Monday, March 03, 2008
Dictating Retaliation, Part Deux
Sunday morning I wrote (in the context of Palestinian complaints about Israel) that the new "requirement" of transnational progressives that retaliation be "proportionate" to the provoking attack actually undermines deterrance and increases the likelihood of war. Not surprisingly, Richard Fernandez made much the same point more eloquently:
Almost unnoticed in the course of this absurd tragedy is the assertion that third parties, like the UN and the EU, have some acquired the right to determine what is proportionate force between belligerents. In the past belligerents were free to determine what, within accepted usages, constituted a casus belli. And they approached the problem with the knowledge that if they went to war rashly or foolishly, they would pay the price of defeat and possible loss of territory. But today the right to determine when and where to fight back against aggression has been usurped by a bunch of bureaucrats in the UN and in Brussels. Aggressors all over the world are no longer so reluctant to cause trouble, secure in the knowledge that the UN will always be there to save them from a knockout count with their sacred bell.
Today nations neither suffer the consequences of aggression nor the benefits of righteous self defense. In its place the 'International Community' has create a perpetual limbo in which a continuous trickle of misery is considered an acceptable price to pay so that the authority of the 'International Community' can be upheld and its vanity embellished. Not actual peace but the protection of this perverse 'International' system has become the actual goal of diplomacy. In order to pay for it, Palestinians will be left abandoned to their oppressors, for employment as human shields while Israelis will be admonished to die without whimpering. Not in order to achieve a solution, but simply to turn the page of the calendar. Even the 20th century holds few examples of such political immorality and futility.
War is sometimes the price nations have to pay to win peace. But only the United Nations, and the sadly the European Union too, can create a system where war is endured only to guarantee more war -- and the prerogatives of the International System. All in the name of Peace, too.
Endless war and its drip-drip of casualties and multigenerational suffering may indeed be preferable to the intense paroxysm of suffering that attends total war fought for total victory, but only the latter can insure a long period of peace. One cannot know which is "better" in the end -- it depends where you sit. This much, however, is all but certain -- there will be no peace between Israel and the radical Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah until one side defeats the other. Moreover, neither side can win without the help of the average Palestinian, and both sides will attempt to coerce that average Palestinian into cooperating until one side loses decisively. That is very tragic for the Palestinian Arabs, but they have made a great many poor choices that have led to this place.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Mar 03, 03:31:00 PM:
As usual, "Star Trek" is way ahead of us.
In the 1967 episode A Taste of Armageddon, the war between Eminiar VII and Vendikar had been going on for 500 years when the Enterprise arrived.
It's entirely a simulated war, with no real explosions, but with real casualties who are expected to report promptly to a disintegration station when their city is "bombed" in the simulator.
It's precisely the cleanliness and rationality of the war that makes it possible for the combatants to continue hostilities -- and avoid making peace -- for 500 years.
Back on Earth, if the I's and P's really duked it out, I expect they might quickly find some sort of peace. And if not, no great loss (assuming the P's would lose).
--SF Tiger
By , at
Mon Mar 03, 05:39:00 PM:
If there is to be war, then... Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. It's often said that people get the government they deserve. If that government insists on picking a fight it surely can't win, then what business does the rest of the world have in saying the resultant lessons aren't earned? Maybe, looked at in one way, the victor (assuming might *does* make right) has a moral obligation to be victorious so that the defeated might learn.
--s_s
