I would like to try and "clean" the events we are assisting to these days and to give them a more realistic interpretation according to my view of the international relationships. I am of course ready to take any comments by you all. I would particularly appreciate criticism that could teach me something new.
I think that historically, wars have always had more or less the same reasons to be fought: there is a faction that dictated the rules of the latest international order (by winning the previous war) and a faction that is subjected to this order and constantly measuring and judging it.
The more the defeated of the latest war are satisfied by the international order imposed by the winners, the bigger is the probability that the defeated will not try to destabilize the order constituted by the latest war.
That said i think that all the rest that we hear about why engaging in this so called "war on terrorism" is just crap.
What we have here is a faction (a leading group of Muslims supported by a huge base of people kept in poor economic conditions and in a state of ignorance) that doesn't like the international order created by the powers who historically defeated and humiliated the so called Arab Nation (i.e the USA and Israel)
I want to give you a practical example of what I mean.
In 1945-46-47 we had occupation (stabilization ?) troops in our country (italy), mainly US and GB troops and their logistic tail of support included some civilians administrators. We certainly didn't ever think of burning some Americans or British in their car and then to hang them on a light pole! Apart from the occasional stab by the brother/father of the occasional raped italian woman, there have never been any major problems.....why that ? because the italians, the germans and even the japanese I would say, even if humiliated by the defeat felt that the new order was not opposed to their future plans. Apart from any political beliefs (me myself I'm not particularly pro USA) the Americans did their best to put the destroyed and defeated countries of the Axis on their feet again. Some ships full of crop and heading to Israel in 1948 were still being secretly diverted by the US President on the Sicilian shores to help the starving post war italian population.
You could say that the arabs are fanatics and this doesn't work with them. I wuld answer: "wrong" could you call people who slammed their aircraft on the US carriers less fanatic that the people who slammed the two liners in the twin towers ?" I just think that the Japanese liked the new order of 1945 better than the "Arabs" like the order of 2000 which by the way is an evolution of the 1945 order.
It's a fact that the "Arabs" lost all their wars to impose their will. They lost all their wars with Israel and many confrontations with the USA. They decided to fight their war in another way. You all have to put yourself in their shoes (Winston Churchill always recomended to put ourself in the enemy shoes to better understand him) and take a choice. Fight untill someone prevails or modify the current order to make it a little more acceptable for the challenging faction.
It's my personal opinion, but just my personal one, that the USA are taking their chance on this so called "war on terror" to improve their position in some areas of the world (geostrategically and economically). For example I am pretty convinced that the invasion of Iraq has little to do with the war on terror. Certainly the USA being the leading power in the world have the possibility of making decisions like that if they believe they are good for the preservation of their dominating position (the number one goal of a dominating power by definition). The future will say if it was the right decision or not.
I hope to have given a contribute to clarify the nature of the present international situation without aprioristic ideologic prejudices which are often seen even at the highest levels of national administrations.
Vanguard |