Whether or not we realize it, we often communicate by making
analogies that illustrate and explain what we say. At times, the analogy is so clear;
we readily see what it means. At other times, the analogy can be wrapped in a
rhetoric that proves too difficult to parse … but we make the effort to
understand what the author is trying to communicate, anyway.
Years of communicating with others in one of the several
languages I know, have taught me that the best way to illustrate situations
which fall in the realm of the humanities, is to use analogies which fall in
the realm of the sciences. And this is how I'll proceed to explain my point of
view with regard to the current situation in the Levant ;
also to respond to an article that was written by Richard Cohen.
The article in question came under the title: “No, Mr.
President, staying out of Syria
didn't save lives. It cost them.” It was written by Richard Cohen as mentioned
earlier, and was published on December 21, 2015 in the Washington Post. That
title is clear as to the content of the article, a point of view with which I
disagree.
Whatever the exact moment or the reason why the Levant imploded into the mess it is now, explanations as
to how that situation came to be was given by various pundits and talking
heads. Looking at the reasons why they say things happened the way that they
did, and why history unfolded in the manner that it did, we may parallel those
reasons with one of two analogies we take from simple and easy to understand
science.
The first analogy is about a forest that's on fire.
Regardless as to what started the fire or why, the way to prevent it from
consuming the entire forest, is to go ahead of it and cut a few trees thus
create a corridor that is wide enough to prevent the fire from spreading past
the corridor. The net result is that in order to save the forest, we caused a
small damage (cutting a few trees) to save all the other trees.
Whether or not the people who have advocated American intervention
in Syria
and those who do now, cite that analogy, their explanation follows a reasoning
which parallels the storyline of the forest on fire. The essence of their
argument is that American smart bombs added to Assad's barrel bombs may at
first cause a little more damage, but America's bombs will eventually prevent
the barrel bombs from spreading throughout Syria.
The other analogy is about an oil tanker that is leaking its
cargo. The gooey slick is growing and spreading in all directions. To prevent
an environmental catastrophe you must do several things at the same time. You
must contain the slick by circling it with a floating belt. You must get a crew
that will work on plugging the hole in the tanker from where the oil is
leaking. And you must call on the available vessels – which are equipped with
pumps that suck leaked oil – to come and lend a hand.
Whether or not the people who warn against American
intervention in Syria
cite that analogy, their explanation follows a reasoning that parallels the
storyline of the leaky tanker. The essence of their argument is that the
situation in the Levant is so precarious, what
needs to be done is not create more violence, but do the painstaking work that
is required on many fronts at the same time. These would be fronts like the
political, economic, diplomatic and reconstructive participation of all the
stakeholders.
The question now is which of the two analogies best
describes what was needed in Syria :
was it the American bombing of the country or the patient and quiet work that
was undertaken by President Obama? This question resolved, we ask: what now?
How should America
handle the situation going forward?
To help us answer those questions, we can look at something
we have so far neglected, and draw another analogy that may help. We begin with
the observation that the destruction of Iraq has sent shock waves
everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Because shock waves dampen by
themselves, the best way to diminish their effect is to let them die a natural death.