What Is It Going to Take to See Assad for the Butcher He Is?

Source: abc news

I often ask myself this question and hardly get any reasonable answers.

Sometimes I wonder how people are still defending Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad and any conspiracy theory that finds him innocent. But then again, in a world in which Nazism is alive and well, and in which you ironically and stupidly have “brown Islamist Nazis,” pretty much any political opinion is not a shocker.

But you do feel disappointed and low when you see a lack of inclination to face facts among otherwise liberal and reasonable folks.

Sadly, sometimes the guilt of our liberals living in a fundamentalist society, regardless of Shia or Sunni background, and their contempt of Saudi Arabia can make them rather root for Iran or turn a blind eye to its sinister influence in the world. But it goes well beyond reasonable politics to keep on apologizing for and insisting on supporting a despot whose record speaks volumes of his atrocities.

I know that some of my liberal friends see the expansion of the influence of Iran as a solution for the Saudis, of course not giving a second’s thought to what it might hold in the future for Israel. But I see that as much of a problem as the unchecked Saudi influence. Or perhaps the growing Chinese and Russian influence.

This is why the decline of the American influence on international affairs has been devastating. We have seen two very contrasting versions of American liberalism with both President George W. Bush and President Obama. An invasion of Iraq and then complete withdrawal. If one action made matters worse, the other certainly did not help. And that is a pretty objective observation unless you are a Democrat.

Bashar Al-Assad is the latest of the many brutal butchers and psychopaths who has taken up the mantle of torturing and murdering their own people. Not a democratic leader by any means and someone who is extremely cynical in his perception of reality, if you ever hear him speak. After carrying out several chemical weapons attacks on his people before, his regime is thought to have struck again with his latest sarin gas attack. With accounts of eye witnesses and activists, as well as evidence from the US military, clearly disputing the narrative of Assad’s military denying involvement like always. Now being skeptical is fair but Assad sympathizers such as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) thinks she would take Assad as a war criminal if proved to be responsible for this attack, clearly unaware of his history of earlier actions. It is really convenient how Democrats accept and condemn their Russian propaganda.

The strongman argument is often given to justify his regime. That Assad keeps the extremists at bay and is a secular but distant dictator. However, with the irreversible damage caused by the Syrian Civil War, this argument has lapsed for Assad and is not true anymore. He is not the great stabilizer anymore. You could instead argue that Putin is instead. And since with President Obama’s half-hearted intervention, Syria has almost been completely destroyed. So, what are we keeping Assad in for now, knowing that he carries out chemical attacks on his own people? But to acknowledge this argument, during the early years of the Syrian civil war, I used to believe Assad should stay too.

Of course, it has been explained to me that American intervention has only made matters worse in the Middle East. But with Islamists and humanitarian crises around in the region, the argument of nonintervention is absolutely nonsensical. That is why the long-term military occupation of Syria remains to be the only viable solution. And of course, it is very unreasonable to expect of Americans to give that sacrifice for the world. The key is to make other nations pay their due share, including Pakistan of course, whether as a part of the Saudi or the American coalition. But preferably the latter.

Policy and tactics for the future aside, I think at least it is time for the deniers of Assad’s atrocities to simply face facts. How many chemical attacks has the Assad regime carried out on its people? And how many more would it take to finally say that enough is enough?

I commend President Trump for at least recognizing the great moral problem at hand and acting at least in some capacity with his limited missile attack to make his intentions clear to the Assad regime. But unfortunately, this action is nearly not close to what is needed. While I support it, if I were to disagree with it, it would be for that reason. The faux liberal outrage you are seeing at the attack is more from isolationists defending their favorite dictator than bleeding heart anti-war activists.

The world must not stop short of anything less than comprehensive military action to depose Assad and end his illegitimate reign. And if it does indeed risk starting the third world war, it only speaks volumes of the evil of Russia and Iran as states for protecting a despot like Assad in this day and age. Sadly, many among our ranks stand for their insistence to be on the wrong side of history despite their commitment to democracy and liberty.

I wonder how many more chemical attacks would it take.

Sadly, given the apathy of the majority in the world toward the atrocities of both the Islamic State and the Assad regime, it helps us understand what happened during the reign of the Third Reich. While I am aware that the world was horrified to learn the troubling reality of the concentration camps after the Second World War, I doubt it would have changed anything. I doubt if they would have done anything substantial to prevent the atrocity had they learned about it earlier. At least, the world we live in today would not have bothered to take any action.

We are clearly not bothered about what the Syrian people are going through.

Even if that is untrue, we clearly do not seem bothered about what Assad is up to.

And it is so bad that we would manufacture things out of our behinds to apologize for his despotic rule.

 

Advertisements

Yazidi Sex Slave Survivor Nadia Murad Taha Speaks Out Against Islamic State

Source: freedomfund.org

Source: freedomfund.org

If you ever wanted a glimpse into the horror that ISIL has forced millions of people in Iraq and Syria to live through, then listen to the nine-minute speech of this young girl at the United Nations Security Council.

If this does not shock any humanitarian soul, or convince someone that the Islamic State should be destroyed once and for all, I don’t know what will.

Her name is Nadia Murad Basee Taha. Her family was massacred and she was sold and abused by the barbarians at the helm of the sex slave trade that the Islamic State was so eager to to take up. It was almost the reason that they have been eyeing to target the Yazidis for. The trauma and torture that this young girl and thousands more like her went through are simply unimaginable. And the fact that she is brave enough to be here, campaigning against ISIL sends shivers down your spine. This is the sort of courage you can hardly imagine.

It’s unconscionable how the world is tolerating the unacceptable entity of the Islamic State. This is just another reminder that the world needs to move against the Islamic State fast.

While I really don’t like what it’s doing to the world, I actually respect the political positions of consistent liberal pacifists, libertarian and conservative isolationists and nationalists. Sure, they can ask the question why their respective countries, especially the United States, should bother about what is happening to the Yazidi, Kurds and other Iraqi and Syrian people. They have every right to ask that question.

But turning the other way is the easiest thing in the world to do. There is a reason why civilized nations of the world find it important to intervene in a humanitarian crisis because somebody needs to stand up for the helpless. Survivors like her speak volumes why Iraqi and Syrian refugees must be accepted to peaceful regions in as many numbers as possible. Imagine losing this life to war and conflict.

Doing so requires moral leadership and a sense of responsibility. I am proud of the fact that the United States delegation introduced her to the United Nations and it is probably the US leadership that would be required to eliminate the Islamic State. The people oppressed by the Islamic State need to be liberated.

If only fighting ISIL were more central to the political discourse around the world than it currently is.

 

Proactive, Not Reactive, Military Action Needed Against ISIS

Source: thequint.com

Source: thequint.com

Some of the worst fears about ISIS were realized during the November 13 Paris attacks that involved a suicide bomber, who turned out to be a Syrian refugee, and three groups of terrorists shooting out at three different locations. More than a hundred people lost their lives that night and several were injured as the terrorists mercilessly slaughtered peace loving French citizens. ISIS has taken responsibility for the heinous attack.

The incident has shocked and saddened everyone around the world, but it is just a reminder of how dangerous ISIS has become and how urgently substantial action against it is required.

The French President stated that his country would unleash a “pitiless” war against the terrorist state as revenge for the attack. While cynical critics would find that the hawks and the right wing rejoicing at this incident for using it for gaining support for the war, the truth is that many would see this as acting too late, though at least doing the right thing at last.

No wonder this atrocity is sufficient to warrant adequate military action by any standards. You know things are different when Democratic candidates sound as hawkish as the Republicans in their debate the following night, which gives you even more faith in the US leadership regardless of the political affiliation.

However, I find something else wrong with the approach of France to attack ISIS. While I am glad that France is finally prepared to strike ISIS locations in Syria and that it has every right to avenge the death of its citizens, they should have known better than just carrying out reactive vengeful strikes.

The French approach is precisely what is generally wrong with the reaction of the Western powers in terms of countering ISIS. They see ISIS as a distant security threat, which they do not need to do anything about unless their homes are threatened, instead of proactively intervening to prevent a humanitarian crisis and to destroy a local threat in the Middle East. The French reaction also suggests that up until this time it was not at war with the entity and did not consider its atrocities worthy of an intervention, as it considered necessary in the case of secular Libya. Sadly, it is only now that the French seek a global coalition against Islamic State.

Source: rare.us

Source: rare.us

Europe apparently did not have a problem with the existence of ISIS, without being bothered by the massacre they have been committing in Iraq and Syria. Even Israel has not taken any active action against it, because probably ISIS has been working to weaken Bashar Al-Assad, one of their archenemies. Or probably because the main victims of ISIS have primarily been Muslims of the Middle East, but by that rationale, you would expect Arab countries of the region to act against them, the reaction of which has been terribly dishonest and irresponsible. Nevertheless, you cannot expect much from morally bankrupt regimes.

The United States is probably the only exception, and they had better be, due to the enormous responsibility they bear following the Iraq War and their intervention in the Syrian Civil War. And they have been fighting ISIS alone without any considerable help from any ally in the region. However, despite reassurances by President Obama, his strategy has fallen short of effectively reducing the threat. Furthermore, he completely rules out deploying ground troops despite demands from the Republican leaders.

Such a reactive and defensive approach is what has resulted in the strengthening of ISIS in the first place. This should surely offer fodder to moralist critics who would accuse the Western powers of valuing the loss of life in Europe but completely ignoring the bloodbath in Syria and Lebanon, and genocide and human slavery in Kurdish Iraq.

Instead of striking back at ISIS as a reaction to some terrorist attack, proactive military action should be carried out against its targets until the complete annihilation of the terrorist entity as a state. This would not be possible without ground forces and occupation of the area making up the terrorist state.

The United States should also reconsider its withdrawal from Iraq, which has resulted in the breakdown of the security of a weak state with a Shia leadership unpopular with the local Sunnis. While President Obama could blame the Iraq War in 2003 initiated by George W. Bush for the rise of ISIS, history could see it as more of an unfinished business of his administration, or even a part of his Middle East foreign policy legacy.

As a matter of fact, President Obama has a great and rare opportunity to achieve undisputed greatness as a statesman following his historic Cuba initiative and the Iran Nuclear Deal. When he was elected President with the slogans of hope and change, even his fiercest enemies would have expected him to be destined to do great things. With the peace of the world at peril, and the Pope talking about the signs of a Third World War, his leadership can restore peace to the world if only he is willing to do what is necessary.  It is up to him to execute a swift blow to the terror network or wait for the next President to replace him to get the job done.

The United States is already tackling ISIS at his own pace, but in the words of Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s policy of “containment” of ISIS is not enough. President Obama tried calming the demands for more military action by using the very word just the night before ISIS attacked Paris and immediately came under fire. This incident seems to prove the last straw to wake the world up. The world must not rest until ISIS is destroyed. And since nobody else would even bother until the threat reaches their shores, United States remains the only moral leader in the world to take on the challenge.

However flawed the military strategy of Obama administration maybe, it still deserves greater respect for its principled action than the reactive measures France is going to take as revenge. If only a global coalition had been formed in a timely manner, the resources of ISIS could have been greatly reduced to carry out such attacks, though it would have required active pursuit of its presence in the continental Europe as well. But ISIS is feeding off the oil in the region and its supply lines must be destroyed.

ISIS has also threatened terrorist attacks in Washington D.C, and against any country that participates in bombings against them. The US intelligence believes they lack the resources to do so at the moment, but we must not let them grow strong enough to become capable of it, and must certainly stop underestimating the threat. The world still has time at its hands to prevent another tragedy like 11/13.

United States certainly does not need to bear this burden alone. The rest of the powers of the world have a chance to redeem their ignorance of the humanitarian crisis created by ISIS by joining a global coalition under US leadership. The United States, under the leadership of President Obama, is perfectly capable of rallying allied powers from around the world, not only from Europe and the Middle East, but from Asia Pacific as well to combat this threat together.

As long as the focus of the war becomes averting a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria instead of just defense of Western countries, the war should not feel like such a burden. However, I am not too sure if many in the West are still too concerned about the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Take Morality Out

Artist: Eugene Delacroix (Source: lib-art.com)

The world seems to be exploding all over the place. There simply seems to be no rest, there always is news about something terrible from one remote corner of the globe and there is always something horrible happening in the other. Manmade bad news, I mean, to be precise.

But it was a different world altogether that you were told about, wasn’t it?

It was a different society that you were about to become a part of. It was a different set of values that your parents taught you and it was a completely different code of ethics and morality that you were supposed to follow at the end of the day.

However, what you find happening is completely different. As if there are different worlds existing within the only one that we know of holding life. As if there are different moral standards existing in them.

But that’s true. There are different worlds existing within the only one that we know of.

There are different, several moral standards existing in all of them. With serious consequences.

It all becomes a shock, incomprehensible, wickedness, evil, war, violence, crime, sin, murder, rape, genocide.

Everything seems to fall apart. It seems as if all that you have ever been told was a lie. And that is a fact. A fact of our world.

A world in which several different worlds exist, with several different moral standards.

A lot of things that are told to us about this world, and about this life, are nothing but blatant lies. All things you read in elementary school, all the imaginary ideals, all the myths of the ages and why you should try replicating their clearly senseless, idiotic and pointless impossible heroics, and how you are expected to behave when the other person clearly does not.

It has all been an effort to make human beings a civilized being out of what they really are and will always remain. Animals with destructive instincts and intellect to worsen the destruction and complicate their evolution. Tamed less unsuccessfully by some than others.

Well, even if it sounds most outrageous and ridiculous to you, try doing that. Take morality out of the equation for a moment and you will find that everything would seem to fit in place. You know, the missing piece of the puzzle.

There is no need to care for your neighbor. There is no need to care for people in the remote corners of the world, or even on the streets of your city.

No need to be bothered about genocide and mass murder of a different race, or even your own, as long as you are safe, surviving and thriving. Do not blink an eye on lust-starved men raping a defenseless woman, turn after turn, waiting. There is even no need to cry about the starving children of Africa. Let them starve. It will shorten their misery.

Besides, this explains a lot of other things. Explains why there is so much war, killing and violence around the world. Explains why there is rape, abuse and torture.

Explains why there are religion and politics, which are supposedly there to bring moral justice to the society and actually end up worsening everything.

Why not? They are but merely evolutionary tools. Why not?

Just take morality out for a moment and everything falls into place.

Everything becomes simple, that man is an intelligent animal which would get just about anything it wants by using just about any way possible. It’s just plain and simple.

If there is only one loaf of bread left in the whole world, what do you expect a hungry animal would do to react to it? And how would you expect it to respond to its fellow creatures or to any other creature which is about to pounce on the solitary produce of grain?

How would you react?

Well, probably you would have shared. Probably not.

I took morality out and a lot of things were better to understand.

A lot of things started making perfectly good sense.

Don’t listen to the lies your parents and schools tell you… too closely.

Source: © 1968 MGM/Stanley Kubrick

The Hazara: A People Without Land and Security

The Hazara community is facing a double crisis in Pakistan. Not only are they being targeted for following the Shia Islam faith but also because of their ethnic distinction. At least that is the impression that I have been told to get and it pretty much seems like so too. In contrast, the choice of these words would sound absolutely devastating for someone living terror and death and bloodbath every single day. That’s just about how safe the Hazara community is in Pakistan.

Now I am not sure about that as I don’t know what I mean by Pakistan any more. Do I even have to add Baluchistan and Gilgit-Baltistan in it anymore because I am not even confident if those are really parts of Pakistan anymore, or what the term Pakistan means anymore. No such thing as government exists in those places, it seems. The community is currently suffering probably its worst genocide in the history of Pakistan. There are just under a million people of the community in Pakistan and most of them are settled in Baluchistan. What is even more painful is that a lot of the Hazaras have roots in Afghanistan and a lot of them moved to Pakistan in hope for a better life and a better future as war pillaged Afghanistan for decades.

Given the kind of claims Pakistanis make of their devotion to the Muslim brotherhood and the kind of protection they can offer to non-Muslim religious minorities, let alone adherents of their own faith, is this the kind of treatment we are offering them? Of course, many of the faithful don’t spare the non-Muslims at all anyway, but why these people, given their Muslim faith? Oh wait, they don’t consider them a part of their own community of the faithful. While we should be celebrating diversity, is this the way we respond to it? With such intolerance. If you don’t like diversity, you are really missing out on the beauty of life. Believe me.

There have been many posts that I have written which have made me ashamed to be a Pakistani but probably none equals the gravity of this particular one. I just met a friend from the Hazara community at the Pul-e-Jawan event and I could hardly look him in the eye out of the embarrassment that the ignorant theocratic, fascist and racist values prevalent in all provinces and areas of the Pakistan make you go through. For most parts, the Hazara people are being targeted because an overwhelming majority of the community adheres to the Shia sect of Islam.

Many of the overzealous segments in the Pakistani Sunni society consider them non-Muslims and call for murdering them openly, which goes to show everyday as members from the Shia community are regularly targeted, the latest example being journalist Murtaza Razvi in Karachi, who by the way has nothing to do with the Hazara community. He could even have been targeted for simply being a journalist, another tragedy of the country. Not saying that the Shia don’t have militant elements too, but not as much as the other majority sects, and where’s the responsibility? The government turning a blind eye like always.

The good thing is that the Hazara community is raising their voices in peaceful protest against the absolutely unacceptable and intolerable genocide for just being different as far as race and faith are concerned. The community is primarily targeted in areas where the hold of the Pakistani law is supposedly weak, but that is no excuse not only because things are not any better in other areas of the country where it supposedly is applied with full force and also because of the disastrous theological and cultural norms that have been accepted and openly nurtured by the strong and the powerful elite of the country, resulting in such disastrous results.

The Hazara Protest in Islamabad (Source: Hazara News Pakistan)

The Hazara community held a protest in front of the Islamabad Press Club on April 14, 2012, demonstrating how peacefully they are reacting against the most violent and unacceptable campaign of their organized genocide. Appreciation for Marvi Sirmed, Farzana Bari and Dr. Asim Sajjad for joining the protest in solidarity as reported by the Hazara News Pakistan blog. Their voices and endorsements are much stronger of course. The protesters from the Hazara community in Baluchistan have talked to the Governor of the province as well, but all they got were assurances that are not backed by any guarantees of course. And they are not even too politically active and aggressive, so please do not confuse them for the campaign demanding the Hazara province in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province or the former NWFP.

The Hazara Protest in Islamabad (Source: Hazara News Pakistan)

In the end, I would like to apologize to my Hazara friends for not being able to make it to the Islamabad protest but they will always find my voice for their support whenever they require it. I am in part guilty of what is happening to them because I and many more like me are simply not doing enough in a multi-fragmented society that has become a killing machine over time, any foreign hand or not, as many of us conveniently like to believe.

Yet again I am very ashamed to be a Pakistani while I say that.

Putting a Price on Food

Source: shc.edu

Maybe we are missing something as humans. What we are really missing is realizing that we actually are animals and that we started out in the wild. Agriculture was not always there and neither were sophisticated cooking techniques. No doubt that resorting to the wild survival instincts would be frowned upon in the civilization. But why in the world would anyone do that when you have no other choice? After all, you need to survive.

Maybe it is a little audacious to declare that it is something humans are missing. Well, not all of them are. Maybe it is taken for granted in the civilized world, where food is abundant.  But it doesn’t matter as you could always get the food in the wild, unless you are living in a desert, or worse, a drought-stricken land. Hey, people have been surviving in the deserts for centuries. All you have to hope is that life exists there in one form or the other, because that is all you can eat. You eat life.

After all, animals eat and survive too and why expect that humans would be any different? No one is supplying them food, or even caring about how they get them. They survive, or they die.

Why do people get to the point of starving to death anyway? Why do they let themselves get to that point of no return? The point when someone from the civilized world has to come to them and feed them and photograph them and to publish the pictures around to collect funds for paying for their food? Why don’t they simply go hunting in the wild like their ancestors and eat anything that moves.

I think food is the most basic necessity that you could think of. It is the most basic of the basic human rights. Wait, not just human rights. Food is the right of any living entity, even bacteria. Nature, that is anything that is beyond the control of humans, provides for that right. It is just that humans have enough power to take that right away from their fellow creatures.

Yes, human beings are the only creatures who put a price on food.

Alright, I am not implying that those who grow and produce food must not get their share . Certainly, I don’t mean that the farmers who grow their food and the traders who sell it should be deprived of their rightful share of money, no doubt about it. But that does not take away the responsibility of those who have willing created a system that deprives millions of humans of enough food.

Just imagine that for a second. People starving to death. What good is a government if it cannot feed its people? To my mind any government that is not able to feed its people or offer them peace, freedom, medicine and security, has no reason for its existence. What other justification do we have for a government?

Humans are certainly not the only creatures to hoard food. We are just the only ones who hoard to deprive others of it and to store much more than the needs of a particular group of people responsible for it.

What we must remember are the most fundamental things and stop confusing ourselves with the completely unnecessary complex concepts that we are bombarded with everyday. Every human being is important, no matter where they live and every human being deserves food.

Food is more important than ideology.

Food is more important than politics.

If you are not feeding people, do not expect them to behave in a civilized manner. Because behind every civilized being is a wild creature who would do anything to survive.

But feeding people, like the ones starving in Somalia, is just not a priority of our species. Our priority is to pay for filthy, unnecessary and completely avoidable luxuries, but not feeding the starving. Imagine that, as a species, we do not have spare money to feed those who are dying of hunger and would surely fall prey to dangerous epidemic if no action is taken.

Source: bellirosa.com

We could fund to send man to Mars. Yes, we have money for that. We also have the funds for building a supersonic jet that travels from London to Sydney within an hour. Yes, we have money for that. We even have money to build the most useless and the most ostentatious, tallest building in the world. You know where it is. It is like an erect penis, but sterile. Yes, a lot of money for that. Alright, I would not even mention wars. it is more or less a justifiable expenditure, wouldn’t you think. At least it relieves a lot of people of their misery.

Without any difficulty, the entire population of the world can be comfortably fed for a sum making up a very tiny fragment of the entire wealth of the world and only just a little more can be dedicated to agricultural research to boost productivity. If a unified global effort is made in this direction, not a soul in the world will go hungry, ever. You don’t even need to go and check any statistics to verify this fact. However, what you should go and verify is whether the leaders of the world have any intention to put this matter on their priority list.

It just simply isn’t there.

This means that we actually want people around the world to be hungry. To starve to death. There are initiatives like the World Food Program from the United Nations which is doing an excellent job but yet not doing enough. But then again, who runs the WFP? We do and it is anything but one of our top priorities. That is just one way. There are several others and providing food is just one little dimension. But at the end of the day, it is food that matters.

Then there are naïve questions such as why people live in barren lands where there is no hope. Actually the question makes sense but not a single answer to it would. The questioner should be told that relocating costs money, that no one likes to leave their home even if it is barren, and if they do, who would accept those people? Which country in the world would accept a migrating population of starving people? If even a single country actually does that, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Also, they don’t figure out that conditions have deliberately been created to cause the hunger in the first place. They would rather choose to die in their homes with dignity and peace by avoiding insult to injury. Furthermore, it is a myth that hunger is the problem of countries going through drought in Africa only. The problem is actually worldwide and even seemingly prosperous countries have considerable starving populations.  The severity, however, varies.

But it seems that it is in our interest to create conditions that lead to the starvation of certain populations in the world. Politics remain the greatest hurdle and it will continue to be in the future. Not that anything can be done about it. We cannot even agree on simple objective facts, let alone solving any complicated and difficult problems. Maybe we should try eliminating the starving population once and for all by creating a great war instead. But wait. We are actually doing that, but it is a slow and painful death.

The face of war has changed, or maybe it has not. Maybe people never realized the kind of war that has been waged on them for centuries. It is the war of inequality, deprivation and injustice. Not that there is any justice, or ever will be, but at least people can be provided with their fundamental rights, which fellow beings, just like them, with no other superior evolutionary characteristics except for money and power, enjoy for no other apparent reason.

We all share responsibility for the fact that populations are undernourished.

                                                                                – Pope John XXIII (May 3, 1960)

We are responsible for it. We have created it. Not some God, unless humans are one.

So it seems.

It is just another ugly fact which we may choose to overlook, and we will.

It is genocide. It is ethnic cleansing. And of not just one race.

A Holocaust that has been going on for centuries.

It is mass murder. It is a crime against humanity.

We commit it every day.

We are putting a price on food.

We are putting a price on life.

The Rules of the Game

I was thinking about wars. I often do. It has become a part of the way we think. But the thought about war is never necessarily based on fear. It is even based on what life really is. On what human beings are and what the meaning of their existence is.

But talking about wars should not necessarily make you grim. Well the most you can do is to stay alive and stay out of the way of danger, like taking shelter from the storm. That is the sane thing to do. People die, like animals are slaughtered, and there is nothing much you can do about it, can you? Or maybe you can.

Nobody chooses to be in the path of war. We take a lot of things in life for granted, for example our homes. It makes sense but it is hard for people to leave their homes and settle elsewhere if you tell them that living in a coastal city is dangerous due to the ever-increasing threat of hurricanes.

The truth is that most people can barely make both ends meet, let alone the idea of relocating for survival. It is even harder for people to get out of the path of the storm called war, then the ones sent by nature. It is hard to find shelter when no one is prepared to offer you one. Not everyone is so lucky and politicians around the world thrive on spewing venom against immigrants and refugees.

The Fischer-Spassky Chess Games

Alright, everyone has their geographical, economic and political restrictions. But I was just wondering. Since we are the most intelligent species in the Universe, or so we think, can we not avoid casualties for something that is decided in the end anyway?

Why do we wage wars? For land and for money, and for power, the rest of the things are pretty much nonsense of course. Can we not settle that on a game of Chess (remember the Fischer v Spassky games in the Cold War years), or even better on a game of Diplomacy. Diplomacy, a “board game” created by Allan B. Calhamer based on the pre-World War I scenario in Europe involving seven European powers “fighting” for domination. The game is the best that I know of when it comes to geopolitical strategy among games.

The Standard Diplomacy Map

And it does not use dice like Risk, so you can be sure that it is not a game of luck. It is more suitable to decide wars than Chess, because it literally allows you to control the map as a Head of State, fight with other countries, make allies and enemies and use your Diplomacy skills to dominate the map.

The best thing about the game, like Chess, is that you can really make your enemy feel bitter and defeated without actually killing anyone.

We could decide which country gets what province over a game of Diplomacy, or Chess, whenever a war is declared. If only it were that simple. But states have fallen without any bloodshed whatsoever in the past.  It all depends on what your priorities are.

Yes, go ahead, call me an idealist, or insane.

But it nevertheless is an idea, which someone can take if they want.

I know it is unlikely to happen, but the possibility of its occurrence is as great as the possibility of someone being willing to do so.

If we ever wanted to avoid all those casualties I think.