At a time when everybody thought the civil war in America had ended long ago, it took a civil war
in Syria to demonstrate that
the one in America
is still ongoing. The intensity has abated, the emphasis has shifted but when
you gauge it by the measurements that count, you find that the American civil
war has not ended. The number of dead and wounded that the civilian inhabitants
inflict on each other and their society day after day, month after month and
year after year tell the story of a war that is ongoing though it may be viewed
as a quiet civil war rather than a hot raging one. And the question is: Why is
this happening?
Before we can answer that question, a few important points
concerning the concept of civil war must be clarified. It is that the human
family is the macro reflection of the nucleus family. And when you speak of the
nucleus family, you speak of the core family, or speak of the extended family
which may include the in-laws and the cousins – be they close cousins or
distant ones. When these points are well understood, it becomes easy to see
that a civil war resembles a family feud in which one side if not both feel
they were betrayed by the other side. And the closest that the members of the
family are to each other, the more bitter the feeling of betrayal, thus the
more violent the family feud at the micro level, or the national civil war at
the macro level.
Another concept we need to keep in mind is that of the
differences which exist between the genuine family and the made up family. The
genuine family consists of the nucleus and the cousins that bond with it
because they have the same bloodline. In contrast, the made-up family is the
one that exists because the members are bonded together by the laws of marriage.
This makes it so that the feuds which may erupt among the members of the
genuine family are different from those that may erupt among the in-laws.
Likewise, the civil wars that may erupt inside a cohesive ethnic group are
different from those that may erupt among the made-up nations; those which are
cobbled together by a colonial power or by the coming together of the minds.
This being the case, the civil war that erupted among the
cohesive Japanese people looks different from the Indonesia/East-Timor
conflict. The breakup of the Indian Subcontinent looks different from that of
the Soviet Union . The Scandinavian civil war
looks different from the Yugoslavian. The Yemeni civil war looks different from
the Syrian and so on. When we have digested all this, we realize that a number
of made-up nations have the necessary ingredients to be in a state of ongoing
civil war but are not. Two such nations are Canada
and Australia .
And so we ask: Why is that?
The truth is that there is tension between the aborigines
and the rest of society flaring up into violent confrontations once in a while.
But the balance of power is so much in favor of one side that the slaughter of
the aborigines which took place centuries ago is not being repeated. However,
there is in Canada
a French-English divide that some people refer to as the quiet revolution. And
the question is: Why does that revolution not turn into a hot civil war the way
that history has unfolded in the United States of America ?
When answering that question, we remember that aside from
conjugal betrayals, families do feud at times over differences involving
financial matters. But this also means that families may stay together because
of the financial arrangements that continue to bond them even when they have small
differences in other areas. When the financial clout clearly shifts in favor of
one part of the country over the other, you begin to hear talk of separation.
But unless the aggrieved party is cohesive, the separation does not occur. This
is why Quebec is staying in Canada , and why despite the talk of Western
alienation and Maritime alienation, neither the West nor the Maritime
provinces have formally asked to separate from Canada .
Even if a politician tries to pull a province out of
confederation, and he or she wins a referendum to this effect, it is difficult
to see how a civil war can result. This is because the people who are bonded
together politically and financially are immigrants that have come from
everywhere around the globe. They behave differently as a group from the people
who might be bonded by close ethnic ties. The immigrants or their descendants
will work together, deal with each other in all sorts of ways but will not come
shoulder to shoulder and fight together as would the members of one and the
same ethnic group. A civil war in Canada
or Australia
is unthinkable for many generations to come.
Now, given that slavery was an economic issue in America , and given that the people who fought a
civil war to maintain that institution were immigrants or descendants thereof
as were those who fought to abolish it, we must ask why the civil war happened
in America .
In fact, the people in each camp stuck together and fought ferociously as if
they were a tribe of the same bloodline fighting a tribe of a different
bloodline. Why? The answer is simple enough: slavery was too horrendous for one
side to look at, yet too lucrative for the other side to relinquish. There is
no surprise in the fact that the two sides clashed; the surprise is in the fact
that the civil war has continued to this day albeit in a more subdued form.
We get a sense as to why this is happening when we look at
two articles discussing the civil war in Syria ,
and America 's
response to that war. The first article has the title: “Cameron's Defeat on
Syria Is Also President Obama's” and the subtitle: “The prime minister's loss
in the House of Commons was the first on such a question since 1782.” It was
written by the Englishman, Daniel Johnson and published in the Wall Street
Journal on August 31, 2013. The second article has the title: “Forcing Obama's
Hand on Syria ”
written by the naturalized American Vali Nasr, and published in the New York
Times on September 1, 2013.
When you read the first sentence of the Nasr article, you
get the sense that this is a human being who likes being the American he chose
to become. As an American, he is concerned how his country will be defined by
its foreign policy. As a human being, he is concerned about the grisly war in Syria . In
writing the article, he concentrates on the task at hand, makes the most honest
analysis he can, and gives the best advice he is able to give so that the
President and the nation have all the options they ought to have. In brief –
whether or not you like his views – you cannot deny that he is being helpful to
the extent that he can. And you conclude that this man will never join a civil
war on one side or the other.
As to the Daniel Johnson article, you feel like receiving a
punch in the nose when you read his first sentence: “In the deadly poker game
that the great powers are playing over Syria , the British have just
folded.” He goes on to tell what kind of game this is: “It was Mr. Cameron who
tried to play the heroic part of Margaret Thatcher by dragging a reluctant U.S. to arm the
rebels.” He then laments: “How have we arrived at a point where the West, even
the Anglosphere, are divided and have only the choice between greater and
lesser evils?” And he finds someone to blame. Guess who that is. In case you
didn't guess, here it is: “The ultimate responsibility must lie with the person
to whom the Free World looks for leadership: the president of the United States .
It is because Barack Obama...”
He later picks up on that theme again to expand on it:
“Obama has 'led from behind' … This abdication of leadership is apparent above
all in his arrogant treatment of America 's
closest ally, Israel .”
Now you want to know: Like what? And he tells you: “It is easy for President
Obama to call on Israel
to take risks for peace with the Palestinians.” What? Is this proof that Obama
has abdicated his leadership of the Free World? Is this two-legged English
animal suggesting that to be the leader of the Free World, the President of the
United State
Ask him the question and he'll say yes, and then expand on
the idea by giving an example or two: “As Mr. Cameron has learned the hard way,
his own colleagues are not prepared to risk lives to bring peace to Syria .
Nor has President Obama shown much inclination to risk American lives for Syria .” Hey,
look at that. Here we are near the end of the article, and the man has just
said that Cameron's colleagues were correct not to get involved in Syria . He also
said that Obama was correct to be reluctant to go to Syria till Cameron dragged him into
it.
But why the change of heart this late in the article?
Because Johnson wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that: Obama is bad
for not destroying Syria , Israel 's enemy.
At the same time he wants to say that: Obama is good for not wishing to take
risks with the Syrians, the way that Israel is good for not wishing to
take risks with the Palestinians.
It is a game alright just like he said at the start. And you
conclude that this man would gladly join a civil war he can physically engage
in, if there is one. In the meantime, he has committed himself to continue
fighting in the American civil war on the side of those who adhere to the dogma
that government is the enemy of the people. They are the ones who urge that the
people arm themselves to defend against a government that will come for them if
they remain disarmed.
And with all those guns in the hands of all those people, America