Redstate

Let us hope that half or more of THIS country finally sees the light! However, I don't see it happening. Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, remember? It's made terrorism even worse, and inflamed Muslims all around the world, including the Middle East...Right? When more than half the U.S. believe this rubbish, I am not encouraged, but I hope the German realization you mentioned is a start.

Don

Have the IAF drop leaflets on EVERY town in Southern Lebanon telling the "civilians" to evacuate within 24 hours. Twenty five hours later, drop daisy cutters on every town until there is nothing standing. I would prefer to then napalm the rubble and send in the IDF infantry with bulldozers to clean up the mess.

If a rocket lands on Israel after that, repeat over Damascus but without the leaflets.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

you mentioned (I took the liberty of viewing your page), you will find the same green helmeted guy holding a dead baby.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/31/214129/874

As for the daisy cutters, I envision the day when we will be forced to use such weapons and worse.

you mentioned (I took the liberty of viewing your page), you will find the same green helmeted guy holding a dead baby.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/31/214129/874

As for the daisy cutters, I envision the day when we will be forced to use such weapons and worse.

Well, yes. The reason I was apologizing here is because those pictures showed the same guy who here was posing bodies.

It is still an open question just how often this happens (ie, if it's just this guy or if it's general Hez. policy) and how this impacts our response to the pictures of dead bodies.

Here's the short version... Wars end only when one side is clearly and irrevocably defeated. Their propaganda machine cannot have the ability, in the face of the clear outcome, to spin some kind - any kind - of "victory". Anything less than a clear victory breeds a future conflict that will result in many more deaths and much greater carnage that a victory in the first place.

An attempt at a quick example... WWI. The surrender of the Germans that concluded WWI and the resulting "treaty" gave a future generation of Germans the ability to tell their people they had not been defeated on the battlefield, they had been sold out. They had no problem convincing the German people that the German military might could not be overcome as long as the "traitors" were not allowed to sell the master race out to their enemies. Hence cometh WWII. Result 60 million dead. An entire continent in flames.

Fast forward to Gulf War I. The US and coalition forces destroyed Iraq's army. We did not pursue the fight to Baghdad. We allowed Saddam's Generals to sign the surrender documents. Saddam, in short order, told his people he was sold out by his cowardly Generals just moments before achieving a glorious victory over the invading infidels. Execute the Generals. Rebuild the military.

Now, with respect to Lebanon (and to the ongoing insurgency in Iraq), the only way this stops is to leave no doubt who wins and who loses. If we do any less the terrorists will claim victory - as Hezbollah did today - and fight continues ad infinitum.

If we are truly at war, and this is not just some "police action", then it's way past time to act like we are at war. If so called civilians allow combatants who dress like civilians to hide out and hide supplies in their civilian neighborhoods, they are no longer civilians. If they care more about protecting the terrorists than they do about providing a better life for their children, they are no longer civilians and neither are their children. They are the enemy.

Simple rules of engagement... Fire a rocket into Israel or set off an IED and we eliminate the city block that the ordinance came from. I don't particularly care if we drop a daisy cutter or use conventional ordinance, although I think the visuals from a daisy cutter are better - one bomb, only wreckage. Then send in infantry and make sure that nothing survived the blast. If the Israelis run out of towns in Southern Lebanon and rockets are still coming, I would flatten Damascus.

Brutal? Sure. Will some innocent people get killed? No. Will the Islamofacists stop their terror tactics? Don't know, but I am sure that Muslim governments will stop supporting them when they figure out that supporting a terrorist organization that attacks us will cost them a city. (Note the experience with Libya after Reagan targeted Kadaffy [I know it's not spelled that way, I just can't help liking the visual]).

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I continue to resist -- almost to the point of holding it as a fixed axiom -- the idea that it is ever okay to target civilians. I understand that you're trying to make the civilians culpable by way of allowing Hez to hide in their own populations, but I still don't see that argument working, at least to the degree you'd like it to. The image that I'm getting from your posts is that you essentially want to make Southern Lebanon (and perhaps certain neighborhoods of Beirut, etc) free-fire zones. And the thought of doing that frankly makes me a little sick. I don't think that the civilians of southern Lebanon are guilty of sheltering Hez -- I mean, some are, but there are also stories of families being shot for trying to flee. And there are families being intimidated into staying, into saying what Hez wants them to say, etc. And -- even those that stay willingly -- is this grounds for a death sentence?

And lastly, I think your interpretation of history is a bit suspect. Most people think that WW1 was caused by the *harshness* of the Versailles treaty, not its laxness. Germany's defeat was a blow to their national pride, and the reperations they paid to France were unsustainable. The position that Germany was in led to a feeling of being disrepected, which in turn fueled the rise of nationalism. And as for Gulf War 1 -- again, nobody in the world could doubt that Iraq lost -- just look at the Arab press from the time. Sure, Hussein spun it as a victory, but nobody was buying. He never had most of the Iraqi populace behind him, and he knew it -- that's why he ruled by fear. Really, if you think history from the Middle Ages, very few wars ended succesfully with the complete and unarguable defeat and humiliation of the losers -- think of the 30 Years, 100 Years, Franco-Prussian, various conlicts with the Turks and Italians, and so on.

Anyway, you say that the only way to win for good is to crush and humiliate them. And I say that will only make things worse. Humiliating a people may surpress them for a while, but they will remember. These people are still offended by the Crusades, for crying out loud. And there are too many of them just to kill them all.

Are you seriously contending that the treaty terms imposed upon Germany in 1945 are LESS harsh than those imposed in 1919? Because if that is not what you are saying then your objection to harshness sort of falls by the wayside.

Your historical examples are pretty suspect, too. It seems to me that the Battles of Bosworth Field and Stokes Field resulted in the total destruction of the Yorkists claims to the throne. The Hundred Years Wars and Thirty Years War were fought to mutual exhaustion but the boundaries established in the former endure until today completely stripping England of its claim to the territory ruled by William of Normandy. The Franco-Prussian War (Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to Prussia, Paris was occupied by the German army, France paid crippling reparations), as well as its predecessors the Austro Prussian War (the North German Confederation is no more and its member states remain subsumed into Germany and Veneto is still part of Italy) and Danish-Prussian Wars (Schleswig-Hostein remains part of Germany) did result in the defeat and humiliation of the losers.

I think you are wrong here. The danger in defeating a foe is in not defeating him decisively and conclusively. Harsh is better than easy.

As far as WW2 is concerned -- yes, that treaty was harsher than the treaty of Versailles. It's not often that the loser is not only completely occupied by the winner, but divied up and neutered. But I was only responding to the idea that Versailles wasn't harsh enough -- I think that most historians think that the harshness of the treaty was a major cause of WW2. It may seem like there's a contradiction here -- Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, but the terms imposed on Nazi Germany were harsher, yet did not lead to further conflict. But, I think there are a couple of responses here -- one is just that WW2 was a unique war, such that there are a myriad of other reasons (beside the treaty) why Germany/Italy/Japan did not rise up again. All of Europe was exhausted and in ruins, international diplomacy was entirely different, the balance of power had changed (and would have changed even if the terms were less harsh), economic and social factors and changed...

As for the other wars mentioned -- I tried to choose examples that had clear victors, yet did not lead to humiliation. I think that The French won the 100 years war and largely drove the British out, never to return. The French/Swedish/etc alliance won the 30 years war, and changed the balance of power in Europe for good. But, in all of these wars, despite treaty terms that involved massive transfers of money and land, the losers weren't brought to their knees in the same way that, say, Germany was twice in the previous century. Having said that, you seem to be a better student of history than I (given the examples you cited), so I'm ready to concede on some of those examples, at least barring further study.

All of this said, we're still stuck in an argument of analogies to other wars. It's unclear to what extent this thinking will carry over to the current case, anyway. One would think that the Arabs have already been humiliated by various military defeats to Israel and by their steady cultural collapse. It might be that they haven't been humiliated enough (hence, cue the daisy cutters), but these kinds of high-stakes gambles just don't seem warranted, given the considerations.

Humiliation is not the way to end a war and I'll say again, I never promoted humiliating anyone. What I do promote is the idea of a complete and total military victory which means completely crushing the ability of the enemy to throw so much as a rock. A daisy cutter is not designed to humiliate anyone. It is, rather, designed to kill everyone and destroy everything.

Bottom line, if someone wants to attack us it is an act of war. Start a war and you should expect to incur extraordinary casualties until you put your arms down, admit you were wrong to start the war, and pursue peace. Until then, we should rain death and destruction without mercy on the enemy.

After an unconditional surrender, see my comments above about a modern Marshall Plan.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You've misread or I miswrote. Since I'm now typing, I prefer the former.

First of all, the point of my post was that to END the conflict, said conflict must be decisively resolved on the battlefield. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind about who really won. Hence my attraction to daisy cutters and napalm followed by armor and infantry.

I don't want to make civilians "culpable". I want to make the price for harboring terrorists so high they won't do it. The culpable folks are Hezbollah terrorists. Period. If some thousands of civilians in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq end up dead in order to crush the terrorists, that's the cost of war. It specifically is the cost of a war where one side (them) hide terrorists and supplies in civilian areas. But, if this is war then kill their troops and destroy their supplies in the most efficient manner. Because of who we are fighting, that necessitates the death of some civilians.

Let's look at history and apply it to today. We totally crushed Germany and Japan. And, by the way, 2/3 of sixty million plus people killed in WWII were civilians. Once their military was crushed, the countries occupied by the West were supported via the Marshall Plan, were rebuilt on generally democratic lines and have been our allies and good trading partners over the intervening sixty years. I'm pretty sure if you check, you'll find that neither Germany or Japan has had a sixty year prolonged peace in the last several thousand years.

Applying this to today, I would have no problem with a modern day Marshall Plan for Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq. My only caveat would be that every possible supporter of Hezbollah, Hamas and radical Islamism be a casualty of war before we spend one dollar.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I think I get what you're saying about humiliation, but I still don't see how winning the type of victory that you imagine wouldn't entail humiliating the enemy. Furthermore, I'm not sure a decisive victory over an ideology would even look like, let alone if it's realistic. But let's just imagine that we drop dazy cutters, kill thousands of civilians of varying degrees of innocence, causing Hezbollah to give up their arms (aside: a far more likely outcome would be Hezbollah to fight on despite being badly damaged, eventually fading from importance, while another terrorist group fills the void -- but I'm giving you this for the sake of argument). Then what? Now, your imagined victory came at the cost of several thousand civilians (and I'm still not clear on how innocent you view them, but that's a separate issue). I suppose it's possible that, once all radical militants give up and turn in their arms, the civilians will forgive us for killing their families. But, if I were a gambling man, I'd put my money against that possibility; how much do you think it would take people who see themselves as disadvantaged and wrong to rise up again?

So, to recap: you want us/Israel to go nuts pushing for all-out victory. I would stop you hear for moral reasons, but you press on. Say that we're able to shake Lebanon to its core and neuter Hezbollah. I suggest that defeating Hezbollah isn't the same as defeating terrorists, but you press on. Say that the terrorists give up in the face of our show of force. I say that you've only put off the problem for a little while. Maybe my arguments aren't uniformly strong here, but I only need one of them to go through.

Here's what victory looks like.

First of all, we probably won't be killing thousands of civilians. It will more likely be tens of thousands in Lebanon, in Gaza and maybe a hundred thousand in Iraq.

Second, we don't stop agressively persuing war until the enemy stops fighting. And just to be clear, if that means we kill every living thing in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, so be it.

Third, governments that currently support terrorism - namely Syria and Iran - must understand that if they continue to promote terrorism we will do precisely the same thing to them.

There is a military solution to the problem in the ME, but only if we are really willing to make war. Otherwise, we should just come home and let the Muslims in Europe take over the continent. Maybe we can build a wall.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?