An Acceptable Bloodbath

It is perhaps reasonable to ask, from within or from without liberal circles, what represents an acceptable intervention and what does not. Inaction in the face of perceived atrocity brings upon the apathetic a tumult of scorn, the most public of progressive voices take up the task of calling for the charge. Yet when the powers that be exert force in spite of the public, indeed, even in its virtul absence, these same voices find reason for dissent.

Criticality is key. History has uncannily keen eyes. At the time of this writing Kenyans face an escalating crisis. Over at the Department of State, Scott McCormack backs away from remarks made by the effective charges d'affaires in Africa. I quote:

"Very often, the case with these kind of circumstances is that you don't have a full understanding, a complete picture of what happened until after the situation is over and things have calmed down,"

Indeed, such was very much the case with Rwanda. In other words, too early to bandy about the "G-Word." Of course, African blood is cheap, and there is little of use in Kenya. Truly dear reader, forgive my moment of weakness, but where else to begin such an exploration of the thought? Should there be some kind of intervention in Kenya? Nato, a coalition, anything? If the simple answer-as I hear it stirring in your chest- is yes. So where do we draw the line, and where haven't we drawn the line already.

When juxtaposed, Africa and the Middle East present us with a series of episodes in which the schizophrenia of the Western project lays uncomfortably bare upon bloodstained earth. Critical questions must be asked, and the house indeed requires some keeping up. For it is the janus-like visage of the self-conflicted liberal that stands in there own way, not capital or media ot guns.

More later . . .