Where we are now.

Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.

Tribalism has been defined in engaged theory as a 'way of being' based upon variable combinations of kinship-based organization, reciprocal exchange, manual production, oral communication, and analogical inquiry. Ontologically, tribalism is oriented around the valences of analogy, genealogy and mythology. This means that customary tribes have their social foundations in some variation of these tribal orientations, while at the same time often taking on traditional practices (including through religions of the book such as Christianity and Islam), and modern practices, including monetary exchange, mobile communications, and modern education.

The social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the relatively small size of customary tribes, social life in those kinds of tribes usually involves a relatively undifferentiated role structure, with few significant political or economic distinctions between individuals.

Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. Based on strong relations of proximity and kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a strong feeling of identity. Objectively, for a customary tribal society to form there needs to be ongoing customary organization, inquiry and exchange. However, subjectively, intense feelings of common identity can lead people to feel tribally connected. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism - objective and subjective - is an important one because, while tribal societies have been pushed to the edges of the western world, tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. A few writers have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages, however this claim is usually linked to equating original questions of sociality with tribalism.

(WIkipedia)

George Armstrong Custer has long been one of the most controversial figures in American military history. Famously last in his class at West Point ( he was worse than John McCain) he was a hero of the "War to Set Men Free." Serving as a young protégé to such luminaries and miscreants as George McClellan and Alfred Pleasonton, Custer was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers at the tender age of twenty three. At East Cavalry Field, Custer led a mounted charge of the 1st Michigan Cavalry, . which he lead from the front losing more than 200 troopers in the aftermath of the Battle of Gettysburg.Finally coming under the command of Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan in 1864, Custer was involved in most of the battles in the eastern theatre of the war, destroying Jubal Early's army and accepting the flag of truce at Appomattox. Promoted brevet Major General he amassed a stellar career as a fighting officer.

He was vain and theatrical but that was the style of the time. Although his soldiers mocked his costumes they respected that he lead from the front unlike many other officers of the time. Perhaps he was too stupid to be afraid, but there is no doubt he was a man of courage. The fact is he was a warrior. And warriors kill people. Warriors like Genghis Khan, Saladin, El Cid, Richard the Lionhearted, Charles Martel, Gustas Alpohus, Napleon, Wellington, Andrew Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Robert E. Lee, US Grant, Black Jack Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, and George Patton. Some were more brutal than others. Some were leaders and some were butchers. But they were in the business of killing the enemy. As Patton once said "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Political attitudes come and go and standards of behavior change over time but the fundamental rules still apply. 

The question is do we have military leaders who will do what has to be done today. Will they be willing to kill the enemy. Because the enemy has shown they have no compunction in killing us. Is the military full of Custers or Grants. Where do we stand after eight years of Obama firing the fighting soldiers and putting the politicians in place.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.