by NoOneImportant » Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:59 pm
From where I sit the primary question of interest is: are we looking at a Saudi Arabia of the past - meek, retiring, content to let others force their issues, a nation content to "buy" what they require, generally in accordance with international norms, or are we looking at a Saudi Arabia being transformed - a Saudi Arabia more inclined to actively participate in, and precipitate external events, and actions through covert action?
One always believes that terrorists see their external targets as their paramount "enemy", but that's not the case. The penultimate enemy is the less than fervent member within. When the extremists wrest control, the top issue, and primary enemy, is the member within who requires elimination for less that dedicated motivation. The difficulty is first described by Thucydides. The transformation, when it takes place, is acute: the monster without morals, or ethical inhibition becomes the hero, the morally inhibited becomes the the "goat." On the one hand, the more barbarous the action executed by the dedicated, the wilder the public acclimation - basically a hurrah for our side, given without moral concern, or consideration; on the other hand any internal moral inhibition, as exhibited by the morally restrained, is viewed as weakness, and betrayal, and is met with overt condemnation. In the extreme, the betrayer is always executed as an example to the less-than-fervent. It is what took place in France during the reign-of-terror, and is responsible for numerous other acts of "unexplained barbarity" throughout history - the Mongols at Kiev - although the million or so residents of Kiev murdered were technically not an internal threat to the Mongols, but they were a message to others - the German Kamps, the Russian Gulags, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, et al.
What we see in Syria may be viewed in this way. At issue is: are we seeing the metamorphosis of Saudi Arabia? The difficulty with using terror is that the terrorists are always the most fervent, and over time can see the less than dedicated - the morally restrained, who initially believe that they can use terror as a targeted "tool" - as the primary enemy. If Saudi Arabia indeed sees an ascendent Iran as a mortal - existential - threat and has decided to engage in covert actions - terror - inside of Iran, the issue is can that terror be "controlled" within Saudi Arabia, or perhaps more importantly can the "fervor" be limited, and controlled?
From where I sit the primary question of interest is: are we looking at a Saudi Arabia of the past - meek, retiring, content to let others force their issues, a nation content to "buy" what they require, generally in accordance with international norms, or are we looking at a Saudi Arabia being transformed - a Saudi Arabia more inclined to actively participate in, and precipitate external events, and actions through covert action?
One always believes that terrorists see their external targets as their paramount "enemy", but that's not the case. The penultimate enemy is the less than fervent member within. When the extremists wrest control, the top issue, and primary enemy, is the member within who requires elimination for less that dedicated motivation. The difficulty is first described by Thucydides. The transformation, when it takes place, is acute: the monster without morals, or ethical inhibition becomes the hero, the morally inhibited becomes the the "goat." On the one hand, the more barbarous the action executed by the dedicated, the wilder the public acclimation - basically a hurrah for our side, given without moral concern, or consideration; on the other hand any internal moral inhibition, as exhibited by the morally restrained, is viewed as weakness, and betrayal, and is met with overt condemnation. In the extreme, the betrayer is always executed as an example to the less-than-fervent. It is what took place in France during the reign-of-terror, and is responsible for numerous other acts of "unexplained barbarity" throughout history - the Mongols at Kiev - although the million or so residents of Kiev murdered were technically not an internal threat to the Mongols, but they were a message to others - the German Kamps, the Russian Gulags, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, et al.
What we see in Syria may be viewed in this way. At issue is: are we seeing the metamorphosis of Saudi Arabia? The difficulty with using terror is that the terrorists are always the most fervent, and over time can see the less than dedicated - the morally restrained, who initially believe that they can use terror as a targeted "tool" - as the primary enemy. If Saudi Arabia indeed sees an ascendent Iran as a mortal - existential - threat and has decided to engage in covert actions - terror - inside of Iran, the issue is can that terror be "controlled" within Saudi Arabia, or perhaps more importantly can the "fervor" be limited, and controlled?