A bunch of questions to go with the setup of the Escape from Kathmandu series.
Who started it? How could they ever think it was possible? Aren't mountainy territories particularly unsuitable for a total military control? Isn't guerilla warfare the most effective in difficult terrain? Did they learn nothing from Afghanistan, from Vietnam, whoever they were, to make the takeover a bit more subtle? What was the value in taking a country, a poor pathetic country with no serious natural resource to talk of, no geostrategic importance really, and who's not a big player in global politics? Were the costs worth it?
Did they think the support from their allies, whoever they were, would be enough to overwhelm the opposition? Did they believe that modern technology had made fighting against mountain-based guerillas possible without too much collateral damage? Were they planning on using drones to detect and destroy their adversaries? Was the hope to automate the revolution, give control to the machines, to make the rebels submit instantly? Was the idea to capture and control all potential instigators of a rebellion, so there would be no opposition? Was the plan to go the North Korean way, to shut everything down at the drop of a button, and deal with the consequences as they happened?
Who was funding this? How could anyone convince the upper management, the senior leaders to go long with it? How did the soldiers buy into the idea? Had the whole world just gone mad?
What was to be gained? What was the existing arrangement, the total corruption, lawlessness and disregard for the rule of law not giving them, that they needed to break all the rules of engagement and go all-in? Did they really think there would be zero losses? Or did they not care for the damages? Is it possible they wanted to provoke a counterrevolution, and use that to destroy all their long-term nemeses? Were they actually the part of the counterrevolution, and had orchestrated this to destroy those in power? Did they really think it through, long and hard? Did they war-game all the scenarios, the particularly difficult ones, and decide that the rewards were greater than the costs?
What about the economy? what about administration after everything was done? What about infrastructure, what about imports? Did they believe that citizen morale played no part in the game? Did they think all that mattered was a strong will and a capable vision, that everybody was a stupid idiot? Did they truly believe in that old adage about how lining up all the politicians and shooting them would be the best thing that could be done for the country? Were they stupid or were they evil? Or were they stupid and or evil enough to not matter either way?
Did they have a plan for a year on, five years on, and what would happen after twenty-five years? Did they truly believe that things would turn out fine, as it had happened in Iran, crossed their fingers and hope for the best? Where did the courage come from? Were they suicidal? Was there something in the air, something in the water those days that turned everyone crazy all of a sudden? What really happened?
Where would those fighter jets come from, what would they use to hold the world a hostage? How did they ever think they could position themselves like North Korea without nuclear weapons and intercontinental missibles? Or did they imagine there were a few dozen secretly hidden underneath the mountains, as the old tales went?
How were they so very incompetent in executing their plan, despite taking it secret for so long? How did so many people find ahead of time, and manage to escape? Or was the idea to have them gone so there would be no real resistance from the inside? Did they believe if the resistance was at the outside it would be easier to handle? Did they imagine covering the country in a dome of steel and protecting it from the influence from everything else?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tell me what you think. I'll read, promise.