In my opinion the intrusion of an international market economy is lessening the importance of tribal loyalties, which have an economic dimension. And if/when the Afghan government/NATO can provide security, the tribe will become even less relevant as a provider of protection for its members.

So basically, my two cents is that the tribe is not as important as it was under Abdur Rahman when Ghilzais where being deported to the north, but is is still a relevant institution, although it is being further eroded.

This is definitely a good subject to put up for discussion.

As for that article. For one I’d be interested to know which Iranians have close ties to which Gulf States. For another, the Baluchi are Pakistani in name only—they have engaged in violent clashes with Islamabad just as much as they apparently are doing now with Tehran. Think of them like you would the Kurds, a third party stateless Sunni ethnicity with a vested interest in remaining as independent as possible. Mir Aimal Kasi, the guy who shot up the CIA entrance in 1993, was Baluchi.

So it’s not surprising they hate the Iranian regime. Neither is it surprising the U.S. is supporting them, at least tacitly. I would venture the relationship is more opportunistic than calculated, but it’s not beyond our government to support local crazies who might make our short term job easier, consequences be damned.

But you’d think they’d have learned the lesson of supporting Islamic insurgencies.

Yeah, it does seem far fetched that in a tribal society, tribal disputes, going long back, would have much impact on present day society. (sigh…)

Anyway, on another subject, anything opinion on this?
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/20865