Secondly, I think that this situation in Zim needs to be placed in a larger context. Since WW II, the western world has been in constant retreat in the face of nonwestern cultures.
We have been in retreat largely due to demographic factors. The pop is exploding in the dysfunctional societies of the third world and the pop is stagnant in the West. This is compounded by a Western paralysis springing from 1) plentiful decadence and 2) a philosophical guilt complex
As a result the retreat has been slow but steady. It began with decolonization in the 50s and 60s...when europe was forced out of its colonies by indigneous insurgents (such as in Algeria, Kenya, etc). Then, the process moved to those areas where Western minorities settled and established minority rule (Rhodesia and South Africa).
Now, the conflict is moving to areas where the West has a majority. The bell is currently tolling for Israel. They are being demographically swamped, and are facing an indigenous insurgency like the viet minh or mau maus.
Just over the horizon, the american southwest, and the rim of southern europe are next up. Ultimately, the scene will move to the very heartland of Western Civilization..europe, USA, Canada, etc.
What we are now seeing in Zim is merely the last flicker of Western civilization there as it slides under the african tide. The Rhodesians were faced with Hamlet's choice: To be, or not to be. At one time, they had the tools and ability to decisively change the situation and alter the demographics of their nation....but they balked. Now, they are paying the price. I hope that the Israelis are watching the Rhodesians carefully....its fair warning.
What a fetid, filthy, God-forsaken s**thole.
I disagree slightly with the statement that the west has been retreating since WW2.
The west, driven by a socialist surge that defined Hitler's Germany as the embodiment of "right wing conspiracy" (a bogus interpretation, rarely disputed), actively encouraged european retreat from non-european lands.
Remember?
Empires were bad, just because they were empires.
We encouraged both Congos, Communist North Vietnam ('till the late fifties), and dozens of "wars of liberation' across the globe, even Castro's revolution was hailed during it's course.
Simple facts such as the inability of locals to run their own lives were of no matter.
The plan was to restore local control, enlist them into the UN, and nations would discuss their problems into resolution.
(Swear to God, I remember the lecture from 1963.)
Everyone would share in the brave new world.
This was all based in "the race thing" wherein any criticism was interpreted as white disdain for "people of color" regardless how accurate the criticism may have been.
Rhodesia and South Africa could not be allowed to retain European dominance just as Iran could not be allowed to remain a secular state that hinted at westernism surrounded by islamic "aspirations".
Looks like the experiment worked quite well; we are all now sharing the benefits of tyrannical, backward, criminal, and terrorist societies that our own government and self generated guilt created.
Trouble is that no one in 1948 anticipated that those newly elevated third world lords would one day turn their eyes on our own territory.
Even now, with fifty-plus years of evidence on hand, American politicians and self-interest groups continue to rationalize the re-mexicanization of the South West USA.
Coming to a neighborhood near you....
"Out of chaos comes order", if the Western people can jettison the "White Guilt" complex than some semblance of civilization will be retained even if territorily diminished eg; no California, no Marseille.