Blowback

Listen to article

Wars have a nature: they are not only bloody and destructive, but they also change the social fabric of society. Extreme events of scarcity, terror and the order of death bring out among people extreme behavioural traits. Severity causes the emergence of instincts, both virtuous and non-virtuous, to the maximal.

This idea of 'emergence' is a new idea in science and sociology and is still being explored. Yet it gives the idea how human societies, already being a haven of creativity, change; and diversity of choices can evolve unique, completely unprecedented traits once exposed to extremes of the sorts. This is the reason why wars are lost, because the seemingly weak, un-improvised opponent comes up under its instinct of survival, with exactly the reactions its adversary was not expecting.

Another thing about wars is that many times it leaves us with unwanted long-term consequences. Behind every war, there are long-term planners and short-term planners. The short-term planners have specific identifiable goals and they are good at accomplishing them; and the long-term planners, on the bases of incomplete information, have to oracle a lot of boastful certainty about the unforeseen, unpredictable future.

This takes us back to former US general Wesley Clark disclosing the US plan of taking down Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and then finishing off with Iran in five years - while they had already started invading Afghanistan. At that time the idea may have seen simple and perfect to the strategic planners, but as it happened, Afghanistan was never proved to be a success but remained a constant bleeding. And in Iraq, the more Saddam's power structure was crushed, the more the final enemy, Iran, was being empowered, to the extent that the once isolated Iran was able to have a complete uninterrupted arc-of-resistance from homeland right to Lebanon. And that made the second in list, Syria, impossible to take too.

Now, about 13 years after the Arab Spring, when finally Assad has fled from Syria, news is that Turkey has taken centre stage in Syrian affairs. This has opened two possibilities. Either Turkey will sit with the Arabs and other regional players to make possible a democratic, electoral, people-backed political structure in Syria that will eventually end militancy in the country and in the region. Or, Turkey will be happy keeping its proxies and its influence on HTS, and the war between proxies will go on - something that does not seem to benefit anyone in the region. So, perhaps what Turkey would try is to create a legitimate, comprehensive Syrian government that is allied to its interests. Which would mean that by the time the US and ally Israel collect the wherewithal to attack Iran, Turkey, who is already not a favourite among the NATO club, would have become much more stronger and strong-headed than it already is - finding itself in a position to champion the Palestine cause in place of the Iranians and possibly also creating a new axis-of-resistance vertical to the present one.

Such phenomena of failure are not new to US strategy, but neocons and war-hawks refuse to learn lessons of history. In WWI and WWII, the US and its European friends allied with the Soviet Union in their frenzy to defeat Germany. In doing this, they did succeed in defeating and destroying Germany twice, but as a long term-consequence they had strengthened their single biggest contender-to-be, USSR, the leader of the communist world. So much so that right after WWII, the Soviets refused to take the Marshal Plan's beggar-money and even blocked it for the Eastern Bloc counties, because they now considered themselves the guardians of half of Europe and of dozens of communist allies around the world.

So, the lesson is: for attractive gains in the short-term, don't make foolish choices that will make your weak enemies strong in the coming decades. Or perhaps, keep in mind that those you are empowering today will not always remain meek and friendly. And another lesson is: if you want to be long-term powerful, make more friends and less enemies around you.

But it seems like the Israel lobby that controls US politics has been forcing the US towards decisions that would lead to the isolation of Israel. Or, perhaps, the combination of American neocons and Israeli Zionists, in their haste-and-destruct strategy, towards an impossible 'greater Israel' dream, have pumped each other towards the relentless bombing of Gaza, then of Lebanon, and then of Syria - thinking perhaps that fear will replace hate and aversion.

Ironically, what fear does is create rebellion beneath seeming subjugation, and the hate is only multiplied and confirmed. This was behind the burgeoning of the empty-handed Afghan Taliban against the state-of-the-art NATO war machine; this was behind Iran's assembling of a slew of militant groups that swept both Iraq and Syria; this will be repeated in Gaza, West Bank and the region. Israel can hastily raze the infrastructure, it can bomb the tunnels and weapon depots, it can kill as many as it likes - but what will that ensure for Israel? That Israel will not have more friends but more hardened-enemies in the region? The Arabs will only be ensured of Israel's barbarism, and that Israel's existence means non-existence of peace!

What a splendid strategic policy between friends, both of whom seem slightly deranged! One Mad as the March Hare in its dying superpower moment, trapping the Mad Hatter for always in 6:00pm.

It is a pity that when big strategies are put forth by powerful nation, they are measuring things like weapons, technology, education, land area, population, etc. But they seldom measure, in the most ragtag, technologically-backward, defenseless people, the potential of sudden emergence of traits that will turn them into beings that simply cannot be defeated by missiles and bombs. This has happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Gaza, and it may as well happen in Syria too. There is already news that ex-military men of Assad's regime are getting together in the hills of Latakia to start a new resistance.

The grand strategists of big powers must realise that like their avarice for power never ends, nor do the instincts of survival of the weak ones end! And while their assessments are circumscribed by their hubris and egoism, the wanting, incompetent and weak are quick to repent, adapt, improvise and invent.

From their dens they will watch their attackers for years, and emerge with strategies grounded not in high-tech but in human psyche. And human psyche evolves at a much greater rate than tech does!