Saturday, July 15, 2006
France and Russia on "proportionality"
France and Russia, in particular, have criticized Israel for its "disproportionate" use of force in Lebanon. Now, Israel's measured but nevertheless potent air attacks in Lebanon may yet prove to be unwise, but who are Chirac and Putin kidding? Is there a single person on the entire planet -- excepting, of course, people who are dumber than a box of rocks -- who does not believe that both France and Russia, if attacked as Israel has been attacked by Hezbollah, would have responded with even more force?
9 Comments:
By 
Deuce ☂, at
Sat Jul 15, 09:36:00 AM:
FYI "Grozny Chechnya" is Russian for proportionality.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Jul 15, 09:42:00 AM:
I've never been able to distinguish "Grozny" from "Atlanta," so I've had a hard time coming down on Russia for fighting to preserve its union, especially against Islamists. But that was my point.
By 
, at
Sat Jul 15, 10:44:00 AM:
Russia I can definately see using "excessive" force, but France is another story. They couldn't put down Muslims in their own nation, and I have very little reason to believe that they woudl take the fight outside their borders.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Jul 15, 11:27:00 AM:
Algeria wasn't that long ago. The French don't get to disclaim that legacy just yet.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 15, 12:25:00 PM:
"I've never been able to distinguish "Grozny" from "Atlanta," so I've had a hard time coming down on Russia for fighting to preserve its union, especially against Islamists. But that was my point. "
Now now, TH, don't go pulling a moral equivalency exercise of your own. If a General Sherman did today what he did in the Civil War, he'd be convicted of war crimes. Northerners remember him as a hero because their side won, but that doesn't mean that his actions were correct. His memory is still widely hated in the South thanks to the brutality of his troops. Grant killed more of us in battle, but it was Sherman who pillaged the homes, destroyed the infrastructure, and fired the cities.
By Final Historian, at
Sat Jul 15, 04:08:00 PM:
And was right to do it. There is no nobility in war, and sometimes people need to be reminded of that.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 15, 08:10:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 15, 08:13:00 PM:
"And was right to do it. There is no nobility in war, and sometimes people need to be reminded of that. "
So purposefully destroying (civilian) people's homes and livelihoods and looting their homes is perfectly ok? What a remarkably cold-blooded thing to say.
And there is, in fact, nobility in war. Such as not doing things like that.
I'm infinitely pleased that our current Army, and most others in the civilized world, disagree with you else we really would be the aggressive heartless thieving bastards that some say we are.
By Cassandra, at
Sun Jul 16, 07:45:00 AM:
"Proportionality" is stupid.
The way you win a war is to defeat the enemy's Army quickly and decisively. I am sick and tired of hearing idiot media and pundits who don't understand war talk about restraint. Restraint causes war to drag on and on and on, getting more and more people killed as it did for YEARS in our own Civil War. Sometimes, sadly, you have to go at it hammer and tongs as Grant finally did and let there be an end to it.
What you do NOT have to do is target innocent civilians. What you do NOT have to do is be barbaric. You can follow the laws of war.
But in war we cannot guarantee that there will never be any of what is euphemistically called 'collateral damage'. And ironically, attempts to lessen the intensity of combat sinetimes prolong it and cause more of the very 'collateral damage' you are trying to prevent, because they blur the lines and keep things from ever getting resolved. I think we're seeing some of that in Iraq.
It's something of a Catch 22.
