It is common to draw parallels between actual illnesses and
the ills of society. The practice exists in most languages, most cultures and
most societies because it illustrates and explains what's happening in real
life.
Malpractice in medicine can take many forms, the worst being
misdiagnosing an illness and trying to cure it by doing the opposite of what
needs to be done. It used to happen – a century or two ago – that almost every
illness was thought to be caused by an excess of bad blood. Thus, the physician
that didn't know better drew blood from patients that were actually anemic and
in need of a blood transfusion, not of shedding blood. The patients died in
most cases, letting everyone believe that more blood should have been drawn.
This is the image that comes to mind when you read “Whether
or Not in Syria,” a piece that was written by the editors of the Wall Street
Journal; a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Obama could arm our
friends the Kurds, but he probably won't.” It was published on September 24,
2016 in the Journal.
What is alarming about this piece of work is not only that
it exudes ignorance but that it celebrates it. Look what the editors say near
the end: “Mr. Obama could arm our Kurdish friends, destroy the Assad regime's
air force and its armor reserves, and redraw the map of Syria to take
account of the new dividing lines of a broken country. He could also impose
further economic costs on Moscow for its Mideast adventurism.” Have these people not read history?
The tragedy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Levant along the lines that suited the colonial powers of
the day, has been discussed a great deal in the past few months to have escaped
the attention of the Journal editors. Thus, for them to come now and recommend
that the map of Syria
be redrawn and the country divided, cannot be interpreted as an act of
ignorance. This means it can only be seen as the demonic expression of souls
that have degenerated to the point of depravity.
The Levant 's catalog of
disgust being caused in part by that Agreement, the Journal editors are
shamelessly declaring that what they see in the region pleases them so much
they wish to see it go on steroid and see it intensify to a higher level of horror.
So the question we must ask is this: if these people are not acting on
ignorance, what is it that motivates them to say what they say?
Believe it or not, what motivates them is still ignorance.
Granted, they know what will be the immediate consequence on the people in the
region if what they wish for comes to pass. At the same time, however, they are
ignorant of the side effects that will inevitably catch up with them.
What the editors of the Wall Street Journal – and many like
them – ignore is that the world is not a static place, and they are not alone
in it. On the contrary, the world is full of other players, all of whom are on
the move at a fast pace or a slow one. In fact, the world is a place where
every action causes a reaction which, in turn, causes an action elsewhere and
the obligatory reaction that follows. In the manner of this vicious/virtuous
cycle, good or bad events happen on and on indefinitely, thus shape life,
cultures and civilizations into what they are.
Even if nobody can predict the future, we can say that when
the same people do the same thing, the probability is high that they will
obtain the same result. In fact, America
has been doing the same thing over and over, and has been obtaining results
that no one in America
or elsewhere is fond of. It is that America is bankrupting itself while
creating a legacy that is so bleak, it will shame future generations even as
they are forced to pay for the debt left to them by today's leaders.
The irony is that America has been incurring
mountains of debt as it creates bleak legacies by meddling in the affairs of
other nations. And what the editors of the Wall Street Journal are advising is
the continuation – indeed the intensification – of the same old vicious cycle.
Thus while the White House has understood this reality and has pondered at
every turn whether or not the benefits of doing something outweigh the
potential losses, the Journal editors are mocking that approach.