The artillery thunder rolling across the Thai–Cambodian border feels less like a military strategy and more like the sound of two governments shouting past reason. Along an 800-kilometre line drawn decades ago by colonial maps and political convenience, shells now land where farmers once walked, and forested hilltops have become symbols of pride worth dying for. What is unfolding is not a war of necessity but a war of stubbornness, fuelled by history, nationalism, and a dangerous lack of imagination.
On paper, the balance is clear. Thailand commands the skies, flying unchallenged over Cambodian territory, striking at targets that cannot strike back. Cambodia, lacking meaningful air defences or a credible air force, responds with what it has, BM21 rocket systems that are terrifying more for their randomness than their precision. These rockets do not choose soldiers over civilians. They fall where gravity and chance decide, killing a civilian here, wounding families there, turning evacuation plans into grim confirmations that the worst was always expected.
This is where the moral argument collapses entirely. When inherently inaccurate weapons are used near civilian areas, and when air superiority is exercised without restraint, the conflict stops being about security and starts being about indifference. Each side claims defence, yet each action deepens the wound it claims to be stitching shut. The forested hilltops now soaked in blood offer no strategic value proportional to the lives being spent to control them. They are trophies of ego, not assets of survival.
The tragedy is amplified by how predictable this escalation was. Border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia are not new; they are ritualistic. They flare, cool, and flare again, usually wrapped in the language of sovereignty and honour. But honour has become a hollow word when it is invoked to justify artillery exchanges across villages and bombing runs against a neighbour with no capacity to respond in kind. Strength, in this context, is not measured by how hard one can hit, but by how wisely one chooses not to.
What makes this confrontation particularly grim is its asymmetry. Thailand’s freedom to operate in the air is not a sign of tactical brilliance; it is simply a reflection of imbalance. Cambodia’s reliance on crude rocket fire is not courage; it is desperation. When one side dominates and the other flails, the outcome is not victory but prolonged suffering. The death toll climbs, the wounded overflow medical facilities, and the language of “no obvious end” becomes an accepted background hum, as if endless violence were a natural state.
Nationalism, of course, is doing what it always does in times like these. Flags are waved, histories selectively remembered, and any call for restraint branded as weakness. Leaders speak of resolve while families bury their dead. The border becomes a stage where politicians perform toughness for domestic audiences, gambling with lives they will never personally risk. In such moments, escalation is easier than compromise, because compromise requires admitting that pride is a poor substitute for policy.
The international silence surrounding this conflict is equally damning. Because it does not neatly fit into the narratives of great power rivalry, it is treated as a regional scuffle, a regrettable but manageable affair. Yet for those living near the border, this is not a footnote. It is the sound of rockets at night, the fear of aircraft overhead, and the slow realisation that their safety is negotiable.
Wars rarely end because one side finally proves it is tougher. They end when exhaustion sets in or when leaders choose reason over rage. Right now, neither condition appears imminent. The shells keep falling, the bombing continues, and each new casualty hardens attitudes further. Without a conscious decision to step back, to accept mediation, or at the very least to prioritise civilian lives over symbolic terrain, this conflict will grind on until its original causes are buried beneath its consequences.
The border will still be there when the guns fall silent. The question is how many lives will be lost before someone remembers that lines on a map are not worth more than the people who live beside them.
History will judge this moment harshly, not for the ferocity of the fighting, but for the emptiness of its purpose. When the smoke clears, neither side will be able to claim moral high ground, only graves and grievances. Peace will come eventually, as it always does but it will arrive late, expensive and stained with avoidable regret remembered long after excuses and speeches fade.
No comments:
Post a Comment