by NoOneImportant » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:38 pm
The Syrian conflict is starting to resemble the Spanish Civil War, or perhaps more appropriately, pre-WWI Europe. The difference between the two conflicts being whether the scope of the conflict can be limited. Although there is some question as to how limited the SCW was, or whether it, like the infamous Typhoid Mary who brought death and destruction to others but was herself immune, simply degenerated into WWII.
Here are several observations:
1. Historically speaking, man will do for God - or what he is told that God wants him of him, ah la Iran, via Hezbollah/Nasrallah - what he would never do for himself; both for good, but more commonly for evil.
2. The metamorphosis of - what appeared to be, at least initially from the outside - a secular conflict that has stratified increasingly into a Sunni - Shia religious conflict. The victor of whom may then be expected to turn it's intention to the rest of a clueless and unsuspecting infidel world.
3. The growing magnetism of the Syrian conflict, regarding the acquisition of allies on both sides. It appears to be an increasingly dangerously analog to the path followed by pre-WWI Europe after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. By several months after the assassination the world had split into two armed camps, the one of the Central Powers, and the other of the Powers of the Entente; both, it turned out, willing to snuff out millions of young lives for the life of the Archduke, and his wife.
4. Russian ratcheting up of naval forces off Syria - and more recently, and perhaps importantly China's first time sending of military vessels into the Med in what appeared to be a coordinated, Russian/Chinese, action designed to block U.S. Naval action - has changed considerably the nature of the Syrian conflict's, and the world's risk. Even though the U.S. involvement was foolishly painted as a limited response to the use of truly dastardly chemical weapons.
5. The reckless belief by those in power in the U.S. that they can maintain control of any conflict that develops in response to any U.S. military action taken in Syria, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
6. The asinine lack of understanding of the incremental nature of conflict by those on the outside of the initial conflict; those who believe that they can just "dip a toe" into the conflict - "... just to show those guys...."
7. The lack of realization that weakness neither engenders friendship, nor does it dissuade either the merciless, or the brutal.
The Syrian conflict is starting to resemble the Spanish Civil War, or perhaps more appropriately, pre-WWI Europe. The difference between the two conflicts being whether the scope of the conflict can be limited. Although there is some question as to how limited the SCW was, or whether it, like the infamous Typhoid Mary who brought death and destruction to others but was herself immune, simply degenerated into WWII.
Here are several observations:
1. Historically speaking, man will do for God - or what he is told that God wants him of him, ah la Iran, via Hezbollah/Nasrallah - what he would never do for himself; both for good, but more commonly for evil.
2. The metamorphosis of - what appeared to be, at least initially from the outside - a secular conflict that has stratified increasingly into a Sunni - Shia religious conflict. The victor of whom may then be expected to turn it's intention to the rest of a clueless and unsuspecting infidel world.
3. The growing magnetism of the Syrian conflict, regarding the acquisition of allies on both sides. It appears to be an increasingly dangerously analog to the path followed by pre-WWI Europe after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. By several months after the assassination the world had split into two armed camps, the one of the Central Powers, and the other of the Powers of the Entente; both, it turned out, willing to snuff out millions of young lives for the life of the Archduke, and his wife.
4. Russian ratcheting up of naval forces off Syria - and more recently, and perhaps importantly China's first time sending of military vessels into the Med in what appeared to be a coordinated, Russian/Chinese, action designed to block U.S. Naval action - has changed considerably the nature of the Syrian conflict's, and the world's risk. Even though the U.S. involvement was foolishly painted as a limited response to the use of truly dastardly chemical weapons.
5. The reckless belief by those in power in the U.S. that they can maintain control of any conflict that develops in response to any U.S. military action taken in Syria, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
6. The asinine lack of understanding of the incremental nature of conflict by those on the outside of the initial conflict; those who believe that they can just "dip a toe" into the conflict - "... just to show those guys...."
7. The lack of realization that weakness neither engenders friendship, nor does it dissuade either the merciless, or the brutal.