Let me be the first to remind everyone that the Powell Doctrine for Israel makes sense. Why? Because it's war.
I have not engaged in a great number of debates over troop strength and resupply for American armed forces in Iraq. My gut tells me that the generals on the field are going to get what they need and that there needn't be any political debate about tactics any of us civilians really don't understand. All the Left cares is that it's not Halliburton anyway. But as things drag on in Iraq, we have had the opportunity to review whether or not our capability at nation building is sustaining political support. Like it or not GWBush's incursion into Iraq defies his campaign promises and old school conservative opinion on nation building. There is a serious conflict between Rumsfeld's ideas and those of Colin Powell.
I don't consider Powell a neocon in any sense. Rather he is an old soldier who hates having to do what he has to do, but dammit if he has to, he'll make sure it stays done. Rumsfeld is all about the future of warcraft and would craft the Army in such a way that some section of it is on permanent alert and deployment. Because 'you never know' when you're going to have to strike some odd corner of the globe. Call Powell the Imperial Destroyer; call Rumsfeld the Perennial Punisher.
Now that Israel has boots on Lebanese soil, there's a presumption here that I admit I feel a bit ambiguous about. On the one hand, there is no reason why a conflict at this level could not be mediated into oblivion. So from the perspective of peacekeeping I think it is reasonable that certain parties would call for a ceasefire and talks. But the problem is that Hezbollah's provocation is itself an escalation, and it is an escalation that is not likely to be negotiated away. Hezbollah is ideologically not going to stray from the things that motivated it to kidnap Israeli soldiers, which by any definition is an act of war. I firmly believe that Hezbollah felt that it was within its operating perameters to kidnap an Israeli soldier every now and then in order to hold them as collateral for prisoner exchanges. This to me is the crux of the matter and it is the thing that has to be held in account when anyone uses the term 'disproportionate'. If we call for a ceasefire and Israel complies, it would suggest to me that they are going the Rumsfeld direction: hit and occupy. Fight a protracted set of skirmishes then back down, circle back and fight tit for tat. Keep a low level presence as long as possible all the while negotiating some permanent political arrangement. That''s what's going on in Iraq. I prefer the Powell Doctrine.
There is no 'disproportionate response' in war. There are simply acts of those more and less powerful. Certainly there are nuclear, chemical and biological exceptions, but those are exceptions woven into the fabric of the truce between the West and itself. There are conventions for African wars and border conflicts that we in the West probably don't recognize, and there are conventions in the Middle East that we don't want to recognize. Was Saddam's move against Kuwait 'naked aggression' or was it just because we said so in the West? I'm saying we in America are not under any responsibility to recognize these conventions of conflict. So we can arbitrarily determine that Hezbollah is an outlaw 'state' and as 'proportionate' as it feels its militant gripe is against Israel, we needn't accept their terms.
So now that war is here, now that the brink has been stepped over, should Israel try and stay proportional and negotiate some kind of new political arrangement amongst those civilians caught in the battlefield? I say no. They should completely unload both barrels at Hezbollah, give them the Mother of all Smackdowns and ruin the ground they walked on. Israel should take all of their fury to their enemy until it becomes patently obvious that Hezbollah are incapable of fighting back without getting support from other states. In other words, burn the Bekaa to the ground.
This has the unfortunate consequence of making enemies of the people who depended on Hezbollah for their education, medical care and other welfare. But this is how it is in war, ultimately the blood and treasure of one group of people is pitted against that of another. Whether you like it or not, enemies of GWBush who would make war because of him don't care about your 'Don't Blame Me' bumper sticker. You're an American target, and so Israelis, not matter their politics (or religion, or age or sex) are the targets of Hezbollah.
What is proportionate? Anything short of Hama. (OK so I exaggerate a bit)
Recent Comments