Thank you, Junaid Cheema. May your article be read and re-read.

Maybe it's just me. But what exactly is the author saying here?

"Let us ask a few questions before swallowing that blue pill of compliancy"

I dutifully clicked the link.

And got the message "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that".

What next. Oh yes. Who is Neo? From the context, he (she?) is a character in a movie. Unfortunately, that does not provide a clue to the purpose of addressing him/her. Again from the context, he/she is someone unaccustomed to listening, and averse to taking drugs.

"So tell me do you care to listen - Neo?... But first tell me…are still you listening Neo?... So tell me Neo…will you still take the blue pill?"

I am sure there is a simpler way to say "there's a lot of bad people in this world." And a clearer way to illustrate that helping one side to beat another isn't always a productive strategy, especially when it is in pursuit of profit, rather than principle.

But perhaps even now I have the wrong end of the stick.

Oh, and I may have missed it too, but is there any semblance of a suggestion as to how things could be better handled, from the point of view of the ordinary Syrian citizen?

Could Neo be neo-conservative? Just a suggestion, but fairly clear to me from the context.

Yes, good essay.
She was of course referring to Alice in Through the Looking Glass and the the Matrix Trilogy films, both of which pointed out and the then (and always) consensus "reality" is not at all what the ordinary well-adjusted citizen has been "educated" or more correctly, brain-washed into believing.

Neo of course was the hero of the Matrix Trilogy whose prophetic function was to break the collective trance which had brought living-breathing-feeling humankind to the point of destruction via the relentless seemingly unstoppable momentum of the replicant machines. In the last part of the film the humans are at the point of being completely overwhelmed and therefore terminated by the replicants in the last desperate battle.

Some of the characters in the film such as Morpheus and his fellow conspirators were still awake outside of the collective trance. They had taken the RED pill. They knew how deadly it was and how the replicants were on the verge of destroying Real humankind. They also knew that they did not have the power to stop this process. They also knew and hoped that a prophetic figure existed who was destined to do so. They somehow recognized that NEO was the ONE. The first step in his preparation for this purpose was for Neo take the trance-formative RED pill - as distinct from all of the dreadfully sane normals who chose the BLUE pill.

In the film Agent Smith represented the thought police whose function was to systematically track down and eliminate anyone who was involved in the subversive RED pill movement.

After much drama etc Neo, fulfilling his prophetic function as TRANCE-formative TRANCE-breaking prophet confronts the immense power of the machine full on, and breaks its power. The power that had created the replicants and their relentless destructive power. Thus dis-empowered the replicants were stopped dead in their tracks - and real living-breathing-feeling humanity survived.

Agent Smith represents ALL of the usual "authority" figures whose function is to clone everybody to the unconscious consensus of the hive-mind. Such "authority" figures begin with mom-and-dad, all of the "official" propagandists

Junaid even if, as Robert Holmes wrote in 1976 for Doctor Who in the first appearance of 'the Matrix' in The Deadly Assassin, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"; we only circle around the issues...

Maybe, in this scenario of yours, The Borg are the good guys?

barbarity in Syria only rivalled by the Western worlds treatment of the unborn.

Seems the author has fused together three iconic art elements: The Matrix (blue pill), Alice in wonderland (the rabbit hole & depth of ones perception) and the Avatar (the creation of false Avatars of freedom, justice & liberty so we can get what we really want - their resources). Art is usually a reflection of reality.

Think Neo is picked because he is the hero of the matrix who is prophesied to bring upon change. The reader here is Neo (the Hero) who will bring upon change but first needs to understand true reality and come out of the matrix.

Perhaps this might make sense to those who haven't already taken the 'blue pill'.

The Borg were/are never in any sense benign.
We ARE all Borg now. And furthermore our Blue pill machine "culture" is killing us and all of Earthkind too - it is all part of the same process.
Meanwhile I much prefer the assessment of the human situation and how we got to here in 2013, given in the set of essays available here - by an author who has obviously taken the Red pill and been down the rabbit hole too http://www.wildriverreview.com/user/63#article_list

This article was a very insightful read. Junaid you’ve been able to capture all the key facts and considerations for this conflict so succintly. It was very clever of you to keep readers engaged with playing out the classic dialogue from the famous matrix movie (not sure why some of us didn’t follow?). This is by far the best article I’ve read on this issue – keep writing as im sick and tired of reading the same garbage minus the facts that I read when America was about to go to war with Iraq. The media seems to have done a ctrl find on Iraq and replaced it with Syria. Thank you for reminding us that the prophet of profits are maintaining their viscous hold on their dollars so that the rest of humanity suffers under the banner of liberation. Unfortunately it’s all a very heartbreaking but a familiar story we’ve come accustomed to hearing – like you I’ve made my choice.

Hi Junaid,

I am torn between calling this a very bad case of “bring in the men in white coats” and a Mythology/Hollywood based production of deep, meaningful and historic philosophical proportions.

After much deliberation and several “communications” with the planet “Alternative Reality”, I have been advised to call in the Daleks and have your tome “exterminated”.

IMHO, it is the biggest load of surrealist/post modernist/reverse engineered rubbish I’ve ever seen Graham Y publish. The really sad part about your missive is that there are people on this thread who actually profess to “understand” it.

Since you love Sci-fi so much, I’m reminded of the following dialogue as to why the “rest” of the population was not following (You)?

"Ah. Well it's funny you should say that," he said and allowed himself a slight frown at Ford Prefect, "because curiously enough we haven't heard a peep out of them since we left five years ago ... but they must be behind us somewhere."

He peered off into the distance again.

Ford peered with him and gave a thoughtful frown.

"Unless of course," he said softly, "they were eaten by the goat ..."

"Ah yes ..." said the Captain with a slight hesitancy creeping into his voice, "the goat ..."

His eyes passed over the solid shapes of the instruments and computers that lined the bridge. They winked away innocently at him. He stared out at the stars, but none of them said a word. He glanced at his first and second officers, but they seemed lost in their own thoughts for a moment. He glanced at Ford Prefect who raised his eyebrows at him.

"It's a funny thing you know," said the Captain at last, "but now that I actually come to tell the story to someone else ..."

Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Keep telling the story Junaid, keep telling the story

@spindoc

a close friend of mine is a really good pyschologist - he can really help people like you

Dear theHypocricy,

a close friend of mine is a really good proctologyst - he can really help people like you

Speaking of science fiction and/or myths that should now be regarded as strange urban legends or obscurantist mystifying mumbo-jumbo, Graham has no trouble in featuring essays by people who pretend that Jesus was crucified, ascended into "heaven" (wherever that is), and rose from the dead in a living-breathing human form (which just aint possible) And that they are thus "saved" by believing in this mumbo-jumbo. And that their bodies will be "resurrected" when Jesus comes again. Which body? The one they were when they died or the one when they were in the prime of their life at say 30.

There are of course at least 35,000 different and differing institutional forms of this strange story too

'Bone-chilling' is the word best fit to describe the feeling one is overwhelmed with after reading the article.
The cost of opening one's eyes is High, Very High, the red pill is not for the faint hearted but what the author has highlighted remarkably well is that the cost of keeping them closed is Even Higher and the interest keeps on accumulating!

Well said, Hadi, hear, hear!

What an amazing and compelling article, bringing this issue into clear perspective in spite of its enormous inherent complexity.
Mind you, Junaid had me on his side (of the issue) with his opening quote:

>"I swear to God, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs –we will eat your heart and livers! Takbir! God is Great! Oh my heroes of Baba Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat them!"<

After such a proclamation by a so-called 'revolutionary' I am moved to view Assad as the true 'patriot', and to proclaim 'Death to the Revolutionary'!

I am satisfied that the US must tread very carefully in evaluating the 'Syrian situation', and should seek wise counsel from the Arabic world before contemplating any judgement whatsoever in this matter.
In this respect, Obama appears now to be approaching this situation in a more 'reserved' manner, and this at least is to be applauded.
Undue haste and unfounded conclusions need to be avoided at all cost.

Syria must be saved for the Syrians, but how best to do this is going to take world's best diplomacy.

Question: Can Islam coexist with peaceful co-existence; or is it to become inevitable that it be declared a 'banned' organization or 'movement' - or at least various 'extremist' elements removed from it by concerted action from within, so as to prove and affirm its legitimacy in a tolerant and peace-loving world?
Of course, how do peace-loving Muslims deal with the hate-filled extremist war-mongers in their midst? A substantial dilemma.

An interesting article, although I found the punctuation a little random.
More than "the Matrix" or "through the looking glass" I am reminded of Orwell's 1984; superpowers at perpetual war against each other, constantly changing alliances, redefining enemies...
I sincerely felt for the American soldier holding up a sign:
"I didn't sign up to fight for Al Quaeda".

Neatly put, Grim.

>>I am reminded of Orwell's 1984; superpowers at perpetual war against each other, constantly changing alliances, redefining enemies...<<

What is really interesting (in a detached sort of way) is that it is now possible to track how that situation was allowed to come about - a small detail that Orwell omitted.

At the root of the tragedy in so many instances has been the tendency for major powers to blindly follow the mantra "my enemy's enemy is my friend", which is a fundamentally flawed basis for the selection of "friends".

The greatest danger of this model, however, is that the "enemy" has most often been defined (privately, of course) as "he who impedes my economic progress". Simply because this identifier changes constantly, your determination of who is a friend and who an enemy will also fluctuate across the years.

Over a longer period, this provides the perfect recipe for ultimate geopolitical disaster.

Come to think of it, that is quite possibly what this article was trying to say. Funny, that.

Pericles,

"Maybe it's just me. But what exactly is the author saying here?"

No it's not just you, I agree, the entire article is difficult to interpret, it reminds me of post-modernism at its most incoherent, I think it's a critique of Western imperialism and hypocrisy.
Perhaps it's only for the cognoscenti.

An extremely well written piece. Those that have had difficulty in understanding what the author is trying convey need to research the references that have been added. The complexity of the issues in the entire middle east are multi faceted and do require in depth knowledge of the geopolitical context in which they are occuring. The key questions that need to be asked:
1. Who is really gaining from the instability in the region?
2. Why are there so many similarities in the case put forward to attack Iraq also present for that for an attack on Syria?
3. Why is the U.S and it allies funding,training and facilitating extremists to bring about change in Syria, when those are also the sworn enemies of the west?

The first casualty of war is always the truth. The trutch is always harder to swollow.

We can all continue to live in ignorant bliss and swollow the blue pill...........or take the harder decision and swollow the red pill....the more difficult choice I believe.

I don't buy it, omarb.

>>Those that have had difficulty in understanding what the author is trying convey [sic] need to research the references that have been added. The complexity of the issues in the entire middle east are [sic] multi faceted and do [sic] require in depth knowledge of the geopolitical context in which they are occuring [sic].<<

The issues in the middle east are indeed complex.

Building a homily around a couple of Hollywood movies and a children's fairy tale is hardly likely to demystify the geopolitical context, especially if you also require the reader to "research the references".

Vanity-writing in this manner is purely a lookitme exercise.

Are you the writer of the article, by the way? Your cavalier approach to the English language is remarkably similar.

It is almost Aristotelian...

"The trutch is always harder to swollow.
We can all continue to live in ignorant bliss and swollow the blue pill...........or take the harder decision and swollow the red pill...."

Except that on complex issues in a short article more than one swallow does not a summation make.

omarb,

Speaking of fairy tales, here's one that's pertinent to the article, "The Emperor's New Clothes".

No I am not the writer of the article!. All I am saying is that although the author has used characters from fiction to help illustrate his point, it is only in depth understanding of the historical perspectives of the issues that grip the entire middle east that will allow the reader to completely grasp what the author is trying to convey. The piece has been written in an entirely thought provoking manner; but once again understand the history. We can all look at the syria issue from an entirely superficial perspective, but understand that the true desired outcome of the conflict is greater regional instability in the interests of bigger players; whilst helping to provide greater security for others. The brookings institute has clearly described the process (in the mid 2009) by which this is to occur; for those that wish to research it. The underlying philosophy for this was described well by JFK :
“There is another type of warfare—new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat,by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting theenemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.”
Why have boots on the ground when others will do the fighting for you? Hence the funding of terrorists groups........ and as brooking institute describes it ' manufacturing provications'.

Phooey, omarb.

>>The brookings institute has clearly described the process (in the mid 2009) by which this is to occur<<

The Brookings Institution (note the spelling) did no such thing. You have been reading too many conspiracy-dude web sites, and - as so often is the case - omit to check the source.

Here is the document to which you and your fellow conspiracy-nuts refer:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy

Below is a typical conspiracy-bogan "analysis" of the document, by one Jurriaan Maessen writing in his very own organ, "Prison Planet" (barf)

"In their Which Path To Persia document the Brookings people openly considered a 'provocation' to escalate things to the point of armed conflict"

Have a read of the actual document, and tell me exactly what is the nature of this "provocation", and where it is described.

I know, it is painful actually having to look for it yourself, instead of relying upon others to interpret it and feed it to you.

Oh, you might also read the bit at the beginning.

"The aim of this exercise was to highlight the challenges of all the options and to allow readers to decide for themselves which they believe to be best... Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the authors’ views."

A current Brookings Institution offering on Iran is here:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2013/09/11-iran-surprises-itself-and-world

Then there's this:

"Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the authors"

Treating the opinion of academics as formal US policy... that way lies madness.

Reading and reflecting on some of the comments that were posted in relation to the article, it absolutely clear that the blue pill has been ingested and deposited deep in to the intestine of so many cynical people, thus explaining the ignorance and obtuseness of so many.

By far this is a well thought of piece of writing, actually one of the best articles I have read in relation to the current Syrian conflict, yet it is unfortunate and disappointing that certain shallow thinkers were so occupied with the shell and could not see past the metaphors used by the Author in order focus on the core of the issue.

To an extent many have actually been sucked in and demonstrated the reality of ignorance that is existent in our society. Perhaps the article could be for the cognoscenti who are well informed about the issue, but then it is your choice because eventually it is an issue that will affect all and no one is excluded

@Mac
You are dead right "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a pertinent analogy for this piece.
This story is often sociopolitically parsed as "The Emperor Has No Clothes" meaning: though the truth is obvious for even a 'child' to see, it will be denied by the majority especially when it's being fed by the government. In this case the childish observation is: Why are the 'good guys' helping the 'bad guys' (i.e. Al Qaeda)? Perhaps because the good guys are really the bad guys and have been for a while and Al Qaeda has always been the perfect excuse.

Oops, I guess you didn't understand the analogy you were quoting, nor did you understand the article, nor do you understand the reality that is plain to see. Your confidence derives not from your mind but the mindless numbers that share your thinking.

@Omarb: Your points were very clear and succinct the first time, don't be disappointed by the responses. Its easy to "belittle" anything, all you need is a 'little' mind.

@Dove: Well said - people like you give hope to those who 'get it'

This is starting to get quite interesting.

>>...it absolutely clear that the blue pill has been ingested and deposited deep in to the intestine of so many cynical people, thus explaining the ignorance and obtuseness of so many<<

I think that is meant to be an insult.

A pretty weak one, true, but clearly intended to say that anyone who doesn't think this is a well-written, insightful and iconoclastic item, is very thick.

Well, I have a different view.

To me, it is an overwrought piece of self-indulgent emotional pap, that not only tells us nothing about Syria, but also falls short of promoting any kind of constructive thought on the topic.

It is nothing more than the cry of an over-stimulated Year 11 essay-writer, who has just discovered that the world is not a particularly nice place, who has absorbed the dross of a hundred would-be-anarchic web sites, and has chosen to regurgitate it here for our benefit.

Apart from that, what is truly unforgivable is its painful mangling of language, its proliferation of half-baked metaphor and tired allusions, and its sheer unreadability.

>>In this case the childish observation is: Why are the 'good guys' helping the 'bad guys' (i.e. Al Qaeda)?<<

Yep. That's the discovery I was talking about. It is all horribly confusing to the average bear, isn't it. And here we have the anguished cry of the adolescent, baying at the moon for someone to explain all the difficult bits, the parts that don't sit easily with a childlike desire for order and predictability.

It is a complex world. Not all solutions are either obvious, or easy.

Articles like this neither illuminate, nor instruct, just fill up space with a load of piteous tosh.

@Pericles
It's almost amusing seeing you blab on and on.
If it was such an unenlightened and inconsequential piece we wouldn't have you dedicated full time to it :) painstakingly copying/pasting and responding point-wise to people's appreciative comments. I am sure your fancy vocabulary has better uses than being wasted on 'a load of piteous tosh' (tosh, oh my gosh).

(I say 'almost' because of the nature of the subject, enough to make any half decent human bow their head in contemplation if not outright shame)

theHypocrisy,

"Oops, I guess you didn't understand the analogy you were quoting, nor did you understand the article, nor do you understand the reality that is plain to see. Your confidence derives not from your mind but the mindless numbers that share your thinking."

Actually you don't understand the analogy, so, you've missed the point entirely. I wasn't commenting on the situation in the ME, but the quality of the article, analysis has been replaced by allusions to popular culture. In my opinion you're like one of the Emperor's courtiers in the story, there's nothing there to see, apart from the naked Emperor, perhaps you're projecting your own opinions on to the text and making some threadbare clothes for the Emperor.

Your assumption that you've some insights into the situation that the rest of the public doesn't understand is (I'll be kind here) patronising drivel. Actually I don't support Western, particularly US policy, in the ME--my argument is that the author's article is incoherent, pretentious and lacking any substance, rather like yours in fact.

"(I say 'almost' because of the nature of the subject, enough to make any half decent human bow their head in contemplation if not outright shame)"

Congratulations Hadi... that got me thinking more about the subject than the entire eristic article.

I remember my mum saying, "You don't look half-decent." So I must be more... but shame?

Not on my part, more disgust that the same act can be regarded simultaneously as a contravention of a religion and the conviction of it.

Pericles
Those that believe that the one of the largest U.S think tanks like Brookings institute have no effect on U.S foreign policy, tend to also believe that lobby groups like AIPAC have no effect either. Keeping living in your own dream land..................... no point..... the blue pill is too far gone.

Maybe it's one of them there 'cultural' things.
From the perspective of my modern mass media (un)culture, I'm rather more used to analogies and satire being used to illuminate, rather than obfuscate. I must confess, I quite often don't bother following links if the article itself makes it's points strongly and clearly enough. In this case, I agree with Pericles and Mac. I found the links more interesting and more readable than the article.
For me, this article was more like acetylsalicylic acid than the red pill.
For the links, I thank the author sincerely. It is an important issue and deserves much greater exposure.
I certainly agree that sometimes it seems like we are living in some kind of fantasy world; how Americans can persist in regarding themselves as the 'good guys', after decades of invading other countries, overthrowing governments and openly or covertly supporting some truly disgusting people -all in the name of Capitalism, not Democracy, as they persistently claim- has always boggled me.
BTW, I thought Matrix 3 was very disappointing. It seemed to me the writers were on the verge of making a truly profound point, then suddenly remembered they were Americans.

Poor comparison, omarb.

>>Those that believe that the one of the largest U.S think tanks like Brookings institute have no effect on U.S foreign policy, tend to also believe that lobby groups like AIPAC have no effect either.<<

The Brookings Institution (you still haven't got that right yet, have you) is a forum for academics to post papers, articles and commentaries, and generally air their knowledge and expertise. A bit like Online Opinion on steroids, really. Take a moment to look at their site, it's pretty harmless stuff.

http://www.brookings.edu/

AIPAC, on the other hand, is a lobby group with a particularly narrow agenda, to do everything it can to promote Israel's interests in Washington. Take a look at their site, and you will instantly spot the difference.

http://www.aipac.org/

We all appear to agree that the world is a pretty nasty place. We differ only in the manner in which we express it.

To divide the world simplistically into takers of blue and red pills is about as sensible as dividing it into "good guys" and "bad guys". In the same way that the US is not a paragon of virtue, nor is Russia, nor is China, nor is Australia. Coping with the concept that those boundaries will forever be fluid, is a sign of intellectual maturity.

Read Putin in today's Fin Review, reprinted from the NYT. It's a very sane piece. You'd think the guy is a whiter-than-white peacenik.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all

Then you remember Chechnya.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/vladimir-putins-1999-chechnya-op-ed-2013-9

Have a great day.