The danger of “proportionality” in war
Now, how could proportionality in war be dangerous?
First, before I attempt an answer to that question, here’s a great post by Betsy Newmark (via the Anchoress) on the widespread European international community’s condemnation of Israel’s response to the attacks from Hezbollah as “disproportionate.”
She writes:
I wish that the next time some leader comes out and starts talking about Israel’s “disproportionate response” that the journalists would ask them what their definition of a proportionate response would be if some terrorists were sending rockets into their own cities. Perhaps their own citizens might be interested in knowning how these intrepid leaders would respond if they were being attacked.
I’m not so sure many of their own citizens would even ask the question, since many may believe that their own relative chumminess with Iran and the Palestinians would guarantee them immunity. And perhaps their own knowledge that their country’s leaders might not respond in an especially muscular manner to any attack on their own soil is what leads to the tactic of appeasement in the first place.
Sort of like paying hush money to the Mafia, in hopes that it won’t target your business. I’d call it a vicious cycle of nonviolence.
But, leaving Europe aside for a moment, what is this larger idea of proportionality in war, anyway? Oh, don’t misunderstand me (although of course some of you will). I’m not one of those people who advocates a truly disproportionate response, such as Israel nuking Tehran.
But I do wonder what’s happened to the notion and definition and expectation of war. What am I talking about? It comes down–as so many things in life seem to–to the idea of responsibility, and of consequences (see here).
In the old days, the idea of fear of a nasty response from a well-armed power often acted as a deterrent (remember that word?) to attacking that country. In fact, that was one of the reasons countries had armies and weapons–not necessarily to use them, but to keep from having to use them very often; to keep themselves from being overrun and attacked, to defend its citizens. And the best way to defend them would be to not even have to defend them, but to just use the threat of a response in defense. And to be threatening, it helped if that threat was somewhat unpredictable in its force and scope.
In the olden days (which weren’t so very long ago) responses were seldom (if ever?) discussed in terms of proportionality. Perhaps the beginning of the “proportionality” argument came with the invention of nuclear weaponry. For the first time, we had the ability to mount a truly disproportionate response to provocation, one that would threaten the entire world. So it became common sense to understand that not every attack would be met with the full panoply of weapons in the arsenal. And history has played out that way: the first time atomic weapons were used, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, was the last. So far, of course.
I’m not a student of military history, but it’s not my impression that every attack was met with an all-out response even prior to nuclear weapons. But the limiting factor then was not the mouthing of platitudinous, self-serving advice from other nations; but, rather, the practical and strategic decisions of the attacked nation itself. Each nation would do what it determined necessary to end the threat–no more and no less. Sometimes it would miscalculate, of course. But the idea was that a sovereign nation had a right to defend itself to the best of its ability and its own judgment, and everyone knew that.
And that knowledge probably served to prevent many asymmetrical attacks. “The Mouse That Roared” notwithstanding, weak countries didn’t tend to attack the strong; it would be suicidal. But asymmetrical warfare is now not only chic, but it’s actively encouraged by this idea of “proportionality,” which ties the gigantic Gullivers of the world (such as that mean old, bad old US and its vile mini-me, Israel) down with many tiny ropes.
It’s in the interests of those with less power, and fewer arms, to advance the doctrine of “proportionality.” This evens the playing field, something like a handicap in golf, and makes the game better sport for those with fewer skills. The concept of proportionality comes, no doubt, at least partly from fear of a truly disproportionate response; from some sort of concern for the weak. But it also comes from a disproportionate concern that weaker, third-world countries shouldn’t be disadvantaged in any way because of their weakness, that they should be allowed to attack a stronger nation with relative impunity because, after all, they’re weaker; and, after all, they’re “brown;” and, after all, the West is imperialist and guilty; and, after all…and on and on.
But war is not a game of golf. And leveling the playing field doesn’t make for more fun. It makes for the emboldenment of tyrants in the third world. It makes for lengthy, drawn-out conflicts that never seem to end or be resolved. It buys time for countries such as Iran to gain power and become contenders by acquiring the most disproportionate weaponry of all, the nuclear variety.
And, when Iran reaches that goal, I wonder whether it will listen to Europe’s bleats about “proportionality.” Somehow, I don’t think so. After all, Iran has no western guilt to expiate.
[ADDENDUM: By the way, I’m aware that the concept of “proportionality” is traditionally part of Just War theory. Note (if you’ll follow the link) the introduction, defining when Just War theory might or might not be applicable. Also, the definition of “proportionality” in any given circumstance depends, of course, on the eye–and politics–of the beholder.]
Wasp, you may be old enough to have time, patience, and whatever for all those little nit picking details, but I’m not you. If you want to give people advice, don’t keep giving it when they’ve already heard it.
It’s simple. The objective is to get Japan to surrender. Any and all means that can get Japan to surrender is proportional to the goal, and therefore justified and moral and ethical. Any and all means that hinder and prevent Japan from surrendering, such as the bombing of Kyoto or Tokyo or the religious shrines of the Imperial Palace, then this is unethical and not proportional to the military/political objective.
The wasting of military force occurs when the force used does not in anyway contribute to the attainment of the military or political goals set down by the duly constitutional authority of a state or nation. This disproportional wastage of force, this lowest of the low in terms of the acme of winning a war, is when Israel assassinates Hamas leaders but does not do anything else. When Israel waits to be attacked, and then uses military force to retaliate or assassinate in proportion to the attack they received, they are acting in a wasteful and disproportionate way that does not win the overall war and objectives.
Thus economy of force, the acme of battle skill, and the proportional means to achieve the objective of a just war, are all inter-related.
The huge disproportionality in Israel’s response consists in the fact that it attacked civilian infrastructure in response to a military provocation: the first thing it did was to bomb the only Gaza power plant that existed. This doesn’t harm Hamas, but harms civilians.
The only way in which this kind of attack on civilian infrastructure makes sense is if Israel is meting out “collective punishment” to Palestinians for having elected Hamas in the first place. That is, if Israel is holding each and every Palestinian somehow a little bit responsible.
But this is a dangerous argument to make. If Israel implies that Palestinian civilians share responsibility for the Palestinian militia’s actions, then that might affirm Palestinian arguments that Israeli civilians, too, are collectively responsible for the Israeli military’s actions, and this could be used to justify senseless violence against civilians.
The capture of Shalit was an action carried out by one militia (Hamas’) on another militia (Israel’s). Civilians should have been left out of the picture in any possible retaliation. Hamas demanded a prisoner exchange, which is also standard practice between conflicting armies.
Israel already had hundreds of Palestinian prisoners being held in “administrative detention” (i.e. they are being held indefinitely, without charges and without trial). In retaliation, Hamas took just ONE Israeli soldier prisoner and demanded a prisoner exchange. This is why Israel’s response is disproportionate.
Israel ought withdraw from the illegally occupied territories, dismantling all the illegal settlements it has built so far in occupied territories. It should withdraw to its 1967 borders, as international law demands. If, after withdrawing from the illegally occupied territories, and the formation of a Palestinian state, the newly-formed Palestinian state attacks Israel, then and only then would Israel have any right to complain.
Illegally occupying foreign powers are always met with resistance. That is nothing new. Even we, after the declaration of independence, resisted the foreign occupying power (Britain) that was illegally occupying our territory (the United States).
I’m also not for nuking Tehran, but I am all for maximum damage to Iran and Syria. Remember the horrors of firebombing Dresden and Hamburg. Tens of thousands of people died. I have no doubt that the horror stayed with the survivors for the rest of their lives.
But when the war was over, none of them considered the resurrection of the Nazi party to be ‘a good idea’. Israel has been poking Hamas and Hezbollah with a stick for decades, and it hasn’t weakened their resolve. It’s time to hit them hard. It’s the only way (if there is one) to end this once and for all. To defend itself, Israel MUST attack with all it has, or it will continue to have to defend itself for the foreseeable future.
I’m not saying kill these people to make them pay for their aggression. I’m saying kill them to make them stop.
In unrelated news, that apple over your face has been bugging me for a year. So I used the latest photo enhancement technology (which turns out to be Photoshop) to recreate your facial structure here. I borrowed heavily from Britney Spears. Am I close?
Kevin,
It’s Israel which is illegally occupying Palestinian territory — the Palestinians are not illegally occupying Israeli territory.
And incidentally, your thinking that the firembombing of Dresden and Hamburg was necessary to prevent the resurrection of the Nazi party, is wrong. To see this, consier the following: No Italian cities were firebombed in World War II with the intensity that Dresden was, but notice that the Fascist party had no resurrection in Italy either, after the war ended. Ergo — mass destruction of civilian lives was not necessary. It was simply gratuitous, and morally wrong.
Israel is only occupying palestinian territory because palestinians kidnapped an Israeli. I find it hard to blame Israel for their incursion. Just a thought: If palestinians didn’t shoot rockets into Israel and kidnap Israelis, do you think Israel would have invaded the Gaza strip?
Italy was different. The fascism in Italy was not supported by the majority of Italians. They only towed the line because to not do so meant death. Not so in Germany, where agreement with nazi principles was at about 40% throughout the war. The bombs changed their minds. There was minor terrorism after WWII, but the terrorists were quickly destroyed because the rank and file didn’t want to suffer more destruction.
In the Gaza strip, 77% of palestinians support the idea of the kidnapping of Gilad. 77%! That is 77% support for terrorism, plain and simple. Those minds need to be changed. And it appears that they must be changed forcefully.
Kevin wrote:
” Israel is only occupying palestinian territory because palestinians kidnapped an Israeli.”
Sorry, you’re wrong. Israel has been occupying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ever since 1967. (It had “withdrawn “from the Gaza strip a few months ago, it is true, but it continued to control all access to the Gaza strip; and as for the West Bank, Israel has been illegally occupying it before, through and after the “kidnapping”, in fact, as I said, ever since 1967!)
As for Italy, yes, the fascists did have popular support. The Wikipedia article on Italy states: “Despite the themes of social and economic reform in the initial Fascist manifesto of June 1919, the movement came to be supported by sections of the middle class fearful of socialism and communism. Industrialists and landowners supported the movement as a defense against labour militancy. Under threat of a fascist March on Rome, in October 1922, Mussolini assumed the premiership of a right-wing coalition Cabinet initially including members of the pro-church Partito Popolare (People’s Party).”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Italy
Kevin wrote:
“In the Gaza strip, 77% of palestinians support the idea of the kidnapping of Gilad. 77%! That is 77% support for terrorism, plain and simple.”
Kevin: why do you call the capture of Gilad “terrorism”? Gilad is a soldier, a member of the Israeli Defence Forces — not a civilian. He wasn’t captured while he was picnicking in civilian clothes or while he was on vacation, but while he was taking part as a soldier in a military operation. He was captured by members of a Palestinian militia who staged an attack on Gilad’s unit. In warfare, enemy soldiers are captured routinely, and that’s what seems to have happened. That’s neither “terrorism” nor “kidnapping”.
Every member of Hezbollah would cheer me up immensely. It’s necessary. If no innocents are killed, that would make me ecstatic!
Adam, you might as well stop using the word ‘illegal’ because it has no meaning outside individual countries. Israel occupied Gaza because it was attacked. They removed their forces… and were attacked again! The lesson palestinians have not yet learned is “Don’t attack your neighbors.” Until they do, more palestinians are slated to die. Do you really want peace in the area? Then stop attacking Israel and give the kid back to them. The war will end quiclkly if you do.
I call it terrorism because Israel was not at war with you. He was not involved in a military operation. He was in an observation post. Palestine started this war for no reason. Israel needs to give them reason to re-think an idea to start another one.
Adam, call off your dogs, and this war will end quickly. Or don’t, and witness the demise of your race.
I said: “Kevin: why do you call the capture of Gilad “terrorism”? Gilad is a soldier, a member of the Israeli Defence Forces — not a civilian.”
Kevin replied, “I call it terrorism because Israel was not at war with you.”
You shouldn’t use the word “you”, as I’m neither Palestinian, nor Arab.
Israel had prevented the flow of money to Gaza strip after Hamas got elected. This caused economic hardship, rising levels of malnutrition and starvation. When people can’t eat, they die. So, this was economic warfare, even though in the military sense Israel wasn’t at war — you’re correct. But whether you kill people with bullets or starve them to death, the net effect is the same: death. So economic warfare is also warfare, and that’s what Israel was doing to Gaza.
And if it hadn’t been economic warfare that Israel was waging against Gaza, it would have been cultural warfare. Or some other metaphorical warfare that Hamas had every right to respond to with terror attacks, rockets, and an invasion deep into non-occupied Israeli land to kill two soldiers and capture one.
I’d hate for Adam to have been the US president in 1941. “Well, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but everyone there was in the military, so it wasn’t really an attack upon our nation, just an expression of outrage against our foreign policy.”
We’d all be living under the peaceful, enlightened rule of the American Nazi Party today.
conned is back for two comments, and that’s all it took for him to get to the chickenhawk argument.
good grief
Tatterdemalian wrote: “And if it hadn’t been economic warfare that Israel was waging against Gaza, it would have been cultural warfare. Or some other metaphorical warfare that Hamas had every right to respond to”
“Cultural warfare” does not kill. But economic warfare does, because if you take away people’s livelihood and reduce them to destitution and starvation, people die. So “cultural warfare” would not invite military retaliation, but economic warfare does.
Tatterdemalian also wrote: “I’d hate for Adam to have been the US president in 1941. “Well, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but everyone there was in the military, so it wasn’t really an attack upon our nation, just an expression of outrage against our foreign policy.” ”
Where did I say that the capture of Gilad Shalit wasn’t an attack on Israel? Of course it was a military attack — it was a counterattack on Israel in response to Israel’s economic warfare and economic strangulation of Gaza, and, of course, to Israel’s illegal occupation, ever since 1967, of Palestinian territory.
What I said was that the capture of Gilad Shalit was neither an act of “terrorism” nor an act of “kidnapping”. It was a military attack leading to capture. Shalit was a soldier, in uniform, on a military mission (even if it was observation duty in an observation post). A military attack was made on Shalit’s unit and Shalit was captured. Get your terminology right.
I understand that it’s easier to spin in an attempt to acquire the world’s sympathy if you use the word “kidnapping”, but that’s not the correct word for what happened.
I can not believe that so many leftists fall all over themselves supporting fascists like Hamas and Hezbellah. Israel pulled out of Gaza and I think that was a good idea, but Hamas does not want peace. Fatah and Hamas immediately began to kill each other and attack Israel. The truth is Israel could do away with the rest of their settlements just like the ones in Gaza and Hamas will go right on calling for their destruction. After all they have said time and again that they do not want anything but the complete destruction of Israel. I take them at their word.
Arafat robbed the Palestinians. And yet to the left he is a hero. His wife lives in a luxury apartment in Paris and spends her life shopping, no one is going to bulldoze her house. But since Fatah and Hamas hate the Jews, they are to be admired or supported or excused inspite of the fact that they have robbed the poor blind.. And what good does excusing that kind of thievery do the Palestinian people? What good does Hezbellah taking it upon itself to make excursions into Israel do the Lebanese people?
Their apologists do not care what happens to the people who live there, just so long as the Israelis are being shelled and targetted they will be satisfied. To the enemies of Israel they will forever be the bad colonialists and the terrorists will forever be the victims.
I support Israel here. I am sick of Hamas and Hizbellah doing nothing but killing people and then demanding support from the international community. If there really are people out there who care so little for the Palestinian people and the Lebanese people that they want to see this nonsense go on year after year then I have no respect for them.
As for the chickenhawk argument that works both ways. Hamas might be running out of mentally retarded teenagers to force to wear suicide vests, they could use a few good martyrs. Just jump right in there. And it has been awhile since Hizbellah killed any American soldiers. There was the Khobar Towers and ofcourse the 200 plus dead Marines in Beirut some time back…maybe they could use some support blowing people up too. And ofcourse the Iranians are busy hanging homosexuals and promiscuous women and they might could use some help tracking down sexual deviants. If you really think their behavior is acceptable, why not join them?
Whistle has blown on conned who is connected at the non-flummoxed IP of 86.142.98.xxx. IP has been purposely munged but will be published in full along with ISP in due time.
Terrye wrote:
“If there really are people out there who care so little for the Palestinian people and the Lebanese people that they want to see this nonsense go on year after year then I have no respect for them.”
It is for the Palestinian people to decide who they should elect. Neither I nor you have the right to dictate to the Palestinians who their leaders should be. If they choose to elect Hamas, it is their choice. If they choose to elect Fatah, it is their choice.
Let Israel pull out of all the illegally ocupied territories, dismantle all the illegal settlements, and then let there be elections in which Palestinians freely and democratically choose their leaders.
I just love the smell of burning troll in the morning. Cowards are the trolls who who use anonymous proxy servers to keep from being held responsbile for their trolling. If they were not cowards they would step and be shot to demonstrate the courage of their convictions. Instead, ike the Paleo’s, the terrorists and the Islamists who hide behind women and children, they hide behind remixers and proxies. There leaving no alternative then to contact their ISP regarding Terms of Service.
Adam is a new keyboard, not any smarter or with new and viable arguments. Just the same old clap trap. Power is what counts. When the chips are down the buffalo is empty. And, this is empty argumentation for the sake capturing the thread.
There is no proportionality in this conflict. Israel is the aggressor.
That is a fact.
And now they have chosen war instead of negoiation.
This is a joke. The article itself is a joke and shows absolutley zero knowledge of how we got here – starting with the supposed ‘withdrawal’ from Gaza to the unprovoked attack on the Gaza beach; the airstrikes on Gaza which the U.S vetoed; Hezbollah gets involved(thank god for them when the U.S president doesn’t have the decency to end the carnage); Israel has been terrorizing Lebanon leading up to this – provoking Hezbollah attacks by flying low and fast(sonic booms)over Southern Lebanon attacking Hezbollah targets before this latest act of war – Israeli spies have been caught in Lebanon(making it look increasingly like they may have been involved in the a spate of car-bomb attacks in Lebanon). And lets not forget that Israel continues to illegally occupy Lebanese territory in the Sheeba farms.
All you jokers who support Israel are morally repugnent. A disgrace.
This country is a cancer in the middle east.
Lets hope it incurs a massive military defeat that brings it to the bargaining table – because nothing else will.
I, for one, 100% support Hezbelloh and Hamas in their efforts.
http://www.fantasyessentials.net/forums/showpost.php?p=560971&postcount=14
I made a post about military expediency, here. It says what I wanted to say about the degree of retaliation justified.
As for what Adam said, it is terrorism because a duly uniformed soldier operating under the rules of war was taken prisoner without Geneva Convention protections and access to the Red Cross. It’s rather hypocritical for people to justify the abuse of Israeli soldiers, and at the same time complain about the treatment of terroists.
conned said:
“hey boy its a good argument with you cowards”
I admit defeat; I cannot argue with logic like that. You win.
Brad
… it is terrorism because a duly uniformed soldier operating under the rules of war was taken prisoner without Geneva Convention protections and access to the Red Cross. It’s rather hypocritical for people to justify the abuse of Israeli soldiers, and at the same time complain about the treatment of terroists.”
These people would find an apology for dropping a nuclear bomb tommorow on Lebanon. The capture of Israeli troops is NOT terrorism. Kidnapping Palestinian civilians – like Israel did in Gaza THE DAY BEFORE the capture of the IDF boys – is terrorism. A father and son abducted without charge and without explanation.
I can’t believe the MSM – as pathetic as it is – is still touting the line that the capture of IDF soldiers is what started this war.
You’d have to be a complete arsehole to believe that.
By the way – for all you so-called Christians who support Israel – the IAF bombed a Christian area of Lebanon today.
I guess they must really want those soldiers back.
Badly.
It’s not limited to nations either. In many countries there is now the idea (and law) that you can only defend your person with equal force.
That is if someone is trying to stab you to death shooting them makes you the aggressor and you are arrested and prosecuted (and you loose). If there is a greater than 50/50 chance one side will win that side is the aggressor.
There are quite a few in the US who want this here, but luckily most of the country thinks that is, well, strange. In quite a number of countries that had enacted this are now removing it – it didn’t end up working to great. Nor will the idea of proportional war.
Of course, to be proportional the appropriate response is for Israel to kidnap two of thier “soldiers” and send them to to the US run Gitmo as enemy combatants. There is no way one can legitmatly say that is disproportionate (well, except that I bet the Israeli soldiers recieve much worse treatment) – yet I doubt that any person that hates what Israel is doing now would like that.
The really proportionate response would be to say “we will execute 1 Palestinian terroist in our jails every 3 hours the soldier has not been returned unarmed, starting with this guy here”.
Stevie and/or Adam (probably the same guy anyway):
Repeating something over and over is not the same as proving it. You keep asserting that Israel is the “aggressor.” Just what do you call kidnapping soldiers and raining missiles down on civilians? _That’s_ aggression, and Israel is responding appropriately by killing the aggressors and destroying the infrastructure they rely on.
But you aren’t interested in that. You just want to spew hatred for Israel and the West. So the question becomes, are you an Islamist sock-puppet, or just an idiot?
Ymar wrote: “As for what Adam said, it is terrorism because a duly uniformed soldier operating under the rules of war was taken prisoner without Geneva Convention protections and access to the Red Cross. It’s rather hypocritical for people to justify the abuse of Israeli soldiers”
Good point, Ymar.
I’m not “justifying” what was done _after_ Gilat Shalit was captured. I agree that Shalit should be given full Geneva Convention protection by his captors, to which he is entitled. I was merely pointing out that the taking of Shalit was, however, neither “terrorism” nor “kidnapping”, but capture of a combatant soldier in an act of war.
Incidentally, if we are to talk Geneva Conventions here, then it is hypocritical not to hold Israel to Geneva Conventions as well. The Geneva Conventions outlaw “collective punishment”, which is exactly what Israel is perpetrating in Gaza:
“Last week the EU and UN criticised Israel for “disproportionate use of force” against Palestinians in the territory, while the Swiss government alluded to the Geneva conventions on the laws of war in stating that the Israeli campaign amounted to “collective punishment”.”
— _Guardian_ newspaper, UK,
July 12, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1818657,00.html?gusrc=rss
Trimegistus wrote:
“But you aren’t interested in that. You just want to spew hatred for Israel and the West”
Not at all. I’m for human rights everywhere, not just for Palestinians. (I want North Koreans to overthrow their dictator and gain their human rights, for example.)
I do want, however, that the concept of human rights not be applied in a selective way. Human rights are universal human rights, and to condone human rights violations when they are committed by Israel, while criticizing Palestinians, as many neocons tend to do, is hypocritical.
Indeed, it is an act of war. Thus Israel is waging war.
It seems very logical. Collective punishment would be Israel taking 1 man out of every 10 in Gaza and cutting their head off. And taking 1 women out of 50, and cutting their left hand off. And taking 1 child out of 5,000 in Gaza, and scooping out their eyes. That is collective punishment, and people who know military science know exactly what collective punishment is or is not.
I made this point before on bookworm’s site too. Itis the job and duty of governments for the people and by the people, to protect those people’s human rights. Israel has to protect her citizens’ rights, and therefore Israel will attack the entire nation and government of Lebanon and the nation of Palestine in this war. That’s why they call it war, and not “peace” or “asymmetrical war”.
“”Cultural warfare” does not kill. But economic warfare does, because if you take away people’s livelihood and reduce them to destitution and starvation, people die.”
No, they just live in misery. What’s more, they live in entirely self-imposed misery. What kept them from growing food in the greenhouses that Bill Gates bought them, where Israeli settlers once grew enough food to feed all of Israel twice over? It wasn’t any Israeli troops that ripped them all to pieces, but the Palestinians themselves.
But I guess Adam’s “economic warfare” must involve some kind of mind control rays. It can’t possibly be the result of millions of individuals deciding for themselves what to buy and who to contribute money to. Nope, it all has to be the fault of those damned Jewish bankers controlling the world.
stevie wrote:
“Kidnapping Palestinian civilians – like Israel did in Gaza THE DAY BEFORE the capture of the IDF boys – is terrorism. A father and son abducted without charge and without explanation.”
In fact, right on the same day that Gilad Shalit was captured, there was a report in the New York Times about James Miller, a British filmmaker and producer who was shot dead by Israeli forces in 2003. The jury in St Pancras Coroner’s Court in London has returned a verdict of unlawful killing, finding that he was “murdered”. Miller’s family is now pressuring the British government to ensure his killer is prosecuted, accusing the Israeli authorities of “an abject failure to uphold the fundamental and unequivocal standards of international humanitarian and human rights law.”
Please don’t take my word for this. Read up on the case yourself, with references, here in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker)
So, while there’s all this commotion about the rights of the captured soldier, why are you neocons expressing no concern about James Miller’s killing?
Or, do human rights matter only when the concerned party is an Israeli or American citizen, but not when they are the citizen of some other country?
(By the way, James Miller was a Brit. So at least the case is getting talked about a little, because after all Britain is a first world country. But if he were one of those Palestinians whose rights are violated everyday, his case certainly wouldn’t have gotten even this little bit of exposure as it has!)
Read about the James Miller case here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker)
People, organized groups and States bear the responsibility for their actions. There a myriad of ways to avoid and evade responsibility, stevie’s flatulence being a good case in point.
When responsibility is not taken, eventually someone steps up and forces the issue. That is what is happening now. Stevie and his ilk, hands bloody along with the those of the Islamists, terrorists, and state supporters of terrorism are being forced to pay up.
If proportionality were not in force, large parts of the Middle East would be glassy wastelands. Israel is certainly not a disease. It is in fact one of the actors in delivering the cure.
I’ve served my time standing up for my beliefs. Yet stevie and his ilk, from the comfort of their chairs have the temerity to talk of “cancers” and “massive military defeats”. I suspect that they sill continue to sit in those comfortable chairs since acting in service to their beliefs might be actually dangerous.
And, now we read: “Squabbles over the legitimacy of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel – including the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 4-day battle – appeared likely to keep participants from reaching a consensus, delegates said.” Criticizing Hezbollah: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. “The rift appeared likely to prevent participants from issuing a unanimous resolution.” Solidarity in the Arab world just crumbled. Note the countries distancing themselves.
It would be well to remember Churchill’s famous statement about it “not (being) the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.” This is not a bi-polar world anymore. States may now act on what they see as in their interest relatively untrammeled. But, they must, in turn, be ready to bear the responsibility for those actions. The US and a few other states have always recognized this and have taken some hits for their actions in defense of their interests.
It is too bad that the only way to hold some responsible for their actions also punishes the innocent along with the guilty. But, states, and the citizens of those states in particular must bear collective responsibility for their actions.
It’s easy and, ultimately fatuous, to apportion “responsibility” to states and non state actors. There is however an easier way. It is called “winning the fight” and that is a simple nose count.
There are still those of us who are not “neo-conservatives”, whatever they are, some of us are “old conservatives” or “Paleo-Conservatives, if you will. We know that, as Coach Lombardi once said, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” We’ve had enough half victories and standoffs to have learned that Coach was right. We also know all about “Pyrrhic victory”, they usually happen when “proportionality” is made part of the game plan.
It is gratifying to see things coming together and we know that our time is coming. To quote Co
…Conan the Barbarian, on victory, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.”
stevie, when are you and yours going to have the courage of your convictions and “confront the Fascist Insect in the streets? After all it’s worked so well in the past. Can’t sit in the folks basement with your computer too much longer if you expect to haelp your brothers and sisters in struggle. Listen to a little Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; get pumped, fight for what you believe in.
Adam said … to condone human rights violations when they are committed by Israel, while criticizing Palestinians, as many neocons tend to do, is hypocritical.
It’s not hypocritical because neocons do not disregard targeting civilians. War is hell. Why did Hezbollah kidnap the Israelis? Should Israelis say, “Oh well – they were nice boys, as the French say C’est la vie. It’s not the Israeli character. It’s a Iranian/Syrian ploy to prod and prod and prod and prod like a wicked old man prodding a dog … sooner or later the dog is just going to lash out. The old man will say, “See, the dog is rabid – we must kill it.” It looks like serious leaders in the world are recognizing this shallow tactic, instigated, supplied, and cheered on by Iran [primarily] and the Left [secondarily].
Comment deleted for obscenity.
Edited By Siteowner
I actually read about the James Miller case, and decided it was another moron looking for suicide by IDF. Seriously, the guy and his film crew ran out of a house terrorists were firing from, and rushed an IDF position in the middle of the night. The IDF had every right to blow the jackass’s head off, and only a country that jailed a man for life for saving his wife from housebreakers and would-be rapists would consider Miller’s killing unjustified.
It’s like Rachel Corrie, who tried to screw around with heavy machinery at a construction site and got herself killed. The only thing separating her from a Darwin Award was the fact that she hated Israel as much as the MSM does.
“Proportionality” must be evaluated in terms of the available strategic options and the technologies available to implement these options. For example, during WWII, true precision bombing was not an available option. British and American area bombing of German cities killed somewhere on the order of half a million German civilians. Even if the bombing had been limited to daylight and focused only on transportation and industrial objectives, a large number of civilians would have been killed owing to the limitations of the technology.
In the current situation, Israel’s realistic options are limited by factors such as the Palestinian practice of hiding weapons in civilian areas. Anyone accusing Israel of disproportionality has a duty to suggest an alternative *practical* means of accomplishing the objectives.
Tattermoron wrote:
“The only thing separating her from a Darwin Award was the fact that she hated Israel as much as the MSM does.”
Not as much as you hate yourself, isn’t that right Tatter?
Has to be that only somebody with a low-self esteem bordering on the sociopathic could actually post something like that.
It’s ok. Tatter, being a liberal I’ll forgive you out of sympathy….
David,
Being a believer that ‘proportionality’ only lengthens a war and also makes it less likely your side will win, I say toss ‘proportional response’ out the window. Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel with everything they’ve got. Israel should retaliate with the same.
These are bad people. Let’s accept that they can’t be rehabilitated and remove them from the planet.
Oh stevie, I’m afraid you just wore out your welcome in Neo’s house.
That sort of language is not condoned and you can expect the blade of the National Razor to drop very soon. I will await the thump of your head in the basket.
Comment deleted for obscenity.
Edited By Siteowner
srael’s monstrous legacy brings tumult a step closer
by David Hirst
July 14, 2006
UK Guardian
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
The Lebanese people, habitues as few people are of the lethal, violent and unexpected, yesterday awoke to the kind of news they thought they had put behind them. Their brand-new airport, the pride of their postwar reconstruction, had been bombarded by Israeli war planes along with a host of other infrastructure projects, bringing death and devastation on a more than Gazan scale.
For some it inevitably brought to mind a bleak winter day in 1968 when, out of the blue, helicopter-borne Israeli commandos landed on the old airport and blew up 13 passenger jets, almost the entire fleet of the national carrier. The pretext: of two Palestinians who killed an Israeli at Athens airport, one came from a refugee camp in Lebanon, then an entirely peaceable country. The significance of this most spectacularly disproportionate reprisal was something the Lebanese could hardly even have guessed at then. But it was a very early portent of the long nightmare to come: military conflict with Israel, eventually to be compounded with an atrocious civil war that it did much to engender.
There is something ominously similar, in possible consequences, about yesterday’s repeat Israeli performance. Ever since the Israelis ended their occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, this weak and diminutive country has enjoyed an almost unmarred respite from the turbulence of the region to which it so easily and habitually falls victim. But overnight it has been plunged back into the role it endured for a quarter century and more – that of hapless arena for other people’s wars, as well as pawn in the ambitions and machinations of regional players far more powerful than itself.
It is only the players who change. After 1968 it was to be the Palestinian resistance movement, with Lebanon as its principal power base, that was Israel’s antagonist in Lebanon. Now it is Hizbullah. To be sure, Hizbullah is Lebanese in everything that defines nationality, and it has cabinet ministers and members of parliament. That is why Israel could so plausibly blame the Lebanese government for the seizure of its two soldiers. Yet blaming Lebanon was as about as futile as blaming President Mahmoud Abbas for the earlier capture of an Israeli solder in Gaza. If Islamists act on their own in Palestine, Hizbullah does so even more blatantly in Lebanon. It is a virtual state within a state, with a militia more powerful than the Lebanese army. Of course, in its Lebanese self Hizbullah places that army in the defence of Lebanon. But it has another self – another identity, mission, agenda – that it always tries to reconcile with its Lebanese one, but in the final analysis cannot: that of universal jihad and all that now implies in terms of non-Lebanese regional ambitions, allegiances, obligations and constraints. Palestine now looms largest in that.
Quite sufficient I think.
I do so enjoy a self immolation. With the fat ones the flames tend to linger long enough to read a short book. I suspect, however, that you are quite thin; and short, very short. Hardly enough to notice.
So, while there’s all this commotion about the rights of the captured soldier, why are you neocons expressing no concern about James Miller’s killing?
Adam get with the program. If UK wants to take this issue as a declaration of war, they are free to do so. But they haven’t. So we don’t care about acts not leading to war, we care about acts leading to war.
This is the Israel vs Lebanon vs Palestine war we’re talking about, try and stay on the same subject if you seek to accuse people of being inconsistent. Different subjects mean different subjects, not “inconsistency”.
You can’t change the subject by talking about the United Kingdom you know. Red Herring.
stevie said:
Me too senesentwasp.
By the way
Go fuck yourself you fucking prick.
And your mother too.
What’day think?
Will that do it?
Looks like someone might get their IP banned — having trouble advancing your argument their stevie lol
As far as “proportionality…”.
Israel has about sixty MODERN WORKING DELIVERABLE nuclear weapons.
As of now, she hasn’t used them. Two or three would turn Gaza into melted glass. Eight or ten would effectively melt Lebanon. Ten or fifteen would toast Syria.
And that’s only about half the arsenal. The other half can be saved for Iran.
Sounds like forebearance to me.
“Faster, please…”
x
To Stevie:
You actually believe the Guardian…my, my. True Blue Leftist…
You’re more illiterate than I thought. Is English your first language?
Or French…or Arabic…Or Russian??
x
stevie — sloppy with your debate. Someone get this boy a bib.
“But, leaving Europe aside for a moment”
Cute sarcasm, neo. The truth is that Europe has decades’ worth of experience in dealing with terrorists that the Cowboy-in-Chief could learn from if he could pry his nose out of Mad magazine.
It’s pretty ironic that the Republican architects of 2006 are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the disastrous, self-destructive policies of the first four years and are doing the best they can to suck up to the Europeans and others that they scorned in 2002/3.
Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon has their own militia which apparently is more powerful than the Lebanese army. So if Lebanon can’t or won’t get the Hezbollah to disarm, what is Israel supposed to do? This is an intolerable situation.
And, of course, Hezbolah and Hamas, are local branches of Islamofascism internationale. Part of the reason for the slower-than-normal condemnations of Israel may be that it is finally sinking to world leaders that we are in a World War with the Radical Islamists.
Tequila’s joke was too funny. someone with 50 years in one job, has the temerity to say that they have “experience”. Sure, experience in failing and not getting promoted, perhaps.
Israel is going to blow up enough Hizbollah nuggets that Lebanon will come in and pick up the pieces.
You make such helpful and insightful comments, Y-guy! Thanks again for your valuable contribution!
Have I ever told you how much I admire your writing?
Tatterdemalian wrote:
“”Cultural warfare” does not kill. But economic warfare does, because if you take away people’s livelihood and reduce them to destitution and starvation, people die.”
No, they just live in misery. What’s more, they live in entirely self-imposed misery.
Read the following carefully:
“Top Israeli government advisor Dov Weissglas, optimistic as he had always been, wished to see the humor in starving Palestinians. (The economic siege) “is like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but they won’t starve to death.” ”
–“How Many More Must Die?” by Ramzy Baroud, full text at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/baroud07052006.html
[Ramzy Baroud teaches mass communication at Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.]
Gosh, the Israeli’s thought they’d only have 48 to 72 hours to attrit Hezbollah forces. And, now the Arab League can’t come up with enough unity to present a solid front. viz, “Squabbles over the legitimacy of Hizbullah’s attacks on Israel – including the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 4-day battle – appeared likely to keep participants from reaching a consensus, delegates said.” Criticizing Hezbollah: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. “The rift appeared likely to prevent participants from issuing a unanimous resolution.” Note the countries criticizing Hezbollah.
So Israel looks to have a fair ammount of time to kick the dog poo out of the Hez and in the process teaching the Lebanese government not to cede control to extra territorial elements
Lebanon is fearful that Hez may try to kick off a new civil war and those awful Israeli’s keep using “disproportionate” means.
UNSC is at a standstill due to abstensions and a US veto so no muti-national “peace” force this time.
Who can save tiny Lebanon being savaged by all the contenders in the fracas and possibly losing the tiny bit of democracy it has developed since kicking a lot of the Syrians out?
(Que the Mighty Mouse Theme)”Here he comes to save the day…”. The Lebanese government declares a national emergency and asks the United States to step in and secure the country. Israel curls its moustache and says, “Curses, foiled again.” having neatly boxed the Hez in the south declares a cease fire while it turns its attentions once more towards the Paleos.
Assad and the Baathists in Damascus wet themselves. The Iranian “president” has a siezure and chews up a priceless carpet, exceeding his fiber requirements for the next six months. The Kurds, ten percent of the Syrian population
A point to consider, on whether Israel’s campaign in Lebanon is “disproportionate”: what is it, exactly, that the campaign should be proportionate to? Most of you think it should be proportionate to the damage Israel has undergone, which would be the standard in a civil or criminal court. But that’s clearly wrong; that’s what our host was arguing against. Just War theory says tactics should be proportionate to the objective sought.
Now, we know Israel’s objective: the destruction of Hezbollah as a fighting force, and its replacement along the Israel-Lebanon border by a force that won’t attack Israel. The question of proportionality is, do the IDF’s present actions in Lebanon serve that objective; and, could it be accomplished with less damage by other actions? I suggest to you all, that the only people at this moment who could answer that question are in either Hezbollah or the IDF — for they alone know where Hezbollah’s forces are, and how they might be defeated.
Certainly the EU and the UN don’t have a clue. What they’ve said amounts to simple prejudice: the assumption that Israel must be doing evil, long prevalent in those circles. It isn’t a conclusion from the facts, because nobody in those circles has the facts necessary to reach a conclusion.
begin to look to their east and link hands with their brothers in Iraq. Turkey downs several Valium with shaking hands. And, the Sunni’s in Syria, looking at some of the sweet deals their co-religionists are cutting in Iraq decide that what the Syrian Baath party needs is a top to bottom makeover a la the “Damascus Spring” gone by.
The Kurds in Iran, smelling the makings of a de facto Kurdish state become as restive as the Azari…. Well you get the picture.
Lebanon is saved from Israeli savagery. The US tells the Hez that the solution is disarmament, which they of course refuse. Those who stand and fight are left cooling in the dust while the rest run away to Syria, causing no end of problems there, which couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of guys.
Iran, you remember Iran, finds its client, Syria redundant since it was not able to help project Iranian combat power to the border of Israel. Syria is between a rock and a hard place actually several places called Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, a tiny bit of Israel (only forty or so miles from Damascus) and a US occupied Lebanon. Was that the sound of a domino falling?
Conned, would you be so good as to read your ISP’s Terms of Service? They are quite comprehensive as I would expect from a government agency. And, your actual IP is not necessary, merely an approximate range and the ISP.
United Kingdom
host86-142-98-185.range86-142.(redacted)btcentralplus.com
AS2856 BTnet UK Regional network
I would not expect you to understand why friends help friends nor that others might have intrests somewhat broader than yourself. You might also want to contact bob-bob. You have been banned from this site yet you persist placing you in violation of BT’s TOS. The balance of the action I will leave to the site owner. I’m bored with all this and plan to take a hot shower since the Leftists have made it a sewer; directing your attention to stevie’s comments.
neoneoconned:
Aswe say in the USA…
Get Lost
(or)
Go Away, Boy: You Bother Me.
Cheers
After reading this thread, I stand by my earlier assertion that the intent of the conneds, stevies, et al is to shut down the forum, not dialogue. This has become the norm, especially in academia where all forms of censorship by the left (from heckling to violence) are condoned, so it not surprising in the least that it is considered legitimate politics in every facet of society. It appears to spring from a general sense of moral superiority and the anger/hatred generated by a utopian vision unrealized. If this political force should ever take power, the reeducation centers and gulags would appear like mushrooms after a rain. If you want a peak into the more mainstream face of this mentality, read a few issues of Counterpunch, the propaganda rag which adam cites, and you will learn that all who oppose the inexorable flow of progress(iveness) are racists, warmongers, religious twits, etc (its truly fascinating that the labels vary so little).
That Israel has unleashed its rage over sixty years of unrelenting attacks infuriates those who see its establishment as original sin, yet offer no ideas on how that sin can be absolved without another holocaust. That those who are backing Israel’s foes in Lebanon have openly and recently called for their annihilation means nothing in the progressive equation of utopia; it’s just a factor to be left out because it messes up the product. That Iran moves closer to the bomb, and southern Lebanon would be the perfect launching pad seems to be of little interest to those who believe peace in our time can be achieved by friendly dialogue with those who call for your destruction. The religious faith (despite their antipathy towards religion) that so-called “progressives” have in their vision and belief system blinds them to the practical realities of the carnal, mortal life and the history of civilization.
I don’t believe that Israel is exacting collective punishment on the Lebanese people. It appears to be much more than that. They appear to be preparing for a larger campaign to end the threat to their existence, sooner rather than later.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008786.php
Here’s some Arab perspectives on the new conflict.
I see the place is littered with trolls again, as robotic and/or batty as ever — I wonder when Stevie’s going to start threatening someone’s children, for example?
Ah well. For anyone other than trolls still reading any of this, here are a few points I’d add to neo’s excellent post:
“Just War” theory is as bogus as “International Law” is fake. The latter is a fake because, as I’ve said before, real law requires a real and legitimate system of justice that underpins it, including a legitimate means of making laws, interpreting laws, and enforcing laws — none of which are present outside of nation states. The UN is largely a forum for national posturing and propaganda battles, and is at least as corrupt and venal as many of the states that make it up — only the most naive and gullible of the left continue to place any confidence in it at all (though some of the more cynical may say they do when it suits their agendas).
“Just War” theory is bogus because it assumes there exists a sort of meta-moral level “higher” than that of the combatants, from which it’s able to judge conflicts in a de-contextualized, abstract manner. But, short of the angelic orders, there is no such standpoint, and those who claim to occupy it are again either naive and simpleminded or cynical and manipulative. And their judgments, as a consequence, are often not simply unreal, but unjust, hypocritical, and sometimes morally stained themselves. An example of “moral stain” is precisely the “Just War” doctrine of so-called “proportionality” — a doctrine which, if followed, can have the result of prolonging a conflict indefinitely in a perpetual tit-for-tat feud. Instead, the object should be to end the conflict — which may well require a massively disproportionate response.
Whether such a response is right or wrong can’t be settled in the abstract — it can only be settled by determining which of the two sides is more (or less) right than the other. To say that “Just War” theory is bogus, in other words, isn’t to say that justice itself is either false or indeterminable — it is to say that war or conflict can’t be separated out from the rest of human behavior and judged outside of its political, historical, and moral context.
Within that context, by the way, Israel would be well within its rights to be a great deal more “disproportionate” than it currently is. And the vile “hopes” of the trolls will turn into their usual bitter handful of dust.
Just War Theory has been the one tool used consistently by nation states. If Sally wants to support nation states making decisions, Sally should really not have attempted to attack Just War Theory.
As I mentioned in my post on military expediency, proportionality is best used concerning how to accomplish objectives, rather than retaliating against attacks. Therefore in military expediency terms, the nuclear bombardment of Japan was very proportional in terms of the objective attempted, which is the surrender of Japan. Proportionality has the connotation of being correct, rather than incorrect.
Sally really should read the details of Just War Theory and how it has been used in the past, rather than picking things up ad hoc on the comments sections of the blogosphere.
“Proportionate response” is the doctrine of those who want a war to last forever, with neither victory nor defeat possible for either side… just eternal bloodletting and an ever-increasing body count. It is what the left calls “stability,” in their little “war is peace” world.
Sally,
Teach sister, teach.
Don’t confuse “Just War” with strategic and tactical considerations inherent in planning.
For some reason, “proportional response”, “Just War” and “International Law” appeals to people with a little exposure to games; initially athletic but later “intellectual”. They understand the the risk/reward opportunities in both. In the first, they are usually known as “losers” in the second they can all pose as “winners”. So, they try to make everything an “intellectual game” since the sour taste of losing is ever with them.
They will never understand that in the world most of us inhabit, loser is often synonymous with “dead” and defense is not a word game like Pictionary.
I saw a Lebanese official on TV complaining that not only was Israel dismantling Hezbollah but the Lebanese state as well. Sorry, but he should have foreseen where allowing a terrorist organization free rein in his state may have led. If you cannot police your state, sooner or later you are doomed. If you will not police your state, you deserve your fate. Perhaps the Lebanese were afraid of Hezbollah, I know I would be in their place. Or perhaps there was actually an agreement between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state – a wink and a nod behind the scenes under the proviso that the host state would be exempt from Hezbollah’s murder. But whether they were afraid or were in collusion, they knowingly provided a nest for Hezbollah and they need to go. Maybe the next round of Lebanese leaders will be smarter.
The Hez actually have members of parliament in the government The government was always afraid to deploy the Army since they were afraid of the army not obeying, of getting it destroyed or kicking off their civil war again; and possibly all three.
Ymar: Proportionality has the connotation of being correct, rather than incorrect.
I’m not going to bother getting into a dispute with Ymar, who, as others have noted, has his own peculiar understanding of the English language, as the above sentence indicates. Does it mean he thinks “proportionality” is correct by virtue of its “connotation”? How perfect is that? Then all we have to do is include “correctness” in the definition of any policy or principle and the debate is over, no?
Regardless, I’m aware of the idea that proportionality is supposed to be measured in relation to the objective, not to the initial attack, which is why I emphasized the word “can” in my comment. But in practice (i.e., as opposed to video games), since everyone but Ymar is aware that “objectives” can be enlarged or shrunk or re-interpreted after the fact to fit any level of response, the term is usually measured in terms of the provoking assault. And that’s just an aspect of the general failure of the doctrine as such — that is, either “Just War” is dissolved in a general theory and understanding of justice as such (e.g., no unnecessary killing or suffering), or it becomes an obstacle to justice as such.
Sally,
I love it when you talk like that. Could you write, “Zero Sum Game” or even (gasp) “saddle point”, my day would be complete?
Seriously, so far you are the only person here who gets it. From the standpoint of the actor, proportionality is often, wrongly, conflated with “economy of force”; an entirely different concept.
This whole thread, along with many others, reminds me of the conversation Alice had with the Caterpillar, “When I use a word, it means what I mean it to mean”, the Caterpillar said.
I’m sorry to see someone as terrific as Neo being plagued by trolls. They are allied with the folks cheering as Hezbollah makes clear the extent to which they have Lebanon held hostage. Note that Nasrallah and Hezbollah currently can only find backing from Syria at the Arab league meetings.
I watch with trepidation the current events and bleed for the poor Lebanese and Israelis that just want to live and let live. But no. Ahmadinejad and his twelver buddies are crankin’ it up for that big time naqba, so that the Mahdi will show by August 22 and dispense his own special brand of justice.
What better way to sow chaos than to hurl some WMD’s across into Haifa and claim that you happened to accentally hit an Israeli chemical plant. If you listened carefully to Nasrallah’s Sunday pep talk to his boys and warning to the “Zionist tumor,” he was basically saying that the gloves were off and my lie is now released – he’s reading the script straight from Tehran. Look for the bar to be raised; the G8 heard it and pulled the cease-fire plea off the table until Hizbollah couphs up the kidnapped soldiers and gives the region over to the Lebanese army – like that’s going to happen.
A good time to watch and pray, whether you’re a believer or not.
Pray for peace, but prepare for war.
Haha! I kept reading those comments about ‘just war theory’ and kept wondering how minimizing it would change anything (“Hey, it’s just a war“).
It took longer than I care to admit for me to figure out what Just War meant 🙂
At what point do most of you begin to realize that if you do not want neocon to be plagued by trolls you have to stop feeding them. The only response to a troll is no response. Say what you have to say on the subject and respond only to those who have legitimate questions and comments. Otherwise leave them to babble to themselves.
What is it they can do to you? Call you names, insult you, et al. Lets face it their opinion has no value to your life so why care what they have to say. They do not want a dialoge so why try to engage in one with them. Why waste your time.
People who are interested in philosophy or Just War Theory should go here and search for “Proportional”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm
When people say proportionality, they are thinking of things that have a correct moral meaning. Things are in proportion like they are in scale, a triangle’s angle is proportional to the length of its sides. The Left likes proportionality for Israel’s retaliation because they believe it is the right thing to do. In terms of Israeli retaliations, they should not be proportional at all. Again, proportionality’s correct place is in terms of seeking objectives, or as Wasp has deigned to determine, it is an economy of force. Or otherwise known via Sun Tzu as the acme of battle technique. To win without fighting, to win without wasting resources through a siege, and without friendly or enemy casualties. That is the acme of battle skill. But a victory is a victory, even if it is a pyrrhic victory.
When you relate proportionality to let’s say, Just War Theory, it is the proportional methods that is justifed. In terms of justifications, Just War Theory has a rather liberal number that provides all kinds of justifications for a state to act based upon their self-interest and national defense.
Sally has stated several things in error because she does not correctly correlate Just War Theory to its applications, used both during WWII and to justify the invasion of Iraq. To understand imperfectly the nature of an object, is to be incapable of usng that objects to its fullest potential.
Sally dislikes getting into disputes with me, because I suspect I’m not as easy to win a debate over compared with the usual people she likes to argue with.
When people on the Left talk about Israeli retaliations, they are not using or speaking of Just War Theory. They never did ascribe to that philosophy after all. And the ones who did, are the sames ones who say that in war you can’t target civilian infrastructure. Just War Theory is the same justification Truman used to nuclearize Japan, including the incendiary bombs used that created a negative pressure zone that was so large that people were sucked into the firestorm while trying to run away.
So Sally can criticize the Left all she wants, but she gets it quite wrong on Just War Theory. The logic is simple. People mean what they say, and when the Left says one thing, it has a different meaning than Just War Theory. Therefore they both cannot be the same due to logic and mutual exclusivity.
Well, Dennis, some people waste their time because they feel it is fun to poke trolls and argue with them. Subsunk and um I believe Jimbo does the same, on occasion.
Ymar: Sally dislikes getting into disputes with me, because I suspect I’m not as easy to win a debate over compared with the usual people she likes to argue with.
Well, there at least ol’ Ymar has a point. Debates are rarely if ever “won”, in the sense that one side admits that it was wrong and the other side right. But such disputes — assuming they’re reasonably honest, however sharp (i.e., not counting trolls) — are nevertheless often worthwhile, since both sides can find their own positions clarified, and often improved, in the process. But, though Ymar’s not a troll, he puts together sentences like this:
So Sally can criticize the Left all she wants, but she gets it quite wrong on Just War Theory. The logic is simple. People mean what they say, and when the Left says one thing, it has a different meaning than Just War Theory. Therefore they both cannot be the same due to logic and mutual exclusivity.
Which comes so close to gibberish that improved clarity is just about the last thing to expect from a debate with him. In that sense, it’s usually just not worth the bother.
One small tip, though, Ymar: if you think Wasp “deigned to determine” that proportionality is equivalent to “economy of force”, then you need to work on your reading comprehension as much as on your writing. Here’s what he actually said:
From the standpoint of the actor, proportionality is often, wrongly, conflated with “economy of force”; an entirely different concept.
(Emphasis added just for you.)
This quote by General William Tecumseh Sherman before he ordered the complete destruction of Atlanta in 1864 seems appropriate.
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.”
I must admit to having little patience with arcane discussions of Just War theory; it is a theory after all. In practice, I’d imagine, if you had the chance, at less than ruinous cost to you, to defeat an enemy so thoroughly that they would never be a threat again, it would likely be a good thing. I suspect that to do so would not involve proportionality. Win, then you can have the luxury of arguing about proportionality.
Some people cannot understand a subject without the prerequisite background knowledge. That’s simply a fact of life that must be tolerated.
Just War proportionality is the same or similar to Economy of Force. You just don’t understand the concepts, sally. Things aren’t the way they are because someone says they are this or the other. Things are the way they are because reason and logic and epistemology leads to confirmation of truths via the theory of knowledge.
You can no more explain the concepts of color to a blind man, then a telepath could explain to you the concept of direct mind to mind communication with words only. That is the genkai to certain types of communication and subjects.
None of this is changed by Sherman’s letter to Atlanta, which I read in full, nor by the existence of people who lack the time or interest to read anything in depth about what they so scorn as a subject that is not worthy of their attention. Prejudice comes in all forms and shapes.
I’ve provided my view and the information to back it up. Any appropriate counter-point has to actually be made up using something called reason and logic, and a little bit of background research. I got tired of the he said she said debate years ago.
From the Master himself. I defy; even you, Ymar; to conflate, “Just War”, “proportionality” and “Economy of Force” from the below.
Closely connected to the idea of concentration of force is the concept of economy of force. Clausewitz underlines the need to ensure that “no part of the whole [military] force is idle.” (213) Some writers have misinterpreted his use of the word “economy” to mean economizing rather than effective use of force.
Clausewitz makes it clear, however, that emphasis should be placed on the effective use of armed force, and that ultimately force should continuously adhere and contribute to the political purpose: “Any unnecessary expenditure of time, every unnecessary detour, is a waste of strength and thus abhorrent to strategic thought.” (624)
The Condensed Clausewitz
I get impatient and a little short with you, Ymar, because you are sloppy; in thought and writing. Obey the dictum, “Write not to be understood. Rather, write to be not misunderstood.” It’s more grammatical in the original Latin.
If you were one of mine, you would be spending many hours marching off academic demerits on the Quad.
Great post. I’ve linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/07/re-danger-of-proportionality-in-war.html
Which comes so close to gibberish that improved clarity is just about the last thing to expect from a debate with him.
Actually, it it sounds like you’re just really, really dumb (see also: the 9 year-old’s understanding of intl law).
Let’s not dog pile on Yamar. He’s very young, enjoys words and reading stuff on the “martial spirit”. He’s not really dumb, just impervious like a frog’s anus is impervious to water.
I’ve got old farts disease when it comes to contemporary youth. But, it is hard to believe that, at about four short years older then he is (around 18 I should guess); the military saw fit to let me take troops in harms way.
I just hope that when reality slaps him upside the head he learns something from the experience or life is going to disappoint.
The thing for Israel is surviving as a nation. That’s the lens they look through in measuring “proportionality.”
If you want Israel destroyed, then any act of Israel against its enemies is disproportional. But then, nobody’s gonna listen to a one trick pony, so you must get ignored a lot.
I had a Palestinian roommate once. Her thinking was pretty circular, like a broken record or a loopy tape message. Kill Jews, destroy Israel, like that. That’s gotta start at a very early age, from the cradle really. Over and over, repeating message, kill the jew little baby, go to sleep.
I think in the next couple of days we are going to start hearing the “disproportionate” meme again.
What the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon is classic battle space prep. Getting things ready for the insertion of ground troops.
I know they called up a reserve division and I should expect that they get mounted up a little faster than a US formation would. But, once the frag orders get down to company level, they are good to go. It won’t be a run for border op, just a steady advance and reduction of Hez forces leaving outposts in places they are familiar with.
It could get very interesting if the Hez, Shia Twelvers, retreat into Syria which is dominated by Sunni Baathists and run by the Alawī.
IDF has already crossed the border – it’s hooch burning time, get them zippos primed, boys! IDF really needs to create about a 30 mile, sterile buffer zone in S. Lebanon by leveling every village/town and dropping bags of cement into the wells and taking down every fig and olive tree as well and scattering the livestock. Then by God there would be grounds for talk of proportionate responses when dealing with lethal enemies. Drive the people North into the arms of the social service agency hizbullah, where they will be well cared for and be happy away from the wicked Jews to the South.
Many Europeans are pro-Palestinians and anti-Israel and anti-America. I think that the best solution for the Israel problem is to make an end to the state of Israel. The next worldwar will certainly do that i think.
I had a great laugh reading the newspaper today. America couldn’t do anything anymore diplomatically. Russia supports Iran. China and Russia siad to America not mingle into ‘Asian affairs’. This means of course, that America may not steal any oil anymore. Bush said to Putin that Russia should take an example to the democracy in Iraq. Putin responded as a joke by stating that he didn’t want that kind of democracy. I don’t think that Bush will listen to you all. His back is against the wall. He will not atack any country anymore. America must be very careful not to lose all its wealth. Nowadays shiploads full of goods, including most of the oil is from outside America. The best way to keep it is by maintinging cordial relationships in the world. To my opinion, America could be facing a worldwide economical boycot one day which will wreck the American economy beyond repair. We non-Americans will never invade your country. Just making you poor will do the trick and then we will run the world without you and you can play the role of Africa. The days of cowboydiplomacy are over.
The avenue of retreat is there for you to take, wasp and sally.
Daan is off his meds and wandering the halls again, I see.
Well Daan, that was about the most stupid comment I have read in a long, long time. I wish the illegal immigrants would boycott America. So, you’re gonna’ make us poor, eh? Can’t people like this be banned for simple ignorance? This character is simply astounding. Gee, Daan, I wish the UN would ask us to leave their pedophile club. How would that be for starters in the campaign to make us poor? Next China could quit buying our grain and let many of their people starve and that would really make us poor! The Vietnamese could quit making Nike shoes for 39 pennies a day and that right there would bring us to our knees, Daan! The real killer would be for Japan to get out of the automotive industry and leave us high and dry while all their automotive employees returned to growing rice. Let’s give a big, collective DUHH! to Daany boy -whattaya’ say?
America could boycot Kyoto and go to war without the consent of the Security Council, so why could the outside world not boycot America even if it is against its apparent economical interest. American policy have learned us that it is possible to do stupid things. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are already breaking ties with America. America could be witnissing further breaks.
Not that i think that this will happen. Bush has become reasonable already. He is trying to build up a new coalition, which has become impossible at the moment and now he has to do what the majority in the world wants. The days of cowboydiplomacy are over.
China could get grain from Russia. Vietnam could produce for the Chinese and Indian market. Japan could produce for these markets as well.
Cox and Fortnum on Proportionality
Looks like the ground insertion of Israeli troops is moving forward so we can expect to hear more on Neo’s topic and more attempts to hijack even this moldy old thread.
This thread clearly reveals a failing in our national character: We talk too much. Maybe this is why pedants do so well here. I like Bush’s obscenity on the subject of Syria, I like even better old Cato’s brief and grim Rx. But how should it be revised? Persiae delenda est? Any pedants out there know some Latin?
Daan,
Bush (or any other president) will be unsuccessful in building coalitions.
Why? As the political scientist Kenneth N. Waltz: “As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power.” The US is currently so much of a hyperpower that the world situation has become unbalanced. To counteract this unbalanced power, other powers in the world are building alliances among their own to counterbalance American power.
This is inevitable. Almost like a law of nature. This is why you see Russia supporting Iran. Notice also that India and China, which fought no less than three wars over territory/borders during the Cold War era, have negotiated their differences, mended their relations, and co-operating with each other.
During the Cold War era, the US pressured virtually all countries in Latin America to break diplomatic ties with Cuba. Now virtually all Latin American nations have ties with Cuba.
Notice also how relations between South Korea and North Korea are much better now than during the Cold War.
“Many Europeans are pro-Palestinians and anti-Israel and anti-America. I think that the best solution for the Israel problem is to make an end to the state of Israel. The next worldwar will certainly do that i think.”
Will Europeans last long enough to see the next world war?
The huge disproportionality in Israel’s response consists in the fact that it attacked civilian infrastructure in response to a military provocation: the first thing it did was to bomb the only Gaza power plant that existed. This doesn’t harm Hamas, but harms civilians.
Hamas has been launching missles into Israel for awhile now. These are attacks on the civilian population, and since the Palestinians elected Hamas, and provide overwhelming support for the murder of Israeli citizens, they have given up any claim to protected status.
The Palis have called this upon themselves.
I’m a blogger personally and I observed your article that should be extremely fascinating and eye-catching. Great job for this article, and I’ve just became subscribed for your blog. Hope you do the same for me.