Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Chechen Racism Unbridled (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The proximal cause is the easy cause (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hubbard Squash

    and among stupid people, the only cause they comprehend.  

    One way of looking at the 9/11 attacks, wrongheaded as the perpetrators were in most respects, was as a cry for help and and a demand for justice and a change of order in the at the time most screwed up part of the world.  It was a part of the world in which things had come far enough that it was no longer realistically hopeless to expect better.  A sustaining of a better order had become vaguely plausible, though any improvement would shaky for years.  

    I think this particular bombing is an instigation and invitation, a sort of forcing of the U.S. to get involved in the post-Soviet disorder north of the Caucasus and in Central Asia.  Like it or not, we went in and are serious part of the resolution of the disorders in West Asia.  We're involved in the conflicts of the southwestern desert (aka Middle East)parts via Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and the like, and the southeastern (aka South Asia) part via Afghanistan.  In 2001/02/03 there were choices made to stay out of the northeastern (Caucasus) and northwestern (Central Asia/Sinkiang/Tibet) series of conflicts.   In part because it politically and logistically too difficult at the time, with Russian and Chinese sensibilities and weaknesses too great to tolerate it.  But without doing so the southern conflicts we were in aren't going to resolve fully, will be fed by ongoing wars and radicalizations to their north.

    Truth is that we have the commitments, infrastructure, diplomatic capital, and sufficient military means to get in on the northern conflicts now.  The ugly truth is that the southern conflicts we are in are sustained by regimes in Teheran and Islamabad, who are in turn sustained by regimes in Beijing and Moscow.  The northern conflicts lead more directly to the rulers in Beijing and Moscow.  I don't think that real U.S. military involvement will be large if we get involved in the northern conflicts- it will largely be diplomatic and about threat, about collective nerve, a holding of the often barbaric slime that is the 'Shanghai Cooperative Agreement' partners in Beijing and Moscow and a lot of smaller crappy regimes and dependencies they prop up (in places like Chechnya) accountable before regional and world opinion.

    The war to defeat the Axis powers took the Allies to war in all kinds of places around Europe and in East Asia never expected at the start of WW2- Egypt and western North Africa, Finland, Kamchatka and Alaska, Burma, the jungle-covered Solomon Islands, the Volga steppes.   The war to defeat reactionary movements and empires in West Asia is taking us, or American efforts at least, to all the conflict areas, how ever remote, in that part of the world in phases also.

    Long story short: we're in the West Asia game, our cards are average and so are those of the other major players, and the ante just went up some more.  Do we fold now, losing quite a bit, or do we up our bet?

    •  I say fold. I'm sick of war. (4+ / 0-)

      We can't be the world's policeman anymore. I go to school with a lot of college kids who can't really remember a time when we weren't at war, and that's sad. No more wars. We gotta fix our own broken country. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our financial system is crumbling. Our political system is crumbling. No more war.

      Some would say that I'm off my gourd. I would say that I am a gourd.

      by Hubbard Squash on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:04:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is a reactionary? (0+ / 0-)

      Who decides this?

      A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

      by Salo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:42:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site