In my post last week I asked for feedback on my blog and received none.
Yes, none, not one. I have to say I am surprised, but not terribly so when I consider my own reading of blogs and editorials, glancing at many and reading some and seldom leaving comments. It is the way we are these days. So much information available to us, and so little time, a situation exacerbated by the misshaping of information to fit someone’s political ideology. We can not even begin to integrate all that information because so much of it is suspect.
It often strikes me that we have more knowledge and less collective understanding than ever.
If you like a post you linger longer. If not you move on sooner. No need to comment unless you really want to and why would you really want to? Ingest it or just move on.
Hey, I’ll just assume those of you who read this fairly regularly feel the way the reader cited last time does: “I’ve enjoyed receiving (the) American Titanic blog this year. You put it together judiciously, pacing its frequency and length just right, to be of passing interest each time. I like your generously including further web-refs, for anyone wanting to follow-through on a particular subject.”
Love that comment.
The other response to my post I listed was from my close friend Judy. Since she doesn’t want to read about the Mid-East – too complex and too removed from her life – I want to say something about why I want to write about it, even if hardly anyone else wants to read it.
I want to write about it because of its complexity and its potential for rocking our world. I have paid attention to world affairs for nearly 50 years and believe I can give some useful perspective to the burgeoning chaos that envelops the region.
Three factors have guided our foreign policy towards the Greater Middle East: Oil, regional stability and nuclear weapons, either already there or potentially so. Of course, the three are tied together and all linked to Israel, both a staunch ally and source of ongoing problems. In our desire to maintain stability, so our sources of oil remained reliable, we often backed dictators, such as the Shah of Iran and Hosni Mubarak of Eygpt and, lest we forget, Saddam Hussein, before he got too big for his britches and invaded Kuwait.
We placed our faith in strong men who could keep their internal politics stable, and all things considered, that vast region had been much more stable than it is today.
The Greater Middle East has become much more difficult to deal with now, as the age of the strong man has diminished and the age of republics has yet to arrive. What we take for granted as democratic processes has not been experienced by most of this region. Except for Israel, India and possibly Turkey, the nature of rule is either strong men, some pretending to lead democracies, chaos or semi-chaos. Trying to make sense of this gigantic region is particularly difficult these days because so much is unpredictable.
I think I have some useful perspective and worthwhile thoughts on that collective tumult, and so that’s why I will return to the subject again and again in upcoming months. Much will happen and it won’t be easy judging events when they do.