Thursday, July 20, 2006
A note on proportionality
On the question of the "proportionality" or lack thereof in Israel's campaign against Hezbollah, I thought that an email to James Taranto eloquently posed the thought experiment that reveals the absurdity of the discussion in the media:
If Israel were to tell its citizens to stop hiding in bomb shelters as effectively as they have been and if its attacks had been less successful at degrading the terror capability of Hezbollah, and if more Israeli civilians--say 100 or 200--had been killed by the more than 1,000 rockets that have been launched at them from Lebanon, would the world's journalists and government leaders that now suggest that Israel's efforts to stop Hezbollah may be (or are) "disproportionate" change their minds?
Popular wisdom notwithstanding, it is no more possible to derive "what ought" from "what is" in war than in any other human endeavor. The disparity in casulaties might prove only that Hezbollah is more criminal in its selection of camouflage than skilled in the delivery of its ordnance.
5 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Thu Jul 20, 01:11:00 AM:
What matters is intent, not capability. Or rather, present capacity.
By Final Historian, at
Thu Jul 20, 01:12:00 AM:
Also, thought you might find this interesting...
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/07/armed_for_the_a.html#below-fold
It talks about Israel's nuclear program. Fascinating stuff.
By 
, at
Thu Jul 20, 11:31:00 AM:
In World War II, the allies bombed the infastructure in france and europe back to the stone age during the invasion. Why? To hamper enemy supply and cut off both retreat and reinforcements. It is a tactic both old and wise. It's a strategy that's designed to minimize friendly losses while maximizing ones own chances for victory. If your enemy uses any structure, infastructure or resource, then it is fair game in war. To do otherwise is to give insurgency and terrorists a huge advantage. Israel isn't going to do that, regardless of what other countries say. This isn't about punishing civilian populations, if they wanted to do that they would just carpet bomb like Hezbollah wishes they could, it's about hampering Hezbollah to the point of ineffectiveness.
In situations like this, I always wonder what the Romans would have done. The answer is something that should be done, but never can in the age of modern media.
By , at
Thu Jul 20, 12:42:00 PM:
I heard this on the radio yesterday, and thought it was simple but clear: If Hezbollah were to completely disarm, there would be peace. If Israel were to disarm, they would promptly be eradicated.
By , at
Thu Jul 20, 01:37:00 PM:
If your enemy hides among civilians it's unjustifiable to target them, according to the UN. Today UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour has said, "Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians... Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm
