Tribalism is not to be found in developed countries, but in under developed ones. It is a retrograding aspect. The tribe has a political, social and economic duty dictated by objective conditions that are the protection, security and safety of its members against any foreign oppression or aggression. No one can deny the fact that ' Al Ashair ' principles are incompatible with western democracy, because democracy is built on the power of law, whereas 'Al Ashair' deny civil society and civil law, and consider this to be opposed to their principles. These tribes were in continuous conflict between each other, and between the Ottoman rulers. The ottoman rulers would encourage intra-tribal wars to weaken the tribes. Al Ashair' Sheikhs were not feudalists or land owners but were only eloquent leaders among their tribesmen united by blood and kinship. British colonizers, distributed lands for them, and so changed them from protectors of their tribes into feudal oppressors, The British had also passed laws instituting 'Al Ashair' Constitutional Legislative in 1918. The monarchy system was based on feudalism, and Sheikhs were the dominant figures of the economy, and powerful owners of the agricultural lands. They were also powerful in setting law decision as they were dominant in the parliament. When the July 14th, 1958 revolt took place, one of its immediate goal was to bring down feudalism, it proclaimed the end of the 'Al Ashair'. the US took the decision to stand up against the march riot of 1991 and stick the Saddam regime, but let him crushed by the Al Anbari riot in 1993-1996. April, 2003 tribal revival became prosperous because of the decline of economy and social security, the appearance of terrorism. The balance of power between the state and the tribe is absent in areas being controlled by the tribes... Detribalization in towns is, accompanied by conflicts between the state and the tribes, between the tribes and the population, between the tribes themselves, and conflicts within the Iraqi new government state, most certainly. Iraqi government accused American by creating Sunnite militias and this could end to Iraqi-Iraqi war. It is either to have state law or armed militias, the new tribal militias caused a big gap in the balance of power in the Iraqi politics. the US pointed the leader of the Islamic party Tarek Al Hashimi in Al Anbar to face the Iraqi Islamic State ( Al Qaida) in Al Anbar. Al Anbari tribes demanded the ousted of the Islamic party from their region. Al Anbari tribes looked for new alliances before the march election 2010. The success of the counter-insurgency strategy is contingent on elements of the security situation that the U.S. has little control over. One of the major factors contributing to recent security improvements is the Awakening's formation. The US exploit the tribes to combat Al Qaida, foreign forces can rarely win a battle against rebellion local movements, US face forces on Al Anbari ground, militias, resistance, Baath group, the new Sunnite War Lords. The Iranian interference in Iraq is important, the Iranian regime is totally aware of their inability to confront the American military, therefore, they are willing to use any tactic that would hinder the US project, providing that this tactic would not serve the Sunnite interests in the long run. Iran's strategic aims do not match those of the Americans. But Iran differs from the US in their tactical aims, of which the most important is to get rid of the first enemy that is the Sunnites It seems that the feature of change and modification has been predominant on the Iraqi scene for the past five years, and we think it will remain as such in the progressive future, at least. It was not a common situation in a society overwhelmed, for over three decades, by one ideology, one belief, one nationalist party, one tribe, one family, one leader, and so on...