The people at the Economist are right of course. Irrespective of what we think about the armed struggle, violence and political solutions, the reality no negotiations can be successful unless a certain balance on the ground is created. We all know by now that all talks will involve drawing boundaries and carving out enclaves as part of a de facto if not de jure partitioning process, under the guise of a new administrative structure and a new system of governance. This has always been the reality we needed to contend with. But boundaries have to reasonable, and someone still needs to be held accountable for the crimes that were committed and continue to be perpetrated. Assad and his cronies need to end up in The Hague.
And with this, we officially enter the era of Cold War II. This is what tolerating genocide in Syria has led us into. This is our brave new world, revisited, reinvented, rededicated. Now, we bravely plod on into another black hole of an era, armed with the usual assortment of frivolous justifications and platitudes, united only in our willingness to be foolish to the very end.
Immersive journalism will help you transcend geographical limitations, but it will make knowing the right thing to do any easier, and will not give conscience to sociopaths or willpower to the apathetic.
Such methodical incompetence might hide within its fold an element of intention if not a full-fledged plan, a plan to shrink America’s footprint in the world, no matter what the cost. My problem is indeed with this cavalier way in which the cost of it all is being dismissed.