Flaubert (Salambo), Proust (A la recherche...), Racine (Phedre) belong to that category.
They more often than not leave the reader exhausted, unable to reach the finish. It is easier to start an "affair" or a novel, than to get out when sobered or to close the pages prematurely, when exhausted. The same goes for armed conflict or intervention. Once started they run amok.
When I was for a short period in Columbia University, the Vietnam trauma was still raw and discussions regarding possible lessons which might have to be retained after that terrible episode, were merciless. The inability for high-tech warfare to come to terms with a less sophisticated counterpart continues to fill books and articles.
The rumor goes that in the current accumulation of debacles any overt reference to Vietnam is taboo in the White House. This is paradoxical given that the past and current American administrations are deadlocked in situations wherein, yet again, the ally (?) they support is often more toxic than some of the forces they oppose. The "comparison" with Vietnam stops there. Besides it is is only valid insofar as asymmetric capabilities are concerned. Vietnam was also a misunderstood a liberation war (since the French humiliation in Dien Bien Phu), waged against a corrupt regime in Saigon which had lost all credibility. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations started the descent into hell and were unable to reverse course. I know that JFK supposedly wanted to do so, but history is not written in evanescent ink.
Mission creep is a step into a perverse logic, easy to decide and difficult to reverse. President Obama's claim to end "dumb wars" is unconvincing, given the aftermath. The strongest force always ends up in a trap. Different mind sets, comfort zones, philosophies (?) /religion, end up making the weaker stronger and the more advanced prone to mood swings and erratic behaviour. Westerners depend upon logistics, on some form of an all encompassing rationale, which at the end of the day fail to match a fanatical theocratic mindset or, in the case of Vietnam, a liberation anti-colonial DNA.
As is the case for literature which can fail to enrapture or is too complex to struggle through, unwinnable wars lose legitimacy. The few women and kids in Kabul who are shown off for prime-time TV do not speak for the faceless majority which is stuck by force or free-will in a demented mindset. Iraq is no longer a country but a tectonic plate collision. Syria and Libya are up for grabs. In this swamp ISIS grows.
Should one give up and leave the "Thousand and One Nights" book unread and left to rot in history's garbage bin? One can only hope for a better alignment between governance and opinion in this arc of trouble. Given the Arab' broken maps and minds, the waiting game might be long! Decades might be needed before repair from within becomes possible. Vietnam by contrast returned to performance in a fortnight because all sides, North and South, wanted a "win-win". The dysfunctional parties in the Middle East have to find out what they want first. The West should be on positive stand-by rather than trying to force an outcome for which we have no formula anyway. ISIS will not be crushed by military air power, which will always remain insufficient, given the uneven "pain threshold". While Vietnam's pain became ours, the Arabs' pain remains mostly theirs, and there lies the tragedy. The conflict has to be fought from within mostly, but before it can be operated upon convincingly and be supported accordingly, there has to be a "there" there first. Giap or Ho Chi Min were not some corrupt Sardanapales. There lies the difference between yesterday's pain and to day's descent into the abyss.
Should one give up and leave the "Thousand and One Nights" book unread and left to rot in history's garbage bin? One can only hope for a better alignment between governance and opinion in this arc of trouble. Given the Arab' broken maps and minds, the waiting game might be long! Decades might be needed before repair from within becomes possible. Vietnam by contrast returned to performance in a fortnight because all sides, North and South, wanted a "win-win". The dysfunctional parties in the Middle East have to find out what they want first. The West should be on positive stand-by rather than trying to force an outcome for which we have no formula anyway. ISIS will not be crushed by military air power, which will always remain insufficient, given the uneven "pain threshold". While Vietnam's pain became ours, the Arabs' pain remains mostly theirs, and there lies the tragedy. The conflict has to be fought from within mostly, but before it can be operated upon convincingly and be supported accordingly, there has to be a "there" there first. Giap or Ho Chi Min were not some corrupt Sardanapales. There lies the difference between yesterday's pain and to day's descent into the abyss.
No comments:
Post a Comment