You'll never convince the people who loved the movie Walking Tall that the big stick doesn't work. They saw it in the movies, so it must be truth-iness.

No matter that Buford Pusser lost his wife and was maimed, and eventually lost his own life.

In a vacuum you can probably make this case. But there will always be someone who will argue LOUDLY that greater force must be applied. I don't know how you break through the cycle of rhetoric.

Kevin:

Not your most brilliantly argued post -- but I feel your pain. It's a frustrating topic. I have no answer glib or otherwise, either.

It is the Dilemma of the Hour, to be certain.

Where the *hell* is Gandhi and/or MLKjr when you need them the absolute *most*, eh?

Bob

So long as domestic politics continues to be dominated by the likes of Roves and their minions who value political victories over everything else, no mere mortal will have the courage to take the risk involved in advocating a position of forbearance that advocates sacrifice of questionable trivial tactical victories for grand strategic successes.

Yes, we should outsmart the enemy by... never fighting back. That's how we deleted Hitler: We bided our time and he.. voluntarily stepped down from power and the nazi party gradually dissolved.

Oh, wait, my mistake.

Clearly the hawk has not read the LAT article by Carr.

It isn't so much forebearance that is needed, but instead a need for real and effective diplomacy.

Humans have the capacity to intereact in ways beyond merely physical aggression and counter aggression.

Where are the statesmen and women in this new century?

I have to guess that the reason Truman could act with restraint was that we had lost enough men and women in WW2 and everyone had seen newsreels of what the war had done to Europe and the Pacific. Once the Soviets had the A-bomb (1951 I think), restraint was easier to manage.
AmericanHawk, Kevin is not saying to never fight; he is saying to pick the right moment. And the right moment is not necessarily the time when the enemy does something to provoke.

Clearly the hawk has not read the LAT article by Carr.

Yes, I did. Al aways, he's sympathizing with terrorists (calling them 'daring!') and making rationalizations for Isreal not to defend herself. Par for course.

AmericanHawk,
Your description of how we did not defeat Hitler is a pretty good description of how we did defeat Soviet communism.

True, but the Soviet Union wasn't attacking us. If they had been, we would had to have responded. Isrel shouldn't let terrorists blow up their school buses, and then sanguinely say, "Ah, but we'll WAIT THEM OUT! It's our brilliant strategy!". That's pure insanity.

American Hawk:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Bob

For the state of Israel, "forbearance" would have simply required compliance with the law as set forth in its own scriptures- the lex talionis formulation of an eye for an eye, etc. represented a step toward the humanizing of acts of revenge, limiting them to "tit for tat", no more. This Israeli response even if it was not limited to the capture of the two Israeli soldiers a month ago, but was extended to years of Hezbollah strikes, is still out of proportion and goes back to pre lex talionis days.

American Hawk:

Think for a moment what might've happened had Israel done what Kevin suggested -- retaliated for a day.

How long do you think the rockets would have rained on Israel before the *Arab world* would have demanded that they stop.

The Egyptians, Saudis and Jordanians have no love for Shi'ites. Think of victory the West would have scored to have the Sunnis excoriating Hezbollah (and, by extension, Iran and Syria).

Big picture, Hawk, big picture.

Bob

How long do you think the rockets would have rained on Israel before the *Arab world* would have demanded that they stop.

Indefinitely. Do you really think the Arab world is going to look at the situation objectively? The Sunnis may hate the Shi'ites, but they hate Jews far more. That suggestion is just insane.

And let's say even that worked. So..... the 'Arab world' criticizes Hezbollah. So what? Their rockets still fire just as well. The terrorists aren't going to give up just because Saudi Arabia doesn't wub them any more and their fee fees are hurt.

Kevin:

The key factor in Truman's success was war weariness on the part of the public.

I was rather hoping that the U.S. electorate would be weary enough to change course in '04 but they weren't.

They may not be yet.

Can't force it, can't accelerate it. People just have to die bloody deaths and keep dying until the public gets tired enough.

The kind of nuanced thinking that recognizes the value of restraint as a long-term strategy vs. immediate, ill-considered war-making is obviously lost on bloodlust-addicts like AH.

American Hawk, you might as well sit the rest of this thread out.

Kevin: Counseling restraint in the hope that it will pay off in the long run is politically ruinous.

Well, I'm just a not-so-bright, working-class guy, but I don't see why this needs to be as difficult as Kevin makes it sound. Why should any politician ever be afraid of what his opposition says about him? Especially with the majority of voters now so disenchanted with the Iraq adventure (as an example of indiscriminate use-of-force).

Yes, we should outsmart the enemy by... never fighting back. That's how we deleted Hitler: We bided our time and he..

Actually, Am Hawk that's pretty much what you did for the first two and a half years thanks to Republican obstinance. While my country made the moral decision to fight fascism, yours never did and instead waited until you were given an invitation by Japan that you couldn't refuse. Not exactly your most morally shining moment (thereafter however, you did a pretty bang up job and were probably the number two factor in the defeat of Hitler. Further your post-war actions were inspired).

Re. Kevin's point, didn't Christianity have something to say about that? Not that anyone would actually want to start taking Christian ideas to heart or anything...

So there I was, sitting in this lovely pot, minding my own business. The jerk next door lit a small fire under the pot and the water got a bit hotter. No biggie. I am a bigger frog than he. I did nothing, thereby gaining a moral victory.

Every now and then, he would throw another piece of wood under the pot. Each time he did so, I ribbited, and smiled, I have gained a moral victory, and I will win the anti-frogs in the world and the US over to my point of view.

This went on, believe it or not, for six years. He would toss in a small piece of wood, and I would usually do nothing. Oh sure, I pointed out to everyone that he was violating a UN resolution that stated he shouldn't be carrying wood anymore. And I smiled because I had gained the moral victory.

And then one day, it turned out he had 10,000 pieces of wood stockpiled and ready to toss into the fire. So I did the best I could and tried to kill the fucker.

But he did have 10,000 pieces of wood and he proceeded to try and boil the shit out of me.

And now I have to listen to Yglesias and Drum tell me how wonderful moral victories are. In the meantime, I am boiling.

So if those british terrorists had managed to blow up a bunch of planes, who would we attack?

Britain with the special relationship?
Pakistan with their nukes?

I find that looking at fighting terrorism as a global counterinsurgency makes sense. But fighting just a regionally constrained insurgency (Iraq, Viet Nam, etc) is pretty damned hard and requires smarts to win it. Our leaders haven't learned anything in the past 30 years in fighting even regional insurgencies, it appears.

I'm not sure the US is capable of fighting a global one, with voices like Mr. Frog and American Hawk wanting to kill a mess of pick-a-Muslim-country whenever there's a terror attack.

It sure didn't win hearts and minds in Lebanon.

Hint; don't multiply your enemies. Kill only the individuals who are trying to kill you -- not a mess of their friends, neighbors, and countrymen. With six degrees of seperation, it doesn't take that many bombs to be at war with several billion people.

Christianity does indeed have something to say about the lex talionis formula. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek" Matthew 5:38-39 NRSV. Of course this is in the New Testament and is not part of the Hebrew Scriptures so need not be applied by Israel. However, it is part of the Bible that the fundamentalists like Bush claim to be inerrant when it comes to discussing evolution, stem cells, etc. How striking that it actually contains the term "evil doers" in the English translation- one of Bush's favourite terms, and thus how clear it is that Bush is very selective in what scriptural edicts he chooses to follow.

Mr. Frog, that was very cute.

Except that neither Kevin nor anyone else here has said anything about moral victories. We're talking about restraint - not capitulation, not passivity - as a strategy towards a more desirable end. Restraint doesn't mean you sit in the pot until the water boils.

I wish you (and the other trolls) would quit projecting this liberals-are-hippies idea into every discussion that we try to have here.

Like I said to American hawk...

American Hawk:

Well, of course the way you attempt to make this argument is by demonizing Hezbollah into subhuman alien child-devourers bent on nothing but the slaughtering of innocent life.

Lot easier to kill people if you don't worry about their widdew fee-fees, eh? :)

But this isn't an accurate picture of Hezbollah at all. First of all, they're duly elected members of the Lebanese government, to the tune of 18 MPs and 2 cabinet ministers. Secondly, they *are* the government of Shia south Lebanon, running schools, clinics, police forces -- while, sure, stockpiling weapons and building fortifications. The world's a complex place, Hawk. You can be simultaneously an implacable foe to your enemies and a great guy to your peeps.

Part of the reason that the Lebanese government never got around to purging Hezbollah from the south is that the populace never would have stood for it. Who better to manage an area of conservative, devout rual Shia than their conservative, devout co-religionists? The Westernized, decadent central government bureaucrats too tired and hung over all day from discoing all night at Beruit nightclubs?

So if Israel did practice a little forebearance and endured the rocket bombardment without response -- Hezbollah would have cut it out, probably shortly after Israel quit. Forget the Sunni bloc -- *Iran* wouldn't have stood for it, because Iran in case you hadn't noticed has some mighty big issues to deal with in front of the UNSC at the end of this month. Their client Hezbollah shelling a Gandhiesque Israel (to dream the impossible dream ... ) would have made them look pretty goddamned horrible in the eyes of the people who *really* matter -- you know, the French, the Russians and the Chinese.

If you think it's all about simpleminded racial hatred, then you'll never visualize your way out of a situation that has *never* gotten better without the visionaries like Sadat, Rabin and King Abdullah ...

Bob

King Abdullah = King Hussein

Nasralllah is the only leader of one of the sides of the conflict who has said an official cease fire would be adhered to by his forces.

I would ask Mr. Nasrallah to declare an end to missile attacks and Mr. Olmert to withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon now, to encourage the end of hostilities. Tactical restraint in order to achieve strategic advantage, is an insightful idea. However, non-violent resistance as strategic policy without concession will not win the peace. Strategic advantage is usually considered from a view point of strength. We can't kill off the fanatics fast enough to win, because the foe represent majoritarian opinion. Hezbollah represents the dominant demographic component of Lebanese society. Palestinians represent the dominant demographic of the entire area once called Palestine.

Many Americans think one side is attacking the other while a minority thinks the reverse. Despite the accounting of deaths, popular opinion in America still supports Israel, both emotionally and materially, and think the intransigence of the Arab resistance to Israel's existence and expansion is based on a combination of religion, ideology and racism. I think it should be clear one side of the conflict has the grievance of lost property and nationality of the classic colonial victim combined with the extraordinary addition of that colonialist's guilt over the Holocaust. Israel is the result, codified in the universal social contract of the UN 1947 Partition, which needs to become a basis for the solution to the conflict.

Naturally the Palestinians objected to the giving of their national heritage to the fledgling Israelis, and the beginning of the second half of the Twentieth Century's most enduring conflicts began. Because so much time has passed and so many people now have accepted Israeli nationality, the Palestinians and other Arabs will have to accept Israeli nationhood. It is difficult and painful. It is an imposed loss without reason. It is also a point from which to establish the Palestinian state and stop the militant aggression and needless deaths of innocent people.

Israel, for its part in the strategic motivation to compromise, must continue its evacuation of all territory outside the 1947 Partition. Once Israel stops its retaliation and begins withdrawal from the territories and practices tactical restraint, like I hope Hamas and Hezbollah would, then a true resolution to the conflict created by Israel's existence can be achieved.

Robert Wright: if you ask what kind of shape would Israel be in if they had done a day's worth of retaliation, and since then just endured any missiles, and said, "OK, look, at this point there's no excuse for what they're doing, we're not even fighting them," I think Israel as a nation would be more secure than they are.

Sounds like he is calling for the wonderment of moral victories to me....

I wish you (and the other trolls) would quit projecting this liberals-are-hippies idea into every discussion that we try to have here.

Hmm, on the basis of reading one post, you call me a troll. Actually, I am probably more liberal than thou, and a frequent poster here, just not under the name Mr. Frog. I certainly don't think that all liberals are hippies, or even a significant number are. I obviously said nothing like that at all, and only tried to give the impression from the Frog in the Pot.

Apparently though Mr. Exasperanto, you like to jump to conclusions and find that labels and stereotypes are superior to thought and discussion. No wonder a-holes like Al and Hawk like to fight with you.

Me? I think Olmert made a very big mistake strategically and politically, but I am befuddled at how any state would allow a non-state actor that breaks the Geneva Conventions with every attack to build up an arsenal of 10,000 rockets, including anti-tank weapons and surface to air missiles. Hezbollah with every single rocket launch attacking civilians, pure and simple. Hezbollah with every single rocket launch is using civilians as shields. Pure and simple.

It is obvious from the past four weeks that Hezbollah long since passed the point of being a nuisance that is best dealt with local law enforcement. Hezbollah is a non-state army, and one that violates the Geneva Conventions with their every act.

There is no state on the face of this planet that would allow Hezbollah to exist just over their border.

Now were Olmert's actions the best strategically? It's hard for me to think they were. But it is long past time for Hezbollah to be dealt with and disarmed by the UN and Lebanon, and I can't fault Israel for trying to neutralize their obvious threat.

It's one thing when Katyushas are raining down a few miles across the border. It's quite another when a non-state army has missiles with 45-70 mile range and the ability to launch against the major civilian populations.

Nothing in there about hippies, liberals, or conservatives. Just about states and non-states and hypocrisy.

Interestingly, something like this "forebearance" is now being attempted in Brazil, according to an article in today's NYT.

In response to a series of violent gang attacks, the governor of Sao Paolo said:

"We are preserving their dignity and integrity," he said, noting that the police had not killed any jailed or paroled gang members during the latest outburst of violence. "Now I hope there will be reciprocity on their part."

We'll see how that works.

Many of the commenters have no sense of strategy. They are of the black and white school..same solution for every problem, what worked for Hitler will work for Hizbollah. Forbearance, as exemplified by the Israeli reaction postulated above, does two things. It gives a chance to an eventual winning of the "hearts and minds" problem and it wins the public relations war, about which I have seen some righteous right wing whining.

I guess the realization that Hitler, head of a modern industrial state, and Hizbollah, not, posed a different sort and level of threat and demanded a different sort and level of response will never seep into the minds of some. If and until that does, we will continue to have "arguments" made of false equivalences and fantastic "what ifs".

Sounds like he is calling for the wonderment of moral victories to me....

No, he's not, actually (whatever a wonderment is). He's talking about larger concepts. You just can't see it.

Maybe I was too hasty calling you a troll (although I knew you were, as you said, a frequent poster here - I recognize the tone) but you've now produced a second posting that belligerently refuses to address the original topic.

Why don't you tell us what you think a troll is?

What matters is winning. Maybe some extreme leftist are not keen on that. Have not really encounter any, but maybe there are some people somewhere that think like that. Anyway, they are very few if any. Well then, if you want to win, you work out the most effective strategy. And very often it is not to flail hysterically around and score domestic political points in order to gain ground in domestic political fights. I don't know about Israel, but probably the current solution is not effective and will not end up benefitting Israel's security goals. What I know with absolute certainty is that this is what happened with 9/11 - this criminal administration was more interested in ramming through their domestic goals than in annihilating the actual enemy. They have been giving gifts to bin Laden and still continue doing so. A tactical defeat looks actually like turning into a strategic one. Who could have believed it?

Of course a war atmosphere is very tempting politically: you can justify any strategic idiocy just by SOUNDING more aggressive than the opposition - a fearful electorate will largely react like lemmings. Hopefully reason and pure self-interest will prevail in the longer run and we can return into efficient fight back and WINNING. For God's sake.

I belligerently refused to address the original topic? No, what I addressed was your response to my argument.

I am actually not sure what a troll is. It's clear that a troll is not what you think it is, someone that disagrees with you. I suspect a troll is a person that doesn't care about the ideas being conveyed, but is merely posting for the sake of getting a response.

In that sense, your telling me that I am belligerent, your calling me a troll, your refusing to acknowledge that Robert Wright's call is reasonably construed as a moral victory, and your belligerent refusal to use google to find the definition of wonderment tells me all I need to know about who the troll is, Mr. Exasperanto.

Have a goodnight, try to get some sleep under your bridge.

If Israel had just gone for the damned prisoner swap ...

Bob

Neither Mr. Frog nor exasperanto are trolls.

Mr. Frog was using a cutesy rhetorical device to dis Kevin's point in kind of a smug way -- but he's entitled.

And I do think my good ally exasperanto responded a little crankily, to be truthful.

None of this rises (sinks) to the level of trollish behavior -- even remotely.

Bob

Mr. Frog:

I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of Wright's quote.

I don't think he was talking about moral victories; I think he was talking about tactical position for a favorable strategic outcome.

If moral suasion is involved in pressuring the world community -- including its Muslim allies -- to get Hezbollah to stop without Israel having to destroy half of Lebanon -- then so be it.

But the moral suasion in this case is a tactical instrument -- not an end in itself.

Of course it's always nice to be *right* -- but that's not what's at stake here.

What's at stake are all the wasted lives on both sides due to the unnecessary prolonging of this needless conflict.

Bob

Kevin, your key phrase is "...actually having a coherent long-term strategy to pair up with a short-term counsel of forbearance..." That would certainly make progress a lot more feasible. At the same time, an atmosphere of forebearance might create a climate in which a realistic strategy might be developed.

Not gonna happen. In a way, the Cheney gang is enslaved and paralyzed by the same fear they have worked so hard to instill in the country they are so carelessly ruining. Impotent fools like ChickenSquawk and Al may cling to the bullshit like a rose-petaled liferaft, but a majority of us are starting to realize how much digging-out we're going to have to do for a decade or more -- if we're lucky.

At this point, Israel is just America writ small.

It worked against ETA and the IRA.

The UK didn't invade Ireland to defeat the IRA as far as I can remember.

President George Bush and Osama bin Laden are a matched set; they feed each other and need each other. They represent the anti-modern faction in their respective societies ("civilizations"). Given that, I do not think so-called Islamofascists are any more dangerous than abortion clinic bombers. Both groups are intolerant and uncomfortable in this day and age. Both seek certainty in an uncertain world.

Please take some time and speak to muslims. Speak to many different muslims from the many different cultures and societies where you will find them. If you listen honestly and ask intelligent questions, you will find that they really are no different from Americans; there are some who are forward thinking, some who are very religiously devout and see the world through a God-fearing lens, and some who are angry and looking for a fight to redeem some part of self esteem that is lost in an increasingly harsh, uncaring, economically defined world.

The way forward is a contest of determination and a struggle of will. It's not unlike governments' battles with organized crime: Some governments do it successfully, others fail and govern societies that disintegrate over time. Successful governments are tough but at the same time maintain moral integrity and do not consistently lower their tactics to the those of their adversaries. The people (remember the people, the masses) need to be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys over time. That's the only way modern societies can continue to exist. And being the good guys involves more than just saying "they're bad" and "God is on our side." Being the good guys means taking our lumps as a society, showing restraint, coming down hard on the bad guys but showing mercy and compassion to innocents. In short, it means a tough law enforcement approach.

That's our reality. God help us all.

What I think is actually sometimes the smartest thing to do in response to terrorist provocation, which is forbearance, is very hard to counsel. [But] if you ask what kind of shape would Israel be in if they had done a day's worth of retaliation

All of this talk of forbearance is nice. But a month's worth of forbearance is wasted when your pilots get a direct hit on a clearly marked ambulance, whether in the first day's retaliation or not.

Israel lost this war by not controlling their fires against civilians, refugees, and other protected targets.

I'm sick of the assumption that the Israelis honor any cease-fires or truces.

When there was a cease-fire with the Palestinians sometime last year, the Israelis were doing assassinations of Hamas leaders thus breaking the cease-fire.

Show me a time when Israel ever honored a cease-fire when the opposition didn't.

Don't beat up on yourself Kevin...thats my job. Besides as any fool knows some problems never get solved...they just get replaced by new ones.
So now all thats cleared up...can we see the pics of you and Andrew Sullivan 'sheepherding' in Wyoming please?

well, the basic principle to me is that we're all very objective and astute when it comes to judging what other people should be doing, but not when it comes to our own situation. So make that principle work for you. For example, we all know that India has to show restraint when dealing with Pakistan & Bangladesh, we all know that Tutsis have to show restraint when dealing with Hutus, Kosovars have to show restraint when dealing with Serbs, China has to show restraint when dealing with Taiwan, etc. And vice-versa.

So one way is point out that you have to practice what you preach. The choice is between striving for an order based to some extent at least on spirituality and the rule of law, or America and Israel as simply bigger, stronger tribes in a pagan, chaotic, world full of tribes.

Also, I don't know if you're a fan of Douglas Hofstadter, but he had a very good chapter on this in his 1982 book Metamagical Themas. I believe the chapter was called Axelrod & the evolution of cooperation. The upshot was that a successful foreign policy should be "nice, provocable and forgiving".

For Israel/Lebanon specifically, a good first start might have been for Olmert to pose a question to Nasrallah, and given him a week to answer: "Does Hezbollah consider itself to be at war with Israel?" If Nasrallah answers yes, Israel more or less has cart blanche to attack. Most likely, the answer would have been no, with a but, or no, with an if.

Secondly, when Hezbollah fires its (inaccurate, silly ass) missiles, Israel can hold a press conference or a UN presentation, and say "we know where these missiles are coming from, and if we fire at them, we might hit civilians. We don't want to hit civilians." Then, you put the responsibility on the international commnity to suggest a solution. "Are we just supposed to allow them to fire without hitting back? What, international community, can you suggest?"

So to find an alternative to the current strategy of brute force, you have to have some faith in the ability for many of the main actors to come together and reason with each other. Then if you are betrayed, you can always switch to brute force. No big conclusion, these are just suggestions from thinking aloud.

Jimmy Carter struggled with this in his 1980 debate with Ronald Reagan. Transcript from The Onion's "This Dumb Century"
Jimmy Carter: "We have an opportunity to use American technology and know-how to develop our own alternate, renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, freeing us from our reliance on foreign oil. This is sound policy, not just for America, but for the Planet Earth."

Ronald Reagan: "While much of what President Carter says is true, he is missing one very important point. That is, if America is to continue to prosper in the 1980s and beyond, we must join together and kill the bastards."

Jimmy Carter: "Next year, I will propose to Congress a sweeping revitalization program, with increased funding for the development of mass-transit systems, infrastructure rebuilding, and low-cost housing and job-training programs for disadvantaged minorities."

Ronald Reagan: "Kill the bastards, kill the bastards."

also point out that there's two paths America can go down. There's the path of Roosevelt, Gen. Marshall, Edward Murrow, Eisenhower, Ben-Gurion & Rabin. Or there's the path of Douglas Macarthur/ Ariel Sharon. We are advocating the traditional American path. Althouse, et.al. are advocating the untested path of Macarthur / Sharon. When we have a proven, successful, quintessentially American strategy, why would we go with this untested, rather dubious, neocon strategy?

We're now seeing what history might have been like if Macarthur had gotten his way, and it's not pretty.

America: embracing the dark side, and loving it!

Well, the idiocy of American Hawk et al. on this board certainly illustrates the rhetorical issues at stake.

This is an incredibly important issue for Americans to try to get their tiny heads around.

After 9/11, there were two really critical things America had to at least try to do: capture Bin Laden and demonstrate to his potential supporters in the Islamic world that America and the west were not their enemies.

This latter critical step would have required the patience and restraint of a great and mature nation. America, instead, invaded a non-involved country.

Well, the idiocy of American Hawk et al. on this board certainly illustrates the rhetorical issues at stake.

This is an incredibly important issue for Americans to try to get their tiny heads around.

After 9/11, there were two really critical things America had to at least try to do: capture Bin Laden and demonstrate to his potential supporters in the Islamic world that America and the west were not their enemies.

This latter critical step would have required the patience and restraint of a great and mature nation. America, instead, invaded a non-involved country. The world will pay the price for this mistake for generations.

The original provocation was a pinprick-a minor border incident that was really nothing new and probably a result of soldierly negligence. Israel should have regarded it as just the price of living in a nasty neighborhood.

I don't really think that a sovereign nation can tolerate systematic attacks on its (internationally undisputed) territory. The question only is what is most effective (and not most effective SOUNDING) counter measure to stop them. It is starting to be clear that this invasion certainly wasn't it.

And when there was a murderous terrorist attack on the US soil, the most effective response probably wasn't a disastrously incompetent and costly occupation of a country unrelated with that murderous attack. This is not about pacifism, it's about getting even and defending yourself in the most effective, most overwhelming way possibly. Bush could just as well been hired by militant Islamists: it's not easy to find a more welcome, more inept response to any enemies of the West than what this criminal, criminally incompetent administration has done.

And that was in the documents Spanish police found after the Madrid bombing: that Al Qaeda hoped Bush would win the upcoming election, because they could never hope to find a stupider or more easily manipulated opponent. Why the Dems didn't use that, I'll never understand.

Oh, right, they're into this "playing fair" crap.

Truman had George Kennan to make his theoretical case, people like Dean Acheson working for him, and Walter Lippman writing columns about it.

Bush has Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh.

Many of the commenters have no sense of strategy.

Perhaps but odds are that American Hawk will one day hit at least one of the skeeters he's trying to knock off with his Winchester.

There's a phrase about certain kinds of arguments: a cornucopia of evidence. In the Middle East there's a cornucopia of evidence to justify any act whatsoever. Arabs can point to the cleansing surrounding the war in '48. Israelis can point to a half dozen wars. Arabs can point to Sabra-Satilla. Israelis can point to pizza parlor bombings. On and on and on. The rhetorics used are beyond hardened: they are reliquary, fossilized. It was said of Arrafat that he never missed a chance to miss a chance. That's true of the whole region. So, it's tempting to say they deserve each other and turn away.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/08/the_1971_strate.html

We are talking about changing tactics, not changing aims. When you're losing a game, or a trial, or a business, or a nation, you look at what's not working and you change tactics so you have a chance to win.

A refusal to change tactics means defeat. Republicans refuse to change tactics. They refuse to even consider a change in tactics.

Let's put it in a way any red stater can understand. The Republicans are a football coach running a Wishbone when there are 250-pound linebackers with speed on every other team who can stop that play.

Even Darrell Royal will tell you what you have to do when that happens.

Pass.

And if you got to change quarterbacks to pass, change quarterbacks.

Might makes right. Despite the effectiveness of aggressive rhetoric on the blog comments and cable tv fronts Israel is losing in Lebanon. They will need to adopt a strategy that takes into account Hezbollah's military might or they will eventually cease to exist. This will mean negotiation and concession from Israel because the days of them being able to dictate terms from a position of strength are over.
Trying to strike a deal with entities that deny your right to exist such as Israel faces is close to impossible I know, but further military action will only weaken it more.

The Jewish people used to believe in the concept of forgiveness. Apparently not anymore. They now believe they can kill their way to a peaceful existence, and in that wrong-headed view of the human drama, have sealed their own doom.

This little conflict keeps reminding me of my favorite Bruce Cockburn song:

Here comes the helicopter -- second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How many kids they've murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher...I'd make somebody pay

I don't believe in guarded borders and I don't believe in hate
I don't believe in generals or their stinking torture states
And when I talk with the survivors of things too sickening to relate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would retaliate

On the Rio Lacantun, one hundred thousand wait
To fall down from starvation -- or some less humane fate
Cry for guatemala, with a corpse in every gate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would not hesitate

I want to raise every voice -- at least I've got to try
Every time I think about it water rises to my eyes.
Situation desperate, echoes of the victims cry
If I had a rocket launcher...Some son of a bitch would die

We need to reclaim this turning the other cheek stuff from the dustbin of history.

In Jesus' time, when a Roman soldier cuffed you it was a sign of strength to be able to stand your ground. Offering a soldier your other cheek in public was a way of saying, "See, I'm tougher than you." It was a great embarrassment to the soldier.

Of course, if the soldier was threatening you with his spear or sword, it was undoubtedly the wiser course of action to get out of his way.

It's Blue Collar to swing back every time. Very commendable. But we are in the Knowledge Economy now. We are supposed to be smart enough not to swing at innocent victims in the neighbourhood. The GOP are pandering to the worst in Blue Collar values. Smart in politics, but dumb in military strategy. That is the GOP mistake.

Even good, i.e., not on the Pentagon gravy train, military experts use terms like "de-escalation" (which is your "forbearance") as a tactic, never going on offense against the country the "non-state entity" is operating out of, the new war as "4GW", etc.

I think the military experts are going to rip the GOP (and Israel) big time in public life, so it would be wise to get on their side now. Most liberals are there anyway. They can get the ideas and the talk at
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm

The GOP really are dumb militarily. Read military strategists and get informed. They are giving out pure gold for free on the Internet. If the Democrats say their ideas, they will stomp the GOP, for the people, blue collar and white, are just waiting for someone to say something -- anything -- intelligent.

Wouldn't it be really neat to hear someone say something intelligent in public life?

You can be simultaneously an implacable foe to your enemies and a great guy to your peeps. ~rcmk1

There you have the essential human problem, and the truth about life that makes all "moral" religious stances ultimately incoherent.

Ah, Kevin.

What a classic libby wishy washy sentiment.

Yes. When Al Queeda hit our towers and pentegon, we should have had a big party with all the arabs and mooslims and sang kumbyeahh around a camp fire. THen, the mooslims would've pulled back their robes and shown the explosives strapped to theirselves, and the libs would have all cried "Noooo, pwease don't hurt us! Let us offer our backsides to you in supplication!" And that would have been that.

Don't it feel good to have the cowboy's in charge? Get R Done!

Go Bush! Kick some A! You make the libbys look more ridiculous everyday!

I have no idea what the answer is to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.
But if knee-jerk defense of Israel in this country is rooted in some kind of Christian religious tribalism, then I want nothing to do with it.

I'll bet egbert is a bed-wetting pussy who is afraid of his own shadow and lives in mommy's basement, cause he is too fucking lazy to get a real job.

These pansy-ass conservative Bush lovers make we want to vomit, with their willingness to sacrifice other people's children to fight their fucked up wars and they don't even have the guts to pay for them - instead charging it to our kids credit cards.

I would love to rearrange their faces so they might be able to think a little more clearly....

It's Blue Collar to swing back every time. Very commendable. But we are in the Knowledge Economy now. We are supposed to be smart enough not to swing at innocent victims in the neighbourhood. The GOP are pandering to the worst in Blue Collar values. Smart in politics, but dumb in military strategy. That is the GOP mistake.

Taking this a step further, it's a sign of the president's (and the GOP's) political weakness that he needs to do this. FDR had no such weakness. His political strength was unquestioned. So he could afford to do what he thought to be the right thing. Our country is so divided now politically, that no party can be this strong.

Egbert is a spoof, right?

There are a lot of trolls, but such obvious logical fallacies are intended to expose the neo-cons, not support them.

Right?

And Egbert, if you are sincere and you do not realize what logical mistakes and rhetorical abuses are in yhour comments, just ask, and I am sure someone here can help you craft a sensical and persuasive argument.

Yes, we should outsmart the enemy by... never fighting back.

I don't think anybody has suggested that we should never fight back. What is being suggested is that we be smarter about how we fight back.

Bush could just as well been hired by militant Islamists: it's not easy to find a more welcome, more inept response to any enemies of the West than what this criminal, criminally incompetent administration has done.

More or less implicit in this statement is a point I expected to find somebody making explicitly in this thread but have not: that terror attacks are often designed to provoke heavy-handed retaliation, sometimes even to derail negotiations for ceasefires and peace deals. When such retaliation takes place, it plays into the terrorists' hands.

Isn't this a pretty compelling argument for tactical restraint? Am I wrong? What am I missing?

Loris:

remember that bin Laden issued threats against the US the day before the last election. The CIA concluded that this meant that bin Laden wanted Bush to win.

Enough with claiming liberals support terrorism... who in American politics is being supported by the terrorists? When has bin Laden told us to vote for Democrats?

Hey hawk,
what were you asskickers doing from Sept. 39 to Dec. 41? Solid grasp of history, chump.

I have seen no reference in either the initial post nor the 60 or so comments to the fact that Israel walked out of Lebanon,unilaterally, some six years ago. Certainly Forebearance with a Capital F.

Did the Arabs say "Gee....maybe the Israelis want peace!"? Nope. They said "Ah! See...we were sufficiently strong that we were able to drive the Zionist Entity out. They are weak, and this proves it."
And continued to add provocations for six years. And continued to arm with rockets containing ball bearings; rockets which have use solely as terror machines, preferably aimed against civilians. And as this thing began, Israel had continued to the pullout from Gaza and was preparing to move from the West Bank.

And to the "Lex Tallionis" commenter....that applies to civil and not criminal law, and according to Rashi, was never enforced in that manner. It was always "money for an eye and money for a tooth".

Oh yes...then there is Shebbaa Farms. Basically the United States sold Israel out. But that's happened before.

Part of the way Truman managed to convince the nation to restraint was by going hard in Korea -- a decision which at the time (and perhaps in retrospect too) was widely considered disastrous. We know the Bushies love to compare their man to Harry. Part of this is because Truman too was afflicted by terrible approval ratings before historians would eventually venerate him. But I think the Bushies also like the comparison because it positions the Iraq debacle as "Bush's Korea" -- a terrible, painful stalemate of a war that the public soon found unacceptable, but which would not, in the long run, ruin Truman's reputation.

Regardless of the merits of this comparison, it's worth remembering that the way Eisenhower got elected was by promising to end the Korean War -- and because he was Eisenhower, he didn't have to worry about being labelled militarily soft. Is there anyone the Dems could draft who would have such a stature? Wes Clark doesn't strike me as the man, but he's about as close as it gets.

Good points, David.

P.S. Nils -- I agree that Wes Clark is not the right man -- how about Colin Powell?

It is not a call for turning the other cheek; rather, it suggests that savagely swinging back every time one's cheek is dealt so much as a brushing blow does not amount to effective boxing, much less enlightened belligerent behavior.

Carr appears to be giving Israel no credit whatever for withdrawing its army from Southern Lebanon and withdrawing its soldiers from Gaza. This undermines his argument. Israeli forebearance is what permitted Hizbollah to arm in the first place.

Carr also does not seem to note, or to care, that in terms of the ability to wage war, Hizbollah has suffered more from the last month's combat than Israel has suffered. Whatever the world thinks, Israel is at least marginally more secure than it was a month ago, physically. Although jihadists may flock to Lebanon to join Hizbollah, they were doing that anyway. Syria and Iran have less ability to arm those jihadists, so when they arrive in Lebanon they'll be mostly unarmed, untrained parasites in a society trying to rebuild.

Kevin,

I appreciate the sentiment. Our abiding faith in the power of moral, lawful action and self-restraint in the face of barbarism is one clear advantage that the western world enjoys in the present struggle. But, as you continue to sort through the notion, I hope that you'll play out the likely consequences of such a strategy.

The Israelis could easily have bombarded Lebanon for a day, and then sent half a million of their citizens into the bomb shelters to await the response from Hezbollah. It's been suggested by other posters that the Arab world would then have turned against Hezbollah. I would remind them that Arab states condemned the initial assault only *after* it became clear that Lebanon would pay a heavy price for Hezbollah's adventurism. It is one thing for an Arab government to condemn a group like Hezbollah for endangering innocent Arab lives - quite another for any government in the Middle East to question attacks on Israel when there is little apparent cost. Still, let us assume for a moment that after days (or weeks) of rocket attacks the OIC, Arab League, or UN would have condemned Hezbollah and moved to halt the attacks. Let us assume that the civilian population in Israel would have forgiven its government for failing to perform the single most important function of the nation state - protecting its population - or that the population would have been sufficiently optimistic to believe in the power of forbearance. Let us go a step further, and assume that Hezbollah would have heeded international calls for a ceasefire. Where would that have left the situation?

It certainly would have swung international sympathy behind Israel. There’s no question about that. Any resolution, of course, would still have condemned the “day’s worth of retaliation” as disproportionate, but a week or more of pictures of Israelis in the bomb shelters might have reversed the general animus toward Israel (so eloquently manifested on this message board). And then what?

For the past six years, Hezbollah attacks and Israeli retaliation have generally followed the outline suggested in your post. Hezbollah fires rockets, and Israel responds with an airstrike. Hezbollah attempts to kidnap soldiers, and Israel shells a Hezbollah base. Tit-for-tat. Proportionality. Even if Israel tipped the equation a little further, and failed to respond at all to attacks, that would be unlikely to solve the situation. Hezbollah, as you rightly point out, relies upon anti-Israel sentiment to justify its hold on southern Lebanon. Provoking Israeli retaliation is thus an existential requirement. It would have escalated its attacks, always pushing the limits of forbearance. After enough attacks, there would have been a response. A democratic state cannot exercise forbearance forever.

You write that "conventional military assaults are usually counterproductive against a guerrilla enemy like the ones we're fighting now." That is, in some sense, self-evidently true. Yet I'm not certain that it's an apt characterization of recent events in Lebanon.

Is it conceivable that Israeli restraint would have resulted in the dispatch of a robust international peacekeeping force with a broadly-strengthened mandate? Tough to believe. UNIFIL has been in place for decades, and has proven wholly ineffectual. Would Hezbollah have lost stature among its Shiite base, the Lebanese people, or the Arab world? Difficult to see how. If, for a period of days or weeks, images of Israelis cowering in shelters were broadcast around the Arab world while Israel practiced forbearance, Hezbollah would have won a massive propaganda victory. That international pressure might eventually halt the attacks would not reverse this coup. Would the Lebanese Army be deploying to South Lebanon? No reason why it should. The Lebanese would be crazy to risk civil war if the heaviest price they were in danger of paying for ceding autonomy to Hezbollah were a single day of Israeli bombardment.

The Israeli strategy, all bluster aside, did not rely solely on military force to vanquish Hezbollah. Instead, it seems to have conceived of four stages. In the first, Israel attacks Lebanese infrastructure and bombards Hezbollah strongpoints, demonstrating that there are, for Lebanon, worse prospects than renewed internal strife. In the second, Israeli forces enter Lebanon, pushing Hezbollah forces out of a strip along the southern border and dismantling its bases, arms caches, and infrastructure. Both of these stages will undoubtedly serve to radicalize a fair percentage of the population, bolster support for Hezbollah, and prove counterproductive – if left on their own. But it has never been Israel’s intention to reoccupy the southern buffer zone and wage a protracted counterinsurgency. It has learned the lesson that you cite – conventional military assaults cannot win this battle by themselves. And so we come to the third stage: the insertion of a robust international force, capable of offering the people of South Lebanon some measure of security and stability, and of limiting further Hezbollah attacks. Such a force could not have successfully deployed into a region still actively controlled by Hezbollah – the conventional military assault is effectively a precondition for its success. This force does not represent a permanent solution, either; peacekeeping can no more suppress an insurgency than can a conventional assault. But it can create the framework for a successful projection of Lebanese sovereignty into the south of the country. This is the fourth stage, the entry of the Lebanese security forces, the provision of basic governmental services to the people of South Lebanon, and the integration of the southern portion of the nation into the rest of the state. That is how insurgencies are defeated – by offering the people who support them a chance for a better life, an alternative to violent struggle, an opportunity to replace the gun with the plow.

That’s a longwinded way of making this simple point: Forbearance is not a strategy, it is a tactic. It is difficult to see what strategic purpose it might have served in this instance. Military force is likewise a tactic, not an end in itself. If the Israelis had sought to bomb Hezbollah out of existence, that would indeed have been counterproductive. But if the offensive is intended to temporarily displace Hezbollah, draw in a robust peacekeeping force, and create the opportunity for southern Lebanon to be integrated into the Lebanese nation, then it is a very different matter.

But, republicrat, didn't you read the Dems' new party platform, boiled down to a bumper sticker?

War is Not the Answer.

JC: It isn't so much forebearance that is needed, but instead a need for real and effective diplomacy.

Nobody has yet found a diplomatic solution to the fact that Israel's enemies want to destroy it, and they persistently find new ways to organize and attack. All the diplomatic solutions to date, such as the treaty between Egypt and Israel, depend on Israel defeating its adversaries militarily.

Beyond that, of course, actually having a coherent long-term strategy to pair up with a short-term counsel of forbearance would make the job easier.

Israel has a coherent long-term strategy, which is to survive each short-term crisis as it arises. This is perfectly sensible if you think that the enemies of Israel always want to destroy it because it exists, rather than because of the particulars of its policies and actions. Right now, Syria and Iran are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which is a continuation of Syrian policy since Israel was created.

Yes, we should outsmart the enemy by... never fighting back.

I don't think anybody has suggested that we should never fight back. What is being suggested is that we be smarter about how we fight back.

They know that. But they desperately need to perpetuate the strawman going into November.

I'm just meandering around the point here, trying to marshal my own thoughts by setting them down on the blog.

That's a good use of blogging, and the best use by us of the opportunity to read and post comments.

Nobody has yet found a diplomatic solution to the fact that Israel's enemies want to destroy it, and they persistently find new ways to organize and attack.

War hasn't changed things either.

All the diplomatic solutions to date, such as the treaty between Egypt and Israel, depend on Israel defeating its adversaries militarily.

Israel occupied Lebanon for years and it lead to
the creation of Hezzbollah.

This is not an either or situation. The solution requires a combination of force and diplomacy.
The use limited strikes instead of an all out invasion would have a better situation for Israel then what currently exists.

Bob M:

Thanks for the link, but you do realize that William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion of course, and not that of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, actually "hope[s] that, unlike von Paulus, our commanders know when to get out, regardless of orders from a leader who will not recognize reality." What's next, advocating the violent overthrow of government or the assassination of Bush himself? Is that what you think would be "really neat" to hear someone say in public too?

Del Capslock:

You've never seen that bumper sticker?!

You know, these Radicals, neocons, and fellow travellers/useful idiots of the Radicals and neocons have been advancing their "worse is better" theories for more than 3 years now. Can they please give us some metrics by which we will know exactly how much worse things are supposed to get before they start getting better, and how we will know? Cause right now it looks awfully like the Radicals really are trying to trigger the "end times" by setting off WWIII.

If there are any serious answers to this challenge (which I doubt), anyone want to bet that they will include the phrase "six months"?

Cranky

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out how to formulate this argument in an effective way.

Fortunately, others have -- i.e., Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus....

Don't we celebrate these people on occasion in this country? Might be time to remind ourselves why.

Nice strawman, Cranky -- no one is saying that support for Israel is intended to bring about the End Times - that will happen only when God's timing is met. “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

P.S. mackdaddy -- I have no problem running our government as Jesus sets forth -- you may get some flack from atheists like Kevin and Michael Newdow though.

Newdow, of course, is most famous for a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf. Newdow has once again filed suit regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the course of Newdow's previous suit, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

In November of 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. money. In a November 14, 2005 interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Newdow compared "In God We Trust" being on U.S. Currency with segregation (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them (whites and blacks) got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's OK to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's OK to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs."

In June of 2006, a federal judge rejected this latest lawsuit, on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and they do not dictate anyone's beliefs. Newdow stated that he would appeal the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

Del Capslock:

Are you still around? Have you ever seen this bumper sticker:

War is Not the Answer.

Did anyone else watch Meet the Press? I have to admit I was shocked as well to find out terrorists are still targeting airliners for their next 9/11. I was sure they were smart enough to find one of a thousand other ways to attack. So, in hindsight, I guess it wasn't such a bad idea to focus on protecting our skies.

Thomas-

'War is not THE answer' is not the same thing as 'War is not AN answer.'

I have seen the bumpersticker/yardsign 'War is NEVER an answer', which all but the most extreme pacifists would agree is ridiculous.

My point is that you are smearing Democrats with a slogan that they are not using, and which you are misreading.

If you (speaking broadly of administration supporters) succeed in tarring critics of the Iraq war with this brush, it is by being dishonest on several levels. Are you proud of this?

Wow. That spam is annoying. I just want to say that one of the things that impressed people about George W. Bush after 9-11 is that he WAITED to attack Afghanistan. Some three weeks. He made conditions, lined up international support and basically waited until he had his ducks in order before he went in, when just about all his ocuntrymen would have been more than happy to launch a war on Sept. 12. So being patience does have its advantages ... although, as you mentioned, it's not easy, particularly when dealing with these unsavory people.

Not pointless at all Kevin. This is the kind of reasoned consideration of the alternatives that rationality is all about. It is also commendable on your part that you didn't feel the need to swagger around pretending that you have all the answers.

Del Capslock:

Are you still around? Have you ever seen this bumper sticker:

War is Not the Answer.

I'm still around, intermittently. I don't know if I've seen that bumper sticker or not. What's your point? I don't derive any meaning from it, if that's what you mean, anymore than I make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on those creepy bumper stickers of Calvin (and Hobbes) kneeling in front of a cross.

Tulkinghorn:

I voted for John Kerry, so you may want to reassess that judgment. This entire thread is indeed about "war never being the answer" re: terrorism -- you need be to point out examples?

I do recognize at least that SOME Democrats realize war is an answer -- Joe Lieberman, for example -- I would vote for him too (in fact, I did when he ran with Gore in 2000). Others REALLY understand what this war is all about -- 9/11 really did change things -- I would vote for John Lehman:

http://www.johnflehman.com/pdf/proceedings_MAR2004.pdf

Rob:

I agree there are many things Bush has done right re: terrorism. I just thought Kerry would have done better.

I just wanted to know if you had seen that bumper sticker, Del Capslock -- it's good to know if I am debating one of those or not.

Time to go back to the borders after the six day war. A nation has a right to take land from which it was attacked permanently. How else will the bad guys realize how bad it is being bad. Instead, for 40 years Isreal has been trying variations on the liberal theme as noted here, and dying for it.
Agression must bear a price.

I've got 22 years of military service, and still work in Dod in weapons development. My opposition to the Bush admin is rooted in my heartfelt belief that they are horribly incompetent at everything but politics, and the longer they are in power the less safe we will be.

Thomas:

I find it surprising that you voted for Kerry when you accept the (repub) party line that to oppose their strategies regarding terrorism is to decline to fight terrorism. That party line is incorrect, and is stated by people who know it is incorrect.

Leiberman has been rejected because he has been reciting and arguing this bullshit argument, and the BS detectors of the CT Democrats have picked it up and rejected it.

Take these two statements: 'It is good to fight terrorism by invading Afganistan. It is bad to fight terrorism by invading Iraq.'

You, and Leiberman, and the administration may disagree with the second of the two statements. But to say that the people making them (such as, say, the majority of the public and 80% of Democrats) are advocating not fighting terrorism is ridiculous. It is also dishonest.

And the question posed by Drum is not if it makes sense to argue that '"war never being the answer" re: terrorism' - it is whether war is sometimes not the answer to terrorism, and how to argue that point effectively.

WRT the comment about Isreal's leaving Lebanon in 2000 showing forebearance, someone obviously haven't studied their recent history and how Hezbollah came to be the major political and military power in Southern Lebanon.

But there's a reason some commentators are referring to the current situation as Hezbollah's second victory over the IDF.

Tulkinghorn:

Well said. An exercise in futility, but well said nonetheless.

I think the ovararching Republican plan is to make Democrats sound like pedantic assholes by making such stupid and dishonest statements that the only way respond is to be a pedantic asshole.

Nobody likes pedants, and few will vote for them.