September 26th, 2006


Condition: Red

Tony Blankley in his editorial in Washington Times hit the point square:

There is an historically fairly predictable pattern to the unfolding strategies and views of great wars. They often start with a morally ambiguous view of the enemy, a more limited conception of the war's magnitude and a restrained application of violent tactics.

Eventually, moral clarity is obtained, war objectives expand — often to grandiosity, and tactics become ferocious. For example at the start of our Civil War in 1861 at the Battle of First Manassas, spectators came out by carriage with picnic lunches to observe the event. By 1865, Gen. Sherman executed a campaign of civilian terror and material obliteration in his march to the sea. Likewise, the war started with the purpose of saving the union, but morally expanded to end slavery — north and south. Collapse )

And just today during routine news walk around Al-Jazeira site I found another article

The erosion of the Arab state by Soumaya Ghannoushi

Child of the colonial legacy, of Sykes/ Picot and the European powers' scramble for the Ottoman inheritance, the Arab state has always carried deficiency and impotence as part of its genetic make-up.

Official failure to provide adequate defence systems and maintain homeland security has generated a vacuum, which is being gradually filled by non-governmental socio-political movements with armed wings.

Disillusionment with the official political order and growing cynicism about its ability to preserve a semblance of sovereignty, liberate occupied land, or safeguard national interests has brought new actors onto the stage of Arab politics.

These non-state players, which include Hizbollah in Lebanon and several armed groups in Palestine, are increasingly occupying the centre of the public sphere in the Middle East, profiting from the declining legitimacy of the political elite tied to the stakes of foreign dominance in the region and lacking popular support to speak of.

Collapse )

I feel what Tony Blankley describes. I am still considering myself sane, but when I read news about killing in Ramalla or Iraq I don't have any emotional responce. Worse - I read about death of our own without emotional responce. It is already not "something that we could prevented". It is "something that happen", "something we should bear through".

And on other hand we have balance of a sort - a Western army can easily invade any of Middle-East states, but it can't suppress a popular uprisal. Sectarian violence in Iraq, Hizballa war with Israel in Lebanon, HAMAS victory in Palestinian Authority - owerwhelming advantage of Israel or US army can do nothing with it.

So the present bid of Islamists is like "the worse it is - the better we are" - deterioration of a state provide them both - freedom from hated government and non-symmetric defense from the West. And bid of Iran is fighting a war by proxy till nuclear shield allow them to take the West out of equation, consume neighboring states and become a regional superpower.

I easily can imagine several big war scenarios starting in this mess. I can imagine the war results too. But I don't want to talk about all that now.

Unfortunately I can't imagine any way to defuse this mess. And that scares me.