the wedding crashers, nor by what they stood for. He was
offended by the fact that they were doing it in his turf. If it was in anyone elses turf he and
most others like him would not think twice about it.
So it is with Afghans and many forms of lying, deception, cronyism, patronage, and corruption.
Now modify the above sentence by substituting the word Afghans with Americans, and most
reading this would likely not bat and eye or raise a finger in protest. Further still, swap out the
word Americans for most human beings outside of devout moral adherents and ethical bigcity Comptrollers, and you have a pretty good idea how silly it is that we act shocked and
surprised when we see Afghans selectively railing about corruption.

Myself and my Team Leader, Fred, reveling in our own advantages as we were getting off on the awesomeness of
being in high-level GS positions in Afghanistan. As we were joking about our shameless perks (we are both former
military, of course), we pondered the parallels between American behavior and Afghan behavior in regards to
getting over on special favors, working the system, deceiving others, and even justifying ones position at the
expense of those affected by the corrupt patronage.
Note: This was actually during an attack on our COP in Northern Kunar; despite the large cache of weapons, we
couldnt do much other than remain indoors (and take an occasional photo).

Of course, we strive as decent humans to overcome this natural tendency, as we shouldbut it is

just that-natural. What is also natural is getting angry, offended, and upset when others get

over on us. We feel cheated, sometimes threatened inside. This, in a nutshell, is often why
Afghans dime out other people, other officials, other Maliks, and other villages for being
corrupt, but no more corrupt than the one bitching about it. Its a huge double standard, but its
rooted in primitive instinct. Very often, they are not so much angry about the corruption
itself, but at the fact that they are not the ones benefitting from it.
Sound shallow and selfish? It is. Thats how humans are, and Afghans probably live closer to the
spirit of raw, unfiltered ancestral humans than anyone else in the world.
Of course, it often has to do with the simple fact that people are more prone to see the flaws in
others than they are in themselves. The my s**t doesnt stink analogy. Its pretty universal.
Same deal with Afghans. Human like everyone elsejust more human than we are used to.

Perhaps a useful analogy here to drive home the point is the degree to which many terrorists and
insurgents rant and rave quite vocally against how Western-supported governments (in any
number of countries in the Arab world) mistreated them in prison: how they beat me, used
electroshock, beat me with an electric cable, or slapped me around, etc. There are countless
times when mistreatment in government prisons becomes ones defining experience, ones
turning point. It often leads to people being further radicalized, or taken from common criminal
or low-level activist to high-profile figure, hardcore insurgent or charismatic leader at some level
in the bad guy hierarchy. Often they cite treatment under the US Military. Perhaps they were
subjected to the extreme ends of FM 34-52, or made to listen to Team America songs in loop
under conditions of darkness and unpredictable sleep disruptions. Sometimes blatantly unethical
abuse occurs under our umbrella, however rare, as weve seen openly and (no doubt) behind
closed doors. These radical operatives recalling how enraged they are about how we or the host
government treated themthey would be interesting to really question and probe for any
consistency in their views. Are they actually against torture? Or are they just upset because they
were the ones who had to deal with it? Palestinians are enraged anytime Israelis mistreat their
people in prison. Does this bring Palestinians any closer to humanizing the way they treat Israelis
in their prisons? Even by an inch? Probably not.
The answer to all this is simple: They are angry because they were the ones experiencing the
corruption.
A few select paragraphs from an article I wrote*, Insurgents and Human Nature: Why
'Freedom Fighters' are rarely about freedom

Back to the main point about Islamist insurgents in the Middle East, Afghanistan and other
places. They do not have many likes of Platos concept of the good life on their social media

profiles. An insurgent who would participate with gleeful Quranic chant as a screaming
Americans head is being horribly cut off, is often the same person who is outraged at having to
listen to CF interrogators subject him or his brother, cousin, or fellow insurgent friend to a looped
version of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Why is this? Why the glaring double standards in
opposing oppression? Why are these masters of brutality and de-humanization so angry when a
fellow insurgent, or even a fellow Muslim, is abused in the slightest? They are not angry because
they are against torture. It is not because they are anti-oppression in some altruistic or higherorder sense. Its not like they just finished reading Hobbes with a side selective works by Kant,
while nursing a Venetian espresso with organic milk while listening to audio Podcasts of
Francisco Suaraz, Thomas Hobbes, Kierkegaard, and Samuel von Pufendorf. DIA network
analytics most likely does not show many traces of their finances making a donation to Human
Rights Watch or Habitat for Humanity, yet they greatly denounce any real or perceived
mistreatment of anyone labeled a Muslim or fellow insurgent.

Later in the article, I continue,

These operatives would drill into a hand or break a limb of some unfortunate (typically fellow
Muslim) capturee, then complain during a propaganda video about how the Syrians slapped them
with a glove in a jail cell when they were detained by the Oppressive government of the
Infidels. Once they are in power, according to their grand vision for a society run under their
ideals and principles, do they intend on being less oppressive? The average insurgent isn't
fighting the oppressive status quo because they are principled stoic philosophers well-read in
Aristotle, Socrates, Russo, Montesquieu, and Zeno of Citium. When our troops raided an AlQaida safe house in 2007, they found an illustrated Torture Handbook, not a copy of The
Meditations of Marcus Aurelius mail-ordered from the nearest Barnes and Noble. With
exception, the typical freedom fighter is typically not a self-described fan of Jeffersons zealous
safeguarding of natural rights or of Maddisonean founding arguments; when they are, it is often
for rhetoric and brilliantly interwoven commentary on the compatibility of their philosophy with
freedom and justice, a rhetorical smokescreen for underlying selfish motives and an agenda often
more oppressive than the unscrupulous regime they are fighting (think about Iran, post-1979).

And toward the end,

The answer to all this is simple: They are angry because they were the ones experiencing the
corruption. Seriouslyif you are an insurgent or insurgent sympathizer in Afghanistan, Iraq or
anywhere on earth and this paper somehow makes its way into your literate hands, lets be honest.
Your principles of waging war on the streets of Damascus, Erbil, Baghdad, Kabul, Jalalabad or
separatist Chechnyan towns and villages does not come from Justinian, St. Augustine, and
Thomas Aquinas. Nor on the array of Islamic thinkers, philosophers, jurists and literature on

human rights throughout history. It more than likely comes from ego, power, victimology, (often
very legit, understandable and justified) grievance, and a tribalistic need to fight an out-group and
defend your 'in-group'. Your angry, your self-serving, your power-hungry, your ruthless, and your
human. Just admit it. Watching your propaganda videos is like sitting through a McDonalds
commercial showing white yuppies and million-dollar athletes talk about 12-piece chicken
nuggets. Its painfully insulting to our intelligence...yet it works on the masses.

In short, we hate the oppressors when were getting the bad end of the stick, but are rarely
against oppression. It is quite ironic, if irony is even the right word.

So it is with people worldwide. The double standard is universal. Sometimes it is specific to

Afghansand sometimes it is this human tendency. And sometimes it is some of both.

v.

Main Point: Afghans are corrupt because they respond to

incentivesjust like everyone else on earth

If we strive to understand the fact that people respond to incentives, we should be better able to
see why Afghans in a position to 'hook up' their family, friends and patrons are typically very
inclined to do so. When everyone else is doing it, and it is considered acceptable to a point, then
the average person will do the same. It should also become more understandable why this is not
considered by Afghans to be surprising or criminal the way it is to us. As irritating, repetitive and
sometimes downright disheartening as it is, it is simply 'what is', regardless of what 'should be'.
Expecting anything different is like expecting a platoon of Soldiers or Marines to pass through
several bars and pubs upon stateside redeployment and drink coffee instead of beer or whiskey.
This proposition would make no sense to the average Joe, even those who dont personally drink
themselves. While there are certainly exceptions-some people may actually drink coffee at 8pm
in a bar- such a thing goes tends to go against what we are used to and how we live.

IX. Projects, Gratitude, and Lies: Why generosity doesnt (usually)

buy a village

(AKA The other Big Question: We do so much for them, and yet they dont
seem to help us in return. Why?)

This seeming lack of thanks and appreciation on part of the locals for our 'generous' projects
often flies dead in the face of everything we learn about Pashtun gratitude and reciprocal giving
between people.
How can a culture so respectful and gratitude-based when it comes to small gifts and small
gestures be so thankless and opportunistic when it comes to much bigger 'gifts' such as projects?
Why do they reciprocate the small generosity but not the big stuff, like giving them a new well
or a tractor or school?

This seems to fly in the face of all logic...until we examine the Afghan distinction
between personal generosity and government 'generosity' (or institutional generosity from power
brokers). It isn't much different in the US (and the rest of the world) for that matter: think about
the 'poor community' described above. People give and exchange gratitude and favors on
personal level all the time. This has a personal dimension. At the same time, people 'work the
system' all the time, with welfare, food stamps and the like, and its 'just business', or even
expected, everyday survival. This has an institutional, non-personal dimension. Same with
Afghans. In short, one is 'personal' and the other is just 'business'.

i.

The Analogy of a Low-Income Community in America

Imagine you are a person living in a low-income neighborhood in America. White, Black,
Hispanic, mixed, whatever, doesnt matter. Its all the same when it comes to basic human

nature. In this typical scenario, you are very tight with your close friends and family, with social
ties and bonds of mutual respect further solidified by years of hardship and survival, weathered
by the interdependence among your group. Others in this poor neighborhood are equally tight
with their 'in-group', and give and exchange favors, gifts, and appreciation on a regular basis.
Even though you dont really 'know' everyone in the community, there is an unwritten decorum
of respect and understanding among members. You don't go running your mouth or causing
trouble. If you help others, they will eventually help you, so it helps to build alliances. But when
it comes to friends, it's about basic respect and rules of hospitality. You take a 6-pack of beer
from a fridge, you replace it. Ditto to car repair parts or a lawnmower.
Gift-giving or favors of sorts is encouraged, and helps everyone cope with the hard life
they live. You bring a bottle of good Scotch, Vodka or Whiskey to a friend or group, and your
gift is well received by the recipient, so long as your generosity is sincere. You help fix your
fiends car, and in return he gives you a much-needed ride to work. These are all personal
interactions of a personal quality, and the personal gratitude is there with every genuine
exchange. You can't really buy your way to friendship and respect in this community, you
must give people a reason to think you care. If you just hand out money, people will
ultimately think you are a tool to be taken advantage of.
Now, contrast the personal nature of 'giving' and 'reciprocating' described above and
compare it with another aspect of life in your community: working the system. The 'institutions',
the welfare offices, the 'community projects', the system so to speak. You go to the Social
Services building and collect your share. A faceless bureaucracy guides you to a faceless
bureaucrat behind a desk who gives you your next paycheck or food-stamp. While sometimes
genuinely needed and helpful, it is still just a 'service', not a personal favor. Yes, some projects
here and there, from a local, well-established church for example, may be a genuine exchange of
giving and gratitude on a personal level in the community...but most of the time, its just
'business' and 'hustle'.

ii.

Now back to Afghanistan

Now let's transition this thought process back to Afghanistan. There is a difference
between how Afghans perceive personal giving and institutional giving that explains why so
many government fail to build a solid relationship to a village. Or for that matter, why the people
and local Maliks are always 'hustling' or 'playing' the Coalition for more money without giving
much in return.
In recent history, Afghans have seen various local and foreign regimes and forms of government
come in and out of style, in and out of power, off and on...and Afghans have long learned out
of habit and necessity to get as much as they can from whatever government services are
around at the moment, and take whatever is offered them, and for the reasons described in the
Understanding the Afghan Hustle' section of this paper. In short, they see 'government' (to
include CFs) as another power-broker, a de facto source of revenue, projects, etc. -in this case, a
'faceless entity' from which they can work with to better their position and survival. They dont

see a local government project as a 'personal favor' or gesture of goodwill the way they see a
respectful gift from one person to another. When I buy Afghan bread from the local Afghan
bread shop at JAF, they often give me extra free of charge, even though I can easily afford it. It's
not about the amount or the money, its about the heart and intent
behind the gesture. When I leave an extra tip on top of the two or three dollars to buy the
flatbread, or bring them a Pashto-English dictionary or a baseball cap, they appreciate this on a
personal level. In both cases, they are giving and receiving based on genuine, personal feelings
of rapport.
Large, faceless projects (even when done with KLEs and talking) often don't have this
component. Many projects are 'appreciated' the same way a girl might 'appreciate' all the free
drinks she gets from random dudes trying to score, or the way a pan-handler appreciates the
money people give away in response to a smooth hustle. It is superficial appreciation, and does
not by any means denote respect or a genuine relationship. Very often, it is more about the
relationship and respect than the projects themselves. They often don't even need the projects so
much as they crave the attention and sense of affirmation they get when people do the projects
for them (instead of the next village, for example-see previous section

iii.

Scoring and Foreplay: To Score the Rapport, you need Cultural

Foreplay

Building a relationship with a village-while not an 'End-state' in broader operational art and
design-is in some sense an end state in and of itself. It cannot happen superficially-it has to be
worked and gamed, just like one games potential mates in a bar or a salesman games a potential
customer. As stated above, security and other tactical constraints often get in the way, and often
such a relationship may never be built, at no fault of the unit involved. But when time is
available, it can happen. Here's how:
As a possibly sweeping generality, using intentionally loose metaphorical language, Afghans
love attention. They practically thrive on it (dont we allespecially if attention may equal
status and mobility?). They also love social foreplay drinking chai, small talk, and
demonstrations of personal concern for their state of life. They love man-love and foreplay. Not
talking about sexual innuendo, but rapport-building in Afghan (especially Pashtun) culture.
Visiting a village and trying to win over their respect and trust with only one or two brief KLEs
and a project of some sort is-in a sense- like trying to drop a few lines on someone in a bar, buy
them a drink, and expect results. Think of time in the village and personal, one-on-one talking
with the local leaders and commoners as a form of prepping the human Battlespace- what I term
cultural foreplay, and think of the next stage-building a relationship with that village (or a
section of the people in it, such as several key leaders)-as 'scoring'. This is a loose analogy, and
there are always plenty of exceptions.

XI. Poverty, Projects and Life Contentment: What Afghans

(Really) Want

BLUF: Its not about the money, or what it does so much as it is about the feeling of
empowerment it brings.

To be honest, Afghans are rather cryptic and hard to understand. The average nonAfghan is as clueless about what Afghans really want as a post-pubescent pre-teen boy is about
what women really want. Sure, there are many seasoned ISAF personnel who understand their
needs, but on average it is hard for a non-Afghan to understand the needs of an Afghan, because
their needs are hidden beneath a layer of complexity.
However, it is possible to make their hidden layer of needs more understandable if we
really it down to the core: respect, affirmation and a sense of pride and stability for themselves,
their family and wider community. In other words, its not so much about the money as it is about
having a sense of dignity and a respected position in everyday life. Hence, being able to work
and feel like a dignified human being is whats important to Afghans. Being able to support
ones family, pay for the sons wedding, or avoid having to become indebted to ones family and
peers are among prime importance in the culture, and are what are called intangible needs.
It helps to look at things less in terms of tangible needs as in terms of intangible needsdignity, respect, etc. To an Afghan, financial stability (especially a labor pathway) is more a
source of pride, self-affirmation and personal dignity than anything else. The amount paid, while
an important consideration for many reasons (including the avoidance of perceived favoritism
and the avoidance of being used or hustled), is not nearly as important as the source of
affirmation and pride for the worker or recipient in relation to himself, his family and his tribe
that the money or labor opportunity provides. Thus, any form of tangible cash-based assistance
should if possible, and if true impact is to be felt - be paired with an assessment of intangible
factors of dignity, honor (nang) and pride. This means that throwing money at a tractor or well
is quite often not true empowerment unless it gives the village-or at least the key leaders-a source
or pathway to feeling empowered.

When it really comes down to it, Afghans are materially poor (as we define it in Western terms),
they always have been materially poor, and they probably will remain so for quite a while. That
is not the point-they are used to living this way, often content living this way, and are honestly
more concerned with intangible things like dignity and respect from others, both inside
their village and outside. A farmer, shop owner or day laborer wants to be seen as a man of
honor and self-reliance by his family and village. A village wants to be respected by
neighboring villages and outside entities. These are what Pashtuns and Afghans in general
care most about. They will accept hardship and rugged mountains, death and suffering, rather
than insult and a loss of face and respect. Yes, basic needs like potable water, food security and
basic healthcare are important to them as anyone else, and these issues must be addressed and
incorporated into the needs assessment framework. But going beyond this, they are really
looking for pathways of dignity and affirmation, pathways of respect for the people within their
village and for the entire village itself.
That said, a huge problem and source of indignity in Afghanistan is indeed material poverty, not
because people need more electricity or television sets, but because so many families rely on
remittances and other forms of support just to survive. Most Afghans that work on our FOB do it
for money for their families, not just themselves. Most everyone with any surplus amount of
money will have family that they need to support, kids and cousins, mothers and uncles, fathers
and brothers that rely on their expected generosity and support. They must support family
because of a lack of jobs and stable economy.
The true poverty here is the difficulty-and worse yet, inability in some cases-of an Afghan to
support his family. This is a source of humiliation and hurt, whether it be a failure to provide
basic necessities such as food or healthcare, or social necessities such as paying for an oldest
sons wedding. The ability to provide for ones family is part of ones self-concept of manhood,
and to lack such means is a psychologically regressive pathway to losing manhood, or at least
losing traction in the pursuit of it.

Conclusion Revisiting our Primal Nature as a way to

modern civility

Understanding and respecting Afghans may best be summed up to soldiers in the

following words. Words I likely would have said or written had my service and return from war
been during the now-unimaginable public atmosphere of the Vietnam era. My imagined but
sincere words to an imagined crowd of college protesters and anti-war students in a Berkeley
Campus auditorium back in the late 60s is written below, written specifically for this paper. As
you read it, imagine, in the back of your mind, if a slightly modified version of this was written
by an Afghan villager to a group of angry western Coalition force members.

But for now, imagine it mainly in the context of a college campus above. The
hypothetical letter read as follows:

We are soldiers, veterans, and you are telling us and the world what you want and what
you think is right. For all your preconceptions of normal, civilized, right and
wrong, please hear me out better stated, please hear us out, and let us tell you what we
want. We want people to understand us, even when they are not quite capable of doing
so. To at least try to understand enough to respect what we do and why we have to fight
and be warriors. At the very least, respect us for who we are and what we do, and dont
judge us for what you havent experienced and will probably never fully understand. And
this is ok you dont have to fully understand.
But you should withhold judgment. We are human just like you, have families and
friends just like you, and are capable of love and tears, care and compassion, regret and
sorrow, just like any one you. Not only that, but you are actually just as capable of
killing, of de-humanizing, and of hating the enemy as we are. Had you been born into
most of the world during most of human history, you would be just as culpable as the
very warriors to accuse of primitive behavior, something unseen to your modern,
civilized eyes. Something near undetectable to the university-molded lenses of civility
and correctness you have been privileged to see the world through as you tell everyone
else how to live, love and exist.
You are not more loving or civil than we are; you just havent had to revisit your primal
nature yet. We, however, had to tap into our primal selves because that is what war does,
and this is something we have to go through so that the rest of you dont, so that you can
continue to lecture us from behind the academic podium and protesters bullhorn about the
horrors and tragedies of war you will probably never experience. You have likely never
had to lose close friends to the enemy, nor kill anyone in self-defense. Nor know many
friends who have ongoing nightmares and trouble sleeping because of it. We do take
pride in what we do, and we have a bond and a camaraderie that you will probably never
understand or fully appreciate. We hold each other accountable, and have codes of honor
and civility toward fellow human beings, and strive to be as humane as we can amidst an
inherently inhumane world known as the Battlefield. We are indeed a strange few, and
recognize that we are different in what we do and how we think about certain things than
most other people in the world. We expect to be misunderstood, both in mystifying
narratives of glory and in vicious detractors and skeptics.
In spite of our shortcomings as humans, we still hold this strong, priceless rapport that
cannot quite be put into words for those who have not experienced it. This is not a bad

thing we defend our own even when it may seem odd to outsiders who dont understand
what we have together, as a unit. What is even more ironic is this: Yes, sadly, we do often
de-humanize and see others as the enemy. This is not because we are bad people, but
because it is almost unavoidable in war, as you obviously dont yet understand. But
because of seeing a warzone up close and personal, we are actually more capable of
loving and appreciating those we come home to, of valuing and caring about life, and
empathizing with our fellow humans. Of respecting and cherishing that moment-tomoment experience we have seen taken from others on both sides of a fight none of use
wanted in the first place. None of us save the few old men who talk while the young men
die on their behalf. This is a horrible cycle of life. A vicious pattern of human history,
from ancient times to the juggles and rice paddies of Vietnam or the streets of the US. We
dont like this pattern any more than you do, in fact we have every reason to hate it far
more.
Unlike you, however, we have to deal with this vicious cycle of fighting, death and the
corruption of old men and the loss of innocence in children robbed of a life without the
constant sting of fear, uncertainty, and combat. We are warriors because we have to be,
not because we all wake up one fine morning and reject the sunlight, the vast open green
fields, and the joys of friends and fellowship in favor of a life of hardship, death, and
struggle. What we are and have to be is not always who we are. Understanding this
difference is the key to understanding us, to humanizing us, even as you hate what we are
doing and how we are living as fighters.
And just as we urge you to see us in this light, so we must urge ourselves to understand
the cultures and ways of life in the places we are fighting in, with a similar light and
similar distinction. Villagers lie to us, deceive us, side with the enemy, and even run
inside their homes or throw rocks while we try desperately to help liberate them. But
most of them do not wake up one morning and choose this way of life; it is handed to
them, and they are surviving and adapting to their environment just like we are.
Underneath this ugly layer of fighting and survival, they are human just like we are. And
understanding that is the key to understanding each other, even when we dont see eye to
eye or get along.

That said, I can imagine the Afghan people writing a similar speech for the Coalition
Forces. We dont have to fully understand how they live and what they are going through
surviving another day as an Afghan. Despite my years of cultural and ethnography training and
experience and my skills in Dari, Pashtu, and Urdu, I will probably never fully know or
understand, no matter how many times I throw on my manjams and scarf and sit, eat and
immerse in their culture, and put an ironic, almost unexplainable faith in their Pashtunwali and
village security to keep me from having to fall back on our accompanying side-arms and soldiers

for protection. There are a handful of Coalition members who may understand, former ODA
MAJ Jim Gant and his Team being among them. And according to his testimony in One Tribe at
a Time, nothing brings us closer to the best and worst of our own humanity and our raw human
nature, than the humbling reality of living, breathing, surviving, loving, and fighting amongst the
Afghans. Nothing more so than the hospitality, mutual respect, danger, bravery, honor,
brotherhood and the constant possibility of new enemies we find in the rugged mountains and
valleys of what is modern Afghanistan.

On a final note, perhaps the best way to respect and appreciate the differences and
similarities between ourselves and Afghans or many other cultures involved with the scourge
of instability, conflict and hardship is to revisit the basic pillar of truth about our shared primal
warrior ethos. To re-state something in this papers early chapter on the parallels between
Afghan and human tribalism. To most Americans (and most in the modern, civilized world)
without certain types of prior training or experience, this inner nature will not come naturally.
Those people to whom it does such as Coalition soldiers and Afghan male villagers may be
seen by those without this frame of reference with skepticism, curiosity, and even disapproval.
But all of us, from the coffee-shop hipster or European anti-war protester to the American
combat soldier to the Afghan Arbaki or militia fighter, have this warrior nature and primal ethos
deep within us. It is how we filter it, regulate it, use it, control it and channel it that makes us true
men and women.

A closing analogy may be in order, as many soldiers have trouble understanding those
who dont understand warrior ethos, and vice versa. As I recall in my earlier years, the head
instructor at the former Close Combatives Institute (CCI) outside Ft Bragg, NC would emphasize
these points especially to Special Forces trainees - many times. Countless defense experts do so
as well, as it is a primal and lasting truth that ironically few in the modern, civilized world really
grasp unless its too late. When life and family are threatened, we are more likely to dig this
inner warrior out of us and turn back into our ancestors, for better or worse. But as most
soldiers and many deployed civilians have been trained and conditioned to access this inner
warrior in thought process, mindset and action many may fail to realize that for millions of
Americans without any frame of reference to such unless theyve played football, done martial
arts or boxing, had a rough childhood, or even committed years to the Scouts this is a foreign
concept. They do not naturally have this warrior mindset. It is there, deep down, but must be
dug out either by training or by certain events.
Recall the scene at the end of the forth Rambo film (which is actually quite insightful into
both the Burmese / Myanmar conflict and into raw human behaviors on both sides of the
goodguy-badguy storyline; a highly recommended movie except for romantic occasions), in
which the lead missionary instinctively killed his antagonist. If you recall, he was the selfrighteous, ultra-pacifist missionary-doctor who was constantly lecturing Rambo on the evils of
killing for any reason, even after Rambo had saved him, his wife Sarah, and the rest of the
medical mission team towards the middle of the film from an encounter with an oncoming
Myanmar pirate boat that would have no doubt ended in repeated rape and murder at the hands
of the pirates. If you have seen this film, and are of the male species, recall the rush of
satisfaction, excitement, and pure adrenaline at the end when Rambo takes the .50 Cal and
reverses the local genocide on the killing squads, saving the missionaries and the former SAS
veteran-lead mercenary rescue team. Even people who have never fought on a battlefield, in an
octagon, or a football field will still likely got in touch with their inner primate during that scene.
If you remember, the ultra-pacifist character finally picks up a rock and kills one of the badguys
in self-defense, almost without any thought, to save himself and his wife after many of his
comrades are killed or wounded from the death squads. He then looks in horror at his own hands
but realizes that while deeply saddened, it had to be done. He even gives Rambo a
Ayrespect bro look at the very end. One cannot truly understand primal behavior until they
are forced to reckon with the primal environment. We should remember all of this as we look at
the wondrous and often unforgiving landscape of what is modern Afghanistan, a primal
throwback to the joys and sorrows of ancient fellowship and primal blood-feuds.
The point is this: we are tribal creatures, primal as any Afghan, down to our roots. We
have just filtered it through hundreds of years of civilization. We are all players on the same
battlefield of life, the same chessboard. Only through mutual respect for our fellow humans,
however different they may be, can we arrive at the best possible outcome to the many
stalemates and dilemmas we will encounter as we weather our shared existence across the rugged
tapestry of geographic and human terrain we inherited as a species.