Russia and Ukraine. Israel and Iran. India and Pakistan. Is it just my (once again) overly sensitive historical imagination? Or is it always the height of idiocy to underestimate anyone whom you happen to find inconvenient, and want out of the way? I.e., is it always a danger to minimize, and dismiss, the pluck, determination, resilience, etc, of any country so-called (however otherwise inferior, regressive or fascist) that, more than it wants anything else, simply does not want to be You? Or any part of You? No matter how magnificent You may otherwise be - and thus fully entitled to shrink, destabilize, hegemonize every lesser country on Your periphery? Or else wipe it off the map?
Not that we haven't all been there. And I do mean that. Nothing is easier for most of us than to overestimate the fragility of some entity we've already determined has no right to exist (e.g., Israel, Iran, Ukraine, Russia, etc*). Still in all - and that being granted: Did these miserable pseudo-countries really have to string us along to the extent they did? Did they really have to pretend so convincingly? And, worst of all, to pretend to be so superfluous, or paper-tigerish, or wicked-yet-vulnerable-and-hence-SO-easy-to-push-over, that we their trusting foes had almost no choice but to seek that ever-righteous chimera, Total Victory?
*I haven't included the third pair of countries - India and Pakistan - in this analogy/indictment, despite what seems an equally stupid contempt each one has for the other's nationhood and prospects of survival. That is partly because they don't seem as yet prepared to go down either Russo-Ukrainean or Israelo-Iranian paths of glory. And also for fear of a legitimate worry becoming a fulfilled prophecy.
Again, have there ever been pairs of mutual antagonists whose claims to any figment of Nationhood, of national integrity and coherence and perdurance, seemed* not just more paper-thin, but more liable to perforation and shredding? And not just by the relative myriad of other geopolitical actors who wish them both ill (more on them presently) but by each other? As if each of our contenders saw in his respective enemy a kind of Chinese paper-dragon kept alive and in motion by its handlers. None of whom, surely, would lift a serious finger in its defense, so long as (oh, if only) the right amount of scientifically calculated disintegrative pressure was applied, and (of course) in all the right places. Because as any serious technocrat knows (in this age of artificially-inflated intelligence), war is an exact science. Or at least it should be, for crying out loud??? I.e., provided the right calculations/logistics/ technologies, etc, are accompanied by the right degree of confidence in one's own indomitability, and in the incompetence, inferiority and utter wickedness of one's opponent? As evidenced, remember - if you'll permit me the cheap shot - by Napoleon's scientifically enlightened France invading backward obscurantist Russia. Or by Hitler's ubermensch Germany against that same (worthless, and thus push-over) country.
*At the onset of these lunacies, anyways.
Mind you, I could almost understand the temptation to escalate, if in fact it further solidified the long-term sovereignty or self-direction of any of the combatants. Picture a miracle, if you can. Imagine that ever-widening and -deepening war actually did something to cement one's real, independent economic strength and viability (as war is always supposed to do and almost never does, especially if you're the aggressor). As opposed to driving you ever deeper into the loving arms - excuse me, fetters and coils - of supposed benefactors and allies. And in particular of certain - as I like to call them - Most Aggressively Homogenizing Behemoths (MAHBs). Like one, very prominent in the news these days, that quite proudly and indignantly calls itself Europe. Or another, that presumes to call itself China; or still another - most outrageously of all - (Sunni) Islam.
And yes, I'm aware that even the most besieged, fighting-for-its-life country is no monolith. Even the most "homogeneous" nation consists of elements that often have some brutally narrow, if not mutually exclusive, notions of their country's best interests. Or even of what an ideal version of their country should look like (at its worst - cf. Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia - one that bears as-little-as-possible relation to its historical reality). And of course one should never broad-brush any one political element as if it were the whole country.
And yet, somehow, I find these days I can't always help it. When I think of certain - let us say, decisive? elements within Russia and Israel, and Ukraine and Iran, it's hard for me not to conclude that what one might call Righteous War-Expediters (RWEs) are practically the face, if not the heart of their respective countries. And then I have to wonder: How much calm rationality might be injected into our familiar diatribes against our favorite enemies, if we simply made it a habit to change our pejoratives? If we for a change made them less moralistic, and more snide and cynical? Imagine if every time we thought of our most loathed Iranians, or Israelis, or Russians or Ukraineans, we prefaced each name with the word "stupid" or "clueless." As in, having no clue as to how much they're shooting their own feet, or slitting their own throats.
And now imagine another set of much "smarter," and quieter, geopolitical actors, and how we might name them. What if, whenever we considered the Fatuous Four's supposed mediators and other guilty bystanders, we always talked of those clever Chinese, or clever Qataris, or Azerbaijanis, or Turks.
(Not, mind you, that even we bold righteous Yanks should disdain to work with these benevolent "mediators" as often as necessary. Beggars can't be choosers.)
In any case, one thing I keep feeling, almost within my bones: If these Happy Warriors could (fore)see, not just the full extent of the horror, the disgrace, the crippling dependency they're inflicting, and above all on themselves* - but who it is that's really benefiting from their ongoing self-perdition - they'd retreat, cowering, into their respective Halls of Shame faster than any tail-between-legged dog ever slunk into some den of oblivion.
*Not to mention the rest of us.
Meanwhile, you'll notice we Yanks continue to add more and more combustible ingredients to this witch's stew. Which, if nothing else, ought to lay one myth to rest once and for all: We Americans may indeed be the Exceptional Nation; we're surely not the Indispensable One.
All the more reason, it seems to me, why Today more than ever before you should want to:
Pray (with all your hearts) for the peace of Kyiv. And Moscow. And Tehran. And Jerusalem. But maybe most of all - while we're yet capable of it? - of Washington?
