Stuffed shirts and such

 The late, great Dan Jenkins -- sportswriting legend, and the man who inspired a whole generation of keyboard poets -- once poked fun at the pomposity of Wimbledon officials by referring to them as "wing commanders." 

So I imagine he's having a good chuckle somewhere at the wing commanders thinking Wimby actually matters in a geopolitical sense.

His daughter, Sally, alas, thinks the wing commanders are jolly good and spot on.

What they've done, see, is ban Russian and Belarussian tennis players from participating in their little tea party in a couple of months, even the ones who've bravely come out against Vladimir Putin's mad slaughterfest in Ukraine. The wing commanders think Wimbledon needs to take a stand, because, well, it's Wimbledon

Sally Jenkins came out in print to support this position, noting that Putin's crimes are Russia's crimes, and therefore every Russian must answer for them. Unfair as that might be.

The Blob wonders, if that is so, why every single German and every single Japanese wasn't imprisoned for their nations' crimes at the end of the Second World War.

Jenkins' argument is the benign codicil of the doctrine of total war, introduced by Sherman in his March to the Sea in the American Civil War and brought to full flower in the barbarism of the 20th century. Sherman made war on the civilian infrastructure of the South; Great Britain in World War I starved German civilians to death with a blockade that continued long after the armistice was signed. And of course Allied bombers incinerated entire populations in Dresden and Hamburg and Tokyo in World War II. 

Most of the victims of all that were innocents. As are the Russian and  Belarussian tennis players, whose allegiances in many cases are almost entirely commercial. Most of them are citizens of Nike or Adidas or Head or Yonex, not Russia or Belarus. Some haven't lived in their native countries in years.

This is not to equate murdering women and children in time of war with what Wimbledon is doing. That's plainly ridiculous. But the principle -- holding every citizen accountable for actions they're powerless to stop -- is the same. And it's the stuffed shirts of Wimby being their usual pompous selves, pretending mighty Wimbledon taking a stand isn't just empty showboating.

But it is.

I mean, Vladimir Putin probably couldn't find Wimbledon on a map. But, hey. I'm sure banning tennis players who sometimes have only tenuous ties to Russia is going to make him say, "Ah, hell, Wimbledon's against us. I guess it's time to call off the genocide."

And, yes, I suppose that's not the point. More so is what Putin's doing to the multitudes in his own country who have come out against what Russia is doing.

Which is to say, imposing a de facto loyalty test by arresting protestors by the hundreds and locking them up.

Some have suggested a similar loyalty test for the Russian and Belarussian players. Come out against the war and we'll let you play; remain silent and be barred from the grounds.

I don't know. It all sounds the same to me.

And it's a damn slippery slope. If we start making participation in an athletic event contingent on taking a favored political stance, where does it end?

Better to let them play, and then, protocol be damned, sit back and let the fans shower boos on those who still support the war. Let the players stage their own protests when they play one of the Russians -- like, say, taking the court bearing a Ukrainian flag, or wearing a Jim McMahon-esque headband saying "Stop The Russian Genocide," or writing "No war please" on a camera lens with a marker.

A player actually did the latter at a tournament back in February. 

His name is Andrey Rublev.

He's the No. 8 player in the world.

And he's a Russian.

The wing commanders think it's perfectly OK to ban him from their soiree. They have a statement to make, after all. 

Even if it may not be the one they think they're making.