march 14 and sustainability

i wasn't going to post anything more today, as i've been soaked with work and studies - i'm trying to finish up two months worth of deadlines in the remaining two weeks before leaving here - and as a break i decided to skim through the dailystar. this article caught my attention, as its content was in a way expected. there will be some who say that march 14 lost because of this, just as how some said on thursday that march 14 had won; however, none of these commentators have provided a metric of victory, and thus such discussions are meaningless.

more importantly, however, such an incident resonates with the notion that march 14 is disconnected from any strategic meaning. there have been several moments in the past two years that could have been seized by march 14 to garner additional support, which is needed to reach their goals, yet their static tactics are unproductive in an environment that never ceases to evolve.

at each of these moments, march 14 has failed to take the "road not taken." it is not a sign of political acumen when the same politicians over the past two years repeat the same rhetoric and the same phrases and conduct the same verbal attacks at the same enemies, without any form of strategic advancement. although the rough and tough attitude displayed in gemayel's funeral may have appealed to a majority of the crowd, such appeal is short-lived as it introduced naught to life. would the crowds have been disappointed if the march 14 members who had spoken had, for once, changed the tone and substance of their speeches, as opposed to including elements of predictable and unconstructive belligerency? more importantly - and this is key - how would other people, who have till now resisted from associating themselves with the leaders of the march 14 movement, reacted?

one of the main problem with these leaders is that they have failed to reach beyond their core supporters and to present themselves as a set of viable leaders. time will eventually tell if i am wrong, but their intransigent actions of the past two years continue to support the hypothesis that they are not fundamentally interested in creating a sustainable state, simply because it does not serve their overarching goals.

posted by Lazarus, 10:00 PM