World On Fire

In some ways, war reporting is the worst journalism that appears in a newspaper. It is mindless. Visit the bomb site, talk to people present, record the number of dead and injured, snap a few pictures. The dead are the story; there is no need to make sense of it, to explain what occurred and why. And then people buy the newspaper, gasp a little at the pictures, read about the number of dead, and consider themselves informed.

So here, again, are facts. A bomb exploded in Verdun last night, an upscale, predominantly Sunni Muslim, area. Nahar is reporting that a suspect is in custody. In the north, an Islamist group who nobody had ever heard of a few months ago is still fighting the army. Gee, Bashar Assad must be the world's most astute political analyst to guess that the region would be "set on fire" if the UN passed the international tribunal. There's a guy that should be picking lottery numbers today.

In all seriousness, all eyes should be on the opposition now. Can Aoun and Berri still stomach their close relationship with Syria? How far will the opposition be willing to push the crisis, and how will pro-government forces respond? Paradoxically, all of these questions and answers get pushed to the back while the bombs are still exploding, before the smoke clears. After all, this is war journalism.