This is the kind of analysis we need: a well-established journalist at the Financial Times argues that there is a risk of "accidental" war in the Middle East. History, and the history of the region in particular, following Gardner's logic, tells us that wars happen by "accident", not by a cumulative process within a historical juncture and with a backgroound at home and abroad of the social-political forces at play.
What might be called an "accident" could be a trigger, but not the mechanism. Necessity is the main/fundamental factor, i.e. the cumulative process(es) of drives and contradictions make war a necessity.
I am curious to find how many historians and analysts have found that 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, the Iraq-Iran war (1982-1988), 1991 and 2003 wars/invasions happened "accidentally".
That's apart from the simplistic but convenient mainstream description of the "sectarian" nature of the conflicts.
Risks rise of an accidental war in the Middle East
(You might be asked to subscribe to read the article, but by googling the title and using different browsers I managed to get a free access)
What might be called an "accident" could be a trigger, but not the mechanism. Necessity is the main/fundamental factor, i.e. the cumulative process(es) of drives and contradictions make war a necessity.
I am curious to find how many historians and analysts have found that 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, the Iraq-Iran war (1982-1988), 1991 and 2003 wars/invasions happened "accidentally".
That's apart from the simplistic but convenient mainstream description of the "sectarian" nature of the conflicts.
Risks rise of an accidental war in the Middle East
(You might be asked to subscribe to read the article, but by googling the title and using different browsers I managed to get a free access)
Comments