True
or not, legend has it that the First World War started because of sheer
boredom.
It
is said that European leaders who used to be at each other’s throats, got tired
of fighting, took a respite but got bored and started needling each other again
to add excitement to their lives. Things got out of hand when a small accident
led to a response that called for a retaliation that escalated into a
full-blown world war.
Take
that for what it's worth, but do not dismiss the idea that idleness leads to
boredom, which causes many species, including the human, to look for ways to
relieve that boredom. As it happens, we now have an example of what goes on
inside the skull of someone who is sliding down the slope of boredom, and would
most probably have started something dangerous, were he in a position of power.
He
is, the now retired, Jed Babbin who was once deputy undersecretary of Defense.
He wrote an article under the title: “China's coronavirus failures and Iran's
tanking economy can't be talked away by weak leaders,” and the subtitle: “Xi
Jinping and Hassan Rouhani's confessions of weakness.” The article was
published on February 23, 2020 in The Washington Times.
What
you'll take away from reading the article and reflecting on its content, is
that Jed Babbin is bored seeing the world as calm as it is. He attributes the
state of quietness to the fact that the world leaders who count, on both sides
of the divide, are weak. They are weak in the East, he says, and that is a good
thing. But they are also weak in the West, he adds, and that's not good,
according to him.
Jed
Babbin views Xi Jinping of China as being gripped by the coronavirus, and
failing to address the crisis properly. He also views Hassan Rouhani of Iran as
being helpless, having to face the maximum economic pressure imposed on his
country by the United States. And Babbin goes on to say that both leaders, who
are opponents of the United States, have confessed to the reality that they are
weak.
But
how could this have led Jed Babbin to start a war were he in a position to do
so? We get a sense of that by studying his thought processes as detected from
his use of a quiet tone when he started describing what he was seeing, and his
adoption of a harsher tone as he went on to describe what he was seeing.
Here
is how Jed Babbin first exposed his thought processes: “Three revealing
speeches and actions –– by Chinese President Xi Jinping, by Iranian President
Rouhani and by the Trump administration in announcing a 'deal' with the Taliban
–– are prime examples of conduct that betrays weakness.” And so, Babbin began
with the use of a soft tone to describe the Chinese situation. Here is how he
put it:
“The
coronavirus has spread from the Chinese city of Wuhan to centers around the
world. Mr. Xi claimed credit for containing the disease. He chastised local
officials for not dealing with the crisis quickly enough. According to Mr. Xi,
he issued demands during a Politburo Committee meeting to contain the outbreak.
But the Politburo meets in secret, so his claims are dubious at best. Though
Mr. Xi's statements were intended to impress the Chinese people, they will see
his claims to be what they are –– as a confession of weakness”.
Jed
Babbin then adopted a harsher tone to describe the Iran situation. This is what
he said:
“Iran
is suffering from a rapidly-failing economy brought about by US sanctions.
Rouhani said that Iran will not negotiate with the US until it rejoins the
nuclear deal and relieves Iran of the sanctions. He said that the Iranian
economy is still thriving in the face of the maximum pressure campaign. The
Iranian people see their economy in trouble and they protest against the
ayatollah's regime. Mr. Rouhani's false bravado was intended for home
consumption. He can't believe that Mr. Trump is going to rejoin the nuclear
deal and relieve Iran of all sanctions. He is playing for time while confessing
weakness”.
And
he adopted an even harsher tone when describing the stance of the Western
powers:
“Our
weakness in Afghanistan has been evident for years. The latest proof is a
preliminary agreement with the Taliban. It will begin with a reduction in
violence and continue for a week with a cease-fire to begin afterward. Peace
talks with the Kabul government are supposed to begin at that point. The fact
that we could not require a cease-fire is proof of our weakness. Whatever
promises the Taliban make they will violate without consequence. Once we're
gone it would take another 9/11 for us to return. Our weakness in Afghanistan
will re-create it as a safe haven for terrorism”.