Maybe Assad is Great for Syria Still

Bad as it may sound to some,
Assad (the government) might just be the best for Syria,
for now at least.
If Assad was a threat,
ISIS is what?
Why do they fight?
See the heads of those beheaded.
It speaks their hell.

Those, of the North, West, East, and South,
that wanted Assad out of Power in Syria
might want to soft-pedal
and look at a bigger picture.
One where they might return
to the previous stable order.

Were Mubarak and Assad as cohorts:
who seemingly kept evil jihadism at bay.
Can we infer this from the news reports?
What would history say.
If Egypt was led by Morsi, the Muslim brotherhood,
would it end up better or worse than Iran
in the eyes of those that seem to matter?

The Syrian civil war
opened doors to ISIS.
When motive met opportunity,
to expand a certain socio-religio-political identity,
into a state: a caliphate
that walks in the pattern
of seeking to conquer neighbouring states
(the jihad), as Mohammed did,
in other to achieve glory for their god.
Are they going towards Israel?

Noble, it might be, for them.
But certainly not for the rest.
They break the golden rule: love.
And horribly cruelly affect.
Does the world slip and leave them?

So this is an option:
help Assad regain control of the whole of Syria.
Why?
Because the enemy of your enemy is your ally.
You don’t have to be friends to ride the same train.
So it looks like it’s happening.

Advertisements

Extracts from ‘The promise’ by C. Wright Mills—With Comments

“Many great public issues as well as many private troubles are described in terms of ‘the psychiatric’ – often, it seems, in a pathetic attempt to avoid the large issues and problems of modern society.”

“… ‘mans chief danger’ today lies in the unruly forces of contemporary society itself, with its alienating methods of production, its enveloping techniques of political domination, its international anarchy – in a word, its pervasive transformations of the very ‘nature’ of human beings and the conditions and aims of their life.”

“Suppose people are neither aware of any cherished values nor experience any threat? That is the experience of indifference, which, if it seems to involve all their values, becomes apathy. Suppose, finally, they are unaware of any cherished values, but still are very much aware of a threat? That is the experience of uneasiness, of anxiety, which, if it is total enough, becomes a deadly unspecified malaise.”

“It is now the social scientist’s foremost political and intellectual task—for here the two coincide—to make clear the elements of contemporary uneasiness and indifference.”

Comments
Written in 1959, the article remains contemporary. It makes 2014, and 2013, and 2012, and … look a lot like 1959. A testament to human nature, and a statement that the society created by man makes the man.

Paragraph 1: It’s more comfortable to not deal with root causes. I imagine a situation were few people are sure what it is and how to deal with it, and that most people agree to focus on symptoms—being the more politically correct or democratic route to take.

Paragraph 2: We hear of disruptive technologies, some of which we’ve tasted. We hear less, if at all, about disruptive social and political norms, and laws; evolving everyday, and morphing into new mindsets that may challenge our individual/group humanness and attempt to redefine it for better or worse. We build our houses and contain ourselves in them.

Paragraph 3: Fantastic descriptions of indifference and apathy; very real. I don’t unreservedly agree with his description of anxiety/uneasiness (maybe I haven’t sufficiently understood it), but it does make 95% sense—excellent. 

Paragraph 4: Amateur sociologists/anthropologists abound.