I was reading a little from a blogger in Beirut http://beirutlive.blogspot.com/. I really think the Israel-Hizbollah thing is at that point I blogged about a few weeks ago--time to step back and lose a battle to win a war. I am not at all disputing that Hizbollah has manipulated Israel into killing children, civilians, and UN peacekeepers. They shoot near these targets knowing that Israel will retaliate and innocents will die. They should get the primary blame, I think.
But it doesn't matter. Israel falls into their trap and it is having the desired outcome. What used to be a conflict of Hizbollah versus Israel--with the Arabs, Palestinians, and broader Lebanese against Hizbollah--is almost if not already everyone against Israel and America by extension. Israel must back off and regroup.
Brute force simply will not work at this point. It has become counterproductive. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Reality doesn't care. God lets the evil win all the time, for whatever reason. We have to be smarter to win over evil, not necessarily stronger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I see now that Israel is backing off its airstrikes for the next 48 hours. Very wise, I'd say. I wonder if Rice had anything to do with it.
Shouldn't the terrorists be blamed entirely for the killing of innocent civilians as they tend to so graciously station themselves nearby them? Israel has obviously nabbed some of them by attacking these frightful targets. I could be wrong, but it's not like they (Israel) are going out on Lebanese-killing rampages (as a whole at least). I'm curious as to what the US would do if put in a similar situation. I would think anhilation would be a strong possibility.
Sorry to refer back to the last post, but I was surprised by one of Drury's comments about women in leadership in the home. I'd appreciate hearing (reading) him expound on that.
I agree that the terrorists should get the blame. But they're not. No one anywhere in the region or around the world is blaming them. Instead, the anger against the US (it doesn't matter that it's irrational--it's just the way it is) has risen to the same level it was when we invaded Iraq. Basically, I think Israel's bombing campaign has not only been counterproductive, it has been pretty ineffective. Some jerk shoots a rocket near innocent civilians. By the time Israel fires back, he's gone and a dozen innocents are dead. Or maybe they kill two guys and twenty other civilians. I think Israel needs to focus on a ground assault and only bomb verifiably military targets of some significance.
Ken
I think "cut and run" by Israel will only allow the terrorists to regroup, re-arm and give them time to prepare for another battle. We are hated by the Islamic world no matter what we do. I think I would rather be safe than popular. These people started it and I think the Israelis need to finish it. At least future terrorist attackers will know what to expect if they decide to take on Israel again.
By "back off" I don't mean withdraw or even necessarily "cease fire," although if a viable one presents itself I would be in favor of it. Basically, Israel is losing this thing because of their approach. Yesterday for the first time I could picture a scenario where Israel was actually destroyed as a nation for good.
I really fear what the intense hatred of the whole world for us right now will bring.
Ken
How do you fight a war without going all out? If someone is foolish enough to attack you knowing that you possess overwhelming firepower, but then you don't use it because you are worried about what others think, then you have emboldened your enemy.
Fighting these limited wars with our hands tied behind our backs because we are afraid of world opinion or what the UN thinks is what enables our enemies to live to fight another day. These Islamic radicals believe in war and don't seem willing to keep their end of any agreement they enter into. I think that part of their battle plan is the hope that world opinion will cause the Israelis to leave the battle when it is 1/2 over so they can survive to fight another day, and be assured they will be back!
What about Christian radicals?
*duck*
Craig said>>>How do you fight a war without going all out? <<<<
This is precisely why war is out of God's will for a nation. (War may be a "necessary sin" but it is always out of God's will I think) because war by nature tends toward all-out war... thus nuking Iran is not totally out of the question in our lifetime... no wonder all little nations want to get nukes for themselves... it is the only sure "national defence" --when a country has ICBMs tipped by nukes they get to "negotiate" with the big time players... until then they could be invaded as will.
But back to Craig's point--I think he's right... in marriage breakdowns or warfare..unless there is intervention we are drawn magnetically toward total warfare.
I wish the whole discipline of military ethics would make its way to public discussion more. I know Augustine's criteria for a just war, but it seems we should be hearing more sophisticated discussion. I read something yesterday with an allusion to such theory yesterday at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14046789/site/newsweek/. The theory in question there was that to fight an insurgency it is very important to win the confidence of the people around which the insurgency is occurring (duh and oops).
It seems to me that some ethical principle must also involved with the scope of destruction. I hear people talking about complete annihiliation of x, ranging from all Lebanon to all Muslims, etc... The question I have is at what point does the quest for justice become genocide. When we are killing everyone in sight, active agressor and passive bystander, at what point does the one fighting for justice become the evil aggressor. If 2/3 of the people killed are innocent bystanders, then it seems to me we must rethink whether the quest for justice has become immoral, whether we have sunk to the enemy's level and become equally evil as well ('but he started it').
I am speaking theoretically here. I am watching the actual Israeli thing with great interest and some uncertainty of what I think is right and wrong. It has become to me a kind of referendum on the early Bush doctrine
(a doctrine I think he has himself realized was wrong and now the hawks are all over him for wising up--of course he is rightly criticized now for doing nothing at all about just about everthing. Anyone who goes back and reads my earlier blogs on Bush will see that history has justified every prediction I made, including my warning that our action in Iraq would paralyze us for when the real threats like North Korea and Iran materialized. Those who disagreed with me, including Bush, have steadily changed their positions as the reality of our actions have sunk in).
Will Israel's approach work or create more problems than existed before they started (as has happened in Iraq)? This is what I'm watching to see.
Ken
It would be nice if military ethics were practiced in war. But, you would have one side following them and the other side not. Hezbollah and those of like mind would use our ethical approach to war as a weapon against us as they are doing now. Hiding behind civilians, using them as shields and placing their weapons in their homes causing death and destruction to innocent victims is pure evil. But, so is war period!
I would be interested in knowing how you would advise the Bush administration or the Israelis in how to fight a war where the opponent uses the cover of civilians as a strategy for waging warfare. I don't think negotiations work, so I don't see that as an option with these religious wackos. How do you fight a war where you eliminate the bad guys and spare the civilians that they cowardly hide behind? Ethical discussions are good exercises for you and I, but on the battlefield defending your country from a merciless enemy who has vowed to destroy your nation and it's citizens requires more of a General Patton view of war and less "patton leather."
Craig, my main criticism of Israel has been with the way they have bombed. I am not against surgical bombing with a high degree of caution (to which comment Drury might respond, "fat chance"). But I think our technology has made war come cheap for us. We can bomb like crazy without committing to the expense of a ground war. I wonder (and I'm sure military ethicists have long covered all these kinds of things) if a prerequisite for these types of engagement should be the willingness to conduct a ground war where the expense is high enough to make the cost real to the "minister of justice" as well as to the enemy. From my very limited perspective, I affirm Israel for what I think they have done these last 48 hours--exercised more caution in what they bomb and committed troops to a more extensive ground offensive.
I'm sure I sound like a child next to the discussions military experts have on these things... I just don't know where to go to hear such discussions. Thanks for pushing the issue and making us all think.
Ken
I think your frustration is a result of living in an age of advanced technology where warfare has changed. In the old days when armies bombed the enemy, there was no surgical strike capability, you dropped your dumb bombs or fired your artillery and they showered the city killing whoever they fell on. Today you can drop a bomb or missle in someones back door. If you have a choice of using advanced weapons to kill the enemy and win as opposed to exposing your troops to risk, most military commanders will probably choose to not put their troops in harms way and instead expose the enemy to lethal high tech attacks. No doubt many seem to have a problem with this practical strategy. It is a choice that a commander has to make, sacrific your troops or the non-combatants your enemy uses as their cover. I think the US and Israeli military do all they can to avoid killing innocent people in light of the terrorist's tatic of using them as shields.
The terrorist do not have high tech capability, they are decades behind in their capability to wage war, so they resort to using civilians as weapons to even the odds, knowing that even with precise capability to strike targets, civilians will still be killed when you place your weapons in neighborhoods, homes and public buildings. The targets need to be engaged, but to do so means the aggressor will kill some innocent victims that are being employed by the enemy as cover.
You kill innocent people when you take out the target, CNN and Al-Jezeera come in and broadcast the pictures all over the world. Public opinion changes because all you see is the sad results of the "surgical strike." The terrorist's strategy is not mentioned and tatics employed by Hezbollah are overlooked by the media. I think that is also unethical.
Ken, war is sinful, hell, unfair and downright evil. I think all Christians should oppose it, but also face the reality that we live in a fallen world where evil is present and people who practice evil have to be confronted.
I am not a pacifist, I do believe that if you are surrounded by an enemy that seeks to destroy you and kill you, on the battlefield you will do what it takes to win. When engaged in a war, winning and survival is the goal. Hezbollah fights the way they do to win and so do the Israelis. It horrifies all of us.
Craig
You said: "These people (terrorists) started it and I think the Israelis need to finish it."
If only that were the case. If we traced the history of the middle east conflict between Israel and all the Muslim nations with an unbiased glance, we would quickly come to find out that Israel funds as much "terrorism" as any other nation in the world. Of course, we dismiss it because we've turned a blind eye from the beginning, since we (the U.S.) helped start the Jewish state in the middle of Islamic territory. We also refuse to stop supporting Israels "war crimes" against Palestinians, because, well, they are Jewish, and we are their allies, and oh what would we do if we admitted all our mistakes for the last 60 years?
There are too many root causes in war. To say that Hezbollah started the war, and that is that, is just too biased. Poverty, nationalism (stemming from our placement of the Jewish people after WWII), and foreign policy that promotes "try us, and we'll annihilate you" (anyone remember Cheny and Rumsfelds words after 9-11 and Iraq? Something like "bring it on...") have greater claims to the causes of the Mid-Eastern conflict.
And the cool part is, our tax dollars are paying for all those "smart" bombs.
Meanwhile, we're raising minimmum wage (which I might add, doesn't raise purchasing power, but just paper in the market), while at the same time playing politics with low income families by attaching cuts to the estate taxes for the wealthiest Americans. The minimum wage bill was a bad idea economically in my opinion, but to make it worse, the House attached bogus tax cuts once again to a bill, knowing it would get passed.
You: "When engaged in war, winning and survival is the goal..."
Bonhoeffer: "When God bids a man, he bids him come and die."
Sniper
I guess when an enemy is firing missles into your cities, strapping bombs on women and children to blow up the local coffee shop and kidnapping your soldiers, you should apologize for whatever you did to make them do such naughty things.
I think hate and racism no doubt motivates the Islamic radicals. You will never hear that on CNN though. In most of the world and news media, it is OK to kill Jews, but when Jews fight back they are accused of over-reacting and using to much force to defend themselves.
I would think that a person like yourself would at least oppose racism. If you look at how Islamic countries indoctrinate their people from and early age to hate and want to kill Jews, surely one may find it hard to excuse their violence against Israel.
I know, let's blame it on Bush and raise the minimum wage.
I will first adress Sniper. Divorce is an ethical problem which we approach much like war. We do not think it is God's plan for anyone to get divorced, however when I wife is beaten or is somehow abused we say "ok, divorce isn't the plan but you may do it." Or if the husband cheats on the wife or vice versa. Once again it is not in God's plan for anyone to get divorced, however we again say it is acceptable to do.
When a country is invaded or pressed, we perhaps can say "it is not God's plan but it is acceptable."
Craig, you are setting up a false dilemma: "if you do not allow for Israel to blow people up you are racist."
That's not true, however you may be someone who feels that it is God's plan that no one kill another.
Also if someone has been brainwashed to believe something from a young age, then I find it easier to excuse. None of us are good. This war shows that without Christ evil humans (as we all are) can do evil things.
I think we all would agree that some of Israel's bombings have seemed unjustified. I refuse to start quoting Augustine so i'll just leave it at that.
You say that Muslim's are racists ... I'd agree. A lot of Muslim's hate jews. However, a lot of jew's hate muslims, and want to see the civilians die in Leb.
you said "In most of the world and news media, it is OK to kill Jews," Where is your backup to this claim? Where have you heard that it is "ok?" to kill jews? Where are these news reports that say this?
Aaron
I did not say "if you don't allow Israel to blow people up you are a racist." I did imply that if an Islamic terrorist organization that is driven by hate, anti-semiticism and has vowed to destroy Israel digs in on the border, arms themselves with missles and then fires them at Israeli cities and kidnaps their soldiers, deserves more than a slap on the hand. Some apparently disagree. Yes, I think racism in this case is the prime motivator in this conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. The Iranians, Syrians etc have all vowed to destroy Israel. If that isn't hate, then what else do you call it?
I don't agree that if someone is taught racism and hate at an early age, then it is excusable. I am sure you may not want to extend the same understanding to the KKK.
I would also argue that in the major world media outlets, UN and
and much of the world, the bombing and killing of Jews does not seem to outrage the world as much as the killing of the human shields that Hezbollah uses to hide behind and the firing of missles into Israeli cities. At least none of you guys seem to concerned about it I've noticed.
Right or wrong, it sure looks bad. I think Israel is really going to regret this thing... and we are too.
I understand why Israel is bombing bridges in the Christian neighborhoods, but it is an interesting moment to reflect on any of our prejudices. Israel is not a Christian nation--it's illegal even to try to convert someone to Christianity there. So now a non-Christian force is bombing a neighborhood where our Christian brothers and sisters live.
Post a Comment