Many of my colleagues were crying yesterday. The journalist chap who was killed was a graduate of our Journalism program.


I don't think the West, separately or collectively, is prepared to deal with the Middle East. I predict we shall, separately and collectively, "keep on keepin' on" with our existing mélange of policies, over-reactions, and outraged sensibilities. This will, of course, engender the same current level of success we enjoy in the region.


The Middle East has a rich history and the cultures raised in that region have long-standing rules for settling grievances. These are imprinted on their youth as a part of identity establishment and have the same degree of identity connection that social stoicism has for an upper class Brit or "alles in ordnung" has for the educated German. It is not simply a component of how they interact with others but of WHO they are. With that level of entrenched mind set, our options for real "change" are limited.

We can keep on what doing more or less what we are doing an thereby generate the same joyous results we have enjoyed to date.

We can withdraw from the region more or less entirely, trading for oil with whatever potentate currently controls it but accepting that we have no way to insure stability of production or delivery. All of the local forces who oppose Western (usually USA) efforts in the region would be the victors in this instance.

We can back a local proxy or three and let them fight by local rules while supporting them lavishly, funding their efforts, and ignoring their gross violations of human rights and freedoms. This would allow us to put boots on necks by proxy, though it would not change the "meta" of the area.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under orthodox rules of engagement. This would be followed by a period of occupation during which new cultural values would be inculcated and local institutions allowed to mature to make that culture shift permanent. This would involve at least 20 years of occupation, the first decade of which would closely resemble the experience of US forces in Iraq after Gulf II.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under local rules of engagement (active use of war crime tactics). This would be followed by a period of occupation of not less than 20 years to allow for the same changes noted in the previous option. Casualties during the initial decade would be substantially lower among occupying forces but much higher among the civilian population. The die-off would actually work to bring cultural change faster, though the likelihood of backlash may undercut the change effort.

I would like to see option two. I will see option one.