We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
What proportionality means Commentators who have been lambasting Israel for reacting ‘disproportionately’ in its military reaction to Hezbollah strike me as making a mistake as to what ‘proportionality’ really means within the context of a war. If a man hiding behind a wall fires a rifle at you, proportionality does not mean you must only fire a rifle back at them… it means you should only attack them with enough force to kill the enemy hiding behind a wall, which may well mean returning fire with a 120mm tank round or a 500 kg HE bomb. A nuclear warhead would be ‘disproportionate’.
I would argue that Just War Theory’s notions for ‘proportionality’ only makes sense as meaning proportional to the imperative of effectively attacking a legitimate target, not proportional to a legitimate target’s specific actions.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome — sound familiar in a different context?
I couldn’t agree more.
Let’s get the “proportionality” nonsense out of the way right now.
What Israel should have done, then, is:
— kidnap two Hezbollah “soldiers”
— fire a hundred rockets a day indiscriminately into Lebanese towns and/or Beirut and/or Palestinian refugee camps?
Yeah, it would have worked out so much better that way…
Who started complaining, anyway? The French?
I agree – the notion of Israel defending herself ‘disproportionately’ is ridiculous.
Virtually anything Israel does to defend itself is “disproportionate”, and for good reason: the population of Israel is outnumbered by the muslim world by more than 100 to 1. Israel needs to kill 100 muslims to have the same political impact on the muslim world as a muslim terrorist achieves by killing 1 Israeli.
Go ahead, Israel, be disproportionate, and let Allah sort them out.
Israel’s “proportional” response would be to attempt to drive their Arab neighbors into the sea, to “slaughter them where they find them, behind the rocks and trees” etc …
It’s a good thing (for the Arabs) that Israel doesn’t have a sense of proportion.
The truly sophisticated that warfare is really about symbolism. A military operation is really just a really big and expense piece of performance art.
Proportionality isn’t about any physical results. Its about something much more important. Its about how people feel about it.
You think a nuclear warhead would be disproportionate?
I don’t. It might be (in the wider context) ineffective but not disproportionate. In war the only thing that matters is that you win.
The proportionality argument is a cousin to the common argument that Israel and the various Arab groups attacking it are equivalent actors in a “cycle of violence”.
This is a diminutive of the cold war argument that the US and its allies were basically the same as the SU and its captive nations and therefore morally equivalent—both big, powerful countries that had extensive militaries and were involved around the world in various alliances.
This form of argument allows the proponent to make two very important evasions.
First, no difference is acknowledged between the type of system operating—a system of relative freedom is indistinguishable from a system of totalitarian repression.
Secondly, no difference is acknowledged between the means or ends being used and pursued—a system which rests on repressive fascistic militarism and pursues the destruction and subjugation of its adversary to a totalitarian system is indistinguishable from a relatively representative system which attempts to preserve and spread the ideas of political and economic liberalism.
While these substantive differences are blanked out, and, therefore, any true context for the conflict is obscured, the observer attempting to make a moral and political judgement regarding the nature of the dispute, and what might constitute a rational response, is trapped in an unreadable environment, like a carnival funhouse, where everything is distorted, and one cannot trust on’s own eyes and sense of balance.
As in any situation in which a deliberate attempt is made to confuse and obscure serious moral issues, one very pertinent question is: Who profits from such an approach?
As I noted in a previous comment about this type of warfare, one side lives among civilians, disguised as civilians, uses them as shields, and targets them routinely with attacks that have no military value or merit, while the other is a fairly traditional military organization which uses what care it can during combat to attack military targets when it can identify them.
The proportionality argument, then, works to restrict the military actions of only the latter side, while it undercuts their clearly justified acts of self-defense by equating all acts of violence regardless of context.
This is an old con game from an old book of intellectual and moral scams that has been kicking around for a long time now. The purpose is to disarm the victim of aggression, both literally and figuatively. It’s an intellectual “pigeon drop” just looking for some new sucker to scam.
And, ya know, there’s more than one born every minute.
Proportionality is a disengenuous means to frame the question of attack and response. The proportionality ploy gives the attacker control of the response.
So, the aggressive pig chooses mud wrestling expecting the farmer to engage in mud wrestling which will suit the pig just fine.
In reality, i.e. on a real farm, the farmer’s response to an aggressive pig will be ham and bacon.
“Proprtionality” is simply another rhetorical device invented by the usual suspects to hamper the Israelis,it essentially a euphemism for “Stand there and diet like a man”.
Hey, I’ve been dieting like a man for several months now, and lost quite a bit of unneeded aged bozo material.
Of course, like a man, I do it sitting down, and sometimes find myself eating cheesburgers or ice cream in my sleep, but, hey, anything to dodge that salad shooter.
Disproportionality, 9 Lebanese dead for every Israeli at the moment, is not the only way that the Israeli government is breaking the principles of just war theory. Perhaps more importantly their campaign is an utter tactical and strategic failure. All that killing and nothing to show for it.
> Disproportionality, 9 Lebanese dead for every Israeli
> at the moment, is not the only way that the Israeli
> government is breaking the principles of just war
> theory.
Breaking the Principles of Just War Theory? Does that mean the Israelis will get a D on their term paper? Or maybe the all-powerful United Nations will express their strong disappointment in Israel? Oh wait! They did that already — again & again & again.
So who is it enforces the Principles of the Theory of Just War? And how do they do the enforcing? And where were they when the Brits were totally disproportionately murdering uncounted numbers of innocent German children with their indiscriminate bombing raids on German civilian areas?
People who talk about “principles of just war theory” are either (a) well-protected dilettantes who have forgotten about human nature & human history, or (b) cynical cowardly partisans.
My take:
This ‘disproportionate’ nonsense is coming from UN and other politicans who want to achieve their own goals.
The word relates to What is reasonable.
War kills people and breaks things ‘ (usually attributed to Coin Powell). But the goal is victory. The goal is not to kill and break. Therefore combatants should not deliberately produce harm unrelated to victory.
Notice there is no limit to the harm itself, it need only be reasonably related to winning.
All of which leads to the true question. ‘what is winning?’ And that is precisely why war conventions insist upon a means to visibly identify combatants. Otherwise victory is uncertain until nothing remains – things or life.
“If a man hiding behind a wall fires a rifle at you, proportionality does not mean you must only fire a rifle back at them… it means you should only attack them with enough force to kill the enemy hiding behind a wall, which may well mean returning fire with a 120mm tank round or a 500 kg HE bomb.”
Let’s try another analogy.
Imagine a man attacks you with a knife on a bus, and then runs to the back of the bus full of by-standers. Are you justified in indiscriminately shooting everyone on the bus with an AK-47 to get to him? Especially if you found out later that he slipped out the window. The Samizdata crowd, who never heard of a good reason not to kill Ragheads, would say yes.
The Left never callled for proportionality during the Branch Davidian siege (or the initial commando-style raid, for that matter).
Neil,
Bad analogy, for several reasons:
1. The bus scenario is close-quarters combat, as opposed to indirect fire.
2. An AK-47 is to unwieldy to use in a crowded bus.
3. No way is the knife wielder gonna be able to slash someone, turn around, and climb over people to leap out of a window in time to a) get out of the victim’s line of sight, thus b) fooling the victim into thinking that the assailant is still on the bus.
4. If I’m the victim, and I see the knife wielder heading for a window, I’ll ask the bus driver to stop the bus after the assailant jumps out and breaks his/her shoulder. Then I’ll leave the bus, pull my pistol on the assailant and wait for cops and ambulance to show up.
5. A knife wielder can usually be subdued without actually killing him/her. Not so much the case when seeking to subdue an urban artillerist.
When I read people complaining about “disproportionate” Israeli attacks in the media, I take this as a fairly clear sign that Israel is achieving its objectives.
Going back to the related topic of targeting civilians:
Here is what commenter Robert wrote on hit & run :
“Anyway, if I were in charge of all war, I’d target only civilians. To put it another way, the civilian is the person holding the gun, and the military is the gun; it being too hard to shoot the gun out of the person’s hand, I’m aiming at the person holding the gun. The gun is harmless without someone holding it; a military is similarly harmless without people behind them.
The way I argued before, if nobody ever attacked civilians, then there’d never have been a need for a military. Seems the most effective way to make war is to go after the civilians the most direct way you can; it may in some cases be necessary to fight the military if they’re in the way, but that is to be avoided if possible.”
See here
This seems absolutely right.
The purpose of the military is to protect it’s base, it’s civilians. The theory of the indirect approach says you should bypass costly battles with the military and hit right at the soft belly, at the enemy’s civilians – this will bring the war to a quick and relatively less bloody end.
An example of that strategy is Gen. Sherman’s raid deep into the South in the Civil War.
Of course, that’s exactly Hizbollah’s strategy in rocketting Israeli cities.
Seems that is what is going on in Lebanon. Israel is trying to bring home a clear message to the Lebanese shia and Hizbollah: “Attacks have consequences, think twice before attacking us next time”.
5. A knife wielder can usually be subdued without actually killing him/her.
It depends upon the context. Not being a state employee equipped with CS gas, and large club and an armoured vest I don’t fancy having to try it.
Call me old fashioned, but… I thought the aim of waging war was to actually win. I also thought winning was achieved by having the capacity to do more violence to your opponent than he could to you.
The UN’s latest buzzword “proportionate” would seem to favour an eternal attrional stalemate.
But then what do you expect from the UN and that crook Annan.
A military operation is really just a really big and expense piece of performance art.
I couldn’t agree more with Shannon on this. And I suspect so do the various Islamic terrorists since AQ demonstrated the efficacy of putting on “spectaculars”.
The West hasn’t quite caught up with this notion that you have to truly appall with violence. Or rather, the West has forgotten. The bombing of Japan in WWII achieved true “shock and awe” and that proved rather effective.
No, my guess is the samizdata crowd would say that an effective attack requires you have a good idea where your targets is and by your own definition that means your example is preposterous. Also given the number of article I have read here slamming Israel for various reasons, your “raghead” remark helps me dismiss you as an idiot.
All Lebanese casualties are called “civilian”, which means no matter how many Hezbollah are killed, the Israelis are killing “civilians”. Also please explain how just war theory requires a similar number of losses on both sides? How does that work exactly?
We will see what happens at the end, because this is only the beginning. Clearly you know nothing about military affairs to make such a preposterous statement. In fact to make such an idiotic remark you may well be a BBC journalist!
To the British commentariat, “disproportionate” means “beyond what good manners permits.” LOL j/k
I believe Israel is doing the right thing, and so do a large majority of Americans according to polls; one of the few things Americans are agreeing about nowadays. We are very supportive of Israel and it is hard for us to comprehend the European attitude, which seems very anti-Semitic.
For an excellent description of the actual legal concepts of just war, proportionality, belligerent response vs. eliminating the threat, go to:
http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/2006/07/quick-note-on-proportionality-jus-ad.html
The aim of warfare is victory. Hizbollah knows this, as does Israel. ‘Proportionality’ means nothing. Hizbollah wants the elimination of Israel. Israel is trying to prevent that happening. It’s as simple as that. Everything else is superfluous. Israel is in a war now for its survival as a functioning state. Large missiles into Tel Aviv – now a real possibility – would deal a real psychological blow to Israel. Hiz, Iran and Syria know this but cannot predict the response – which is why they hesitate. Their strategic challenge is clear – do we go for the big attack now on Tel Aviv, or wait and let the international community let us regoup and rearm?
At the moment Israel chooses conventional warfare to achieve its goals. It seems to be going OK, if you consider Lebanon the only challenge. Hizbollah are being seriously degraded, despite the sensationalist crap we hear from the media. The real question is not if Israel will take out Hiz – they will – but how much time does this buy Israel while their enemies rearm? The strategic question now is far must Israel go right now to prevent the elimination of their nation state within the next decade?
The real problem for Israel remains Syria and Iran. Either Iran, Syria – or a proxy – will use a WMD/nuke attack on Israel in the coming years. That much is certain. Any culture that praises suicide bombing will use WMD if they can get away with it. The Iranians and Syrians would look around the world now and sense that if a pretext could be created for a WMD attack, or even a large missile on Tel Aviv or Haifa, they would find a lot of support. That’s why Hizbollah in the coming days will probably cross the ‘red line’ and send a missile into Tel Aviv. What will be interesting is the response to this of the west.
If Hiz decide to cross the red line and use large missiles or WMD on major Israeli cities, then one hopes that a non-conventional response is considered a viable option. Such an action by Hiz would remind Israel that it must eliminate the proxy and its source, or face extinction as a real, functioning democracy in the near future. I would imagine that these are the discussions presently taking place within Israeli political and security circles, as Israel has never before faced greater danger than now.
Hint – I wouldn’t want to be living in Damascus at this moment.
Just a final comment – proportionality implies that you have warring parties both respecting a range of behaviour. War conventions and the concept of ‘just war’ can only apply to warring parties bound by them. Hizbollah is a non-state terrorist group and therefore Israel is not bound by war conventions intended for conflict between nation states.
As John Bolton said last week, ‘How can you have a ceasfire with a terrorist group?’.
Robert McNamara’s ten lessons of war:
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
I agree with every word of Ted on that score. Proportionality, when used in the context here, is nothing more than suggesting that Israel, or any other democratic state, should try and play by the rules of cricket. That is daft.
That said, to reprise an argument of mine on a previous thread (which led to a lot of heated argument), there is a key difference between doing what is necessary, even if that involves loss of civilian life, and positively rejoicing in the loss of civilian life. What bothered me a lot on the previous thread was the implicit assumption by some that deaths of millions of Arabs/whoever was something to be welcomed. That is flat-out immoral.
D. Anghelone,
Robert McNamara – Vietnam.
He really did well with that one didn’t he?
I’ve said this in earlier threads, but proportionality in warfare is fighting with a hand tied behind your back.
Wars are there to be won they are not a backyard kickabout with your kiddies where you go a bit easy on them.
The right response is to hit hard and fast and make an awful mess of the place.
I think we need to learn from the Romans. You either surrender and play the game or you are utterly destroyed.
Ted,
I wouldn’t be a happy camper if I lived in Damascus either. Personally I think those Baathist nutjobs deserve a very hard kicking on general principles. Could Israel launch a short sharp offensive against Syria that could wreck enough of the country that the regime was completely destabilised?
Mind that would be easier if they hadn’t wrecked the Damascus Highway.
I agree with basis of the point made you make Perry, but I have two issues with your example. You say “…it means you should only attack them with enough force to kill the enemy”.
I would say “enough force so as to diasble the enemy as a threat”; in practical terms the result would be the same, but I think there is a moral difference. I’d imagine on this moral point you might agree with me so I hope you don’t mind me pointing this out.
You go on to cite a nuclear warhead, which caused me to think for some time on that, I shan’t dwell on that here, but I think it was an inappropriate example.
Suffice to say that in considering proportionate force and precision weapons I’ve concluded that: firstly in calculating these matters, in general you must value the lives of your own soldiers above enemy civilians.
In considering if a device is proportionate my view is that you must consider the accuracy of the device and ensure it has sufficient destructive force to incapacitate the military target assuming it lands and detonates within its known, and usual parameters. If the military target is in a civilian area, you should reconsider the military necessity for incapacitating the target, you must calculate if a smaller device can be effectively used and you must consider the timing of the attack to as to hopefully minimise civilian casualties, although both of these must be weighed against the military necessity of incapacitating the target.
Nick M
At the moment the conditions don’t exist to permit Israel to attack Syria. However it’s all pretty close, and Nasrallah’s promise to escalate the range and severity of his missile attacks brings us close to the conditions where an attack on Syria may be necessary.
It all depends on Hizbollah’s actions in the coming days and weeks. If they do nothing, their fate is sealed – they will die fighting against a relentless and superior IDF/IAF attack. Israel wins big time, as does the US. Iran doesn’t want this, as they lose their proxy on the Med. Syria also doesn’t want this, as Hiz was their proxy in Lebanon. Both states have failed to get the ‘international community’ to force a ceasefire, which would have purchased Hiz invaluable time to regroup and rearm. Therefore all signs point toward an escalation, to keep Hiz in the game.
If the red line is crossed – and I am talking about a WMD attack on Israel or a major attack on Tel Aviv – Israel should destroy Damascus non-conventionally, with a combined bombing campaign that destroys that country’s military. This will be bloody and will cost men and treasure for Israel, but basically guarantees its survival for the long-term. Far from escalating things, this would force the arab states to make a choice – to go down the same path as the pariah states; or to forget the anti-israeli jihad, get rid of extremists in their midst and start embracing modernity. As for Iran, Israel should leave that country to the US. You can be assurred that after the destruction of Hiz and Syria, Asmaddasahatter will disappear from the political scene and will be replaced by a ‘moderate’ – either way, Iran will see the writing on the wall.
The west needs to generally make states such as Iran and Syria realise that there is a serious downside to their decisions. At the moment, both states have no conception that their actions are, actually, suicidal. I am certain that Hizbollah, Syria and Iran are tempted to attack with bigger weapons. If this occurs, Israel must make an example of one/both of the latter two to send a message to the world at large, much as the US did against Japan in 1945.
Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Good thought!
So, this idea about softing up civilians to bring a swift end to a war is hardly new.
How did that work out for the Germans in the Blitz?
How did it do for the IRA?
And for that matter, did I miss the British shelling Dundalk, Kerry and Limerick to deal with IRA strongholds?
Daveon – The nukes on Japan, however, worked. Trust me, if the Germans had nukes and used it on Britain, even Churchill might have wept in despair and given up.
Why are we hearing so much about the concept of proportionality at the moment? Is this the first time that a country has made a disproportionate response in a war? We should respect Israel’s view of what it thinks is proportionate. There is room in this world for a rich diversity of proportionalities.
fdm,
“enough force so as to diasble the enemy as a threat”
Wrong. Wars are not won decisively by either killing or disabling the enemy. They are won by the enemy surrendering. That’s the fundamental problem with the whole War on Terror – it’s not clear quite what form a “surrender” would take in the context of stateless militias and large numbers of just plain disaffected muslims. In the context of the current antics in Leb and Gaza I suppose it would be enough for Ham and Hez to disband after agreeing that Israel has a right to exist,
Wars which are not won decively have a nasty habit of having to be fought again.
Ted,
I agree with your analysis. During Desert Storm when the Scuds were falling on Israel they had to be restrained from taking direct action. If the show restraint again about an attack on Tel Aviv they lose all credibility.
“Asmaddasahatter” had me laughing out loud!
I usually call the gent “Armageddon” or “Armanidinnerjacket”. I suspect that if he does something that really seriously threatens the existence of the Islamic Republic the top ayatollah will slap him down.
Nick M:
“Robert McNamara – Vietnam.
He really did well with that one didn’t he?”
Didn’t say I was a fan, Nick. Didn’t engage combat but I did spend three years in the U.S. Army with a year in Vietnam.
And I’ve gone a few times through Fog of War. Can’t get much of a fix on the man but I do see a man who has looked into the abyss and has been the abyss. Can’t simply dismiss him out of hand.
Nick M,
Forgot to say that McNamara, as warrior, was forged in WWII and not Vietnam. There he became the abyss.
I didn’t mention Japan for a reason, I think the Hiroshima bomb certainly worked at emormous cost.
I don’t believe, personally, Nagasaki was required. Strategically and politically it made sense for the conflicts to come, but for WW2 it probably didn’t.
But the issue there is Japan and Germany were nation states which could surrender. Who and what do you expect to surrender in this event? Looking at the news at the moment, I don’t think the IDF are even all that clear on that.
Short of occupying and “re-educating” the populations of probably a half dozen Arab counties we’ve a problem. I still think increasing personal wealth across the board is the start of solving these problems.
“Imagine a man attacks you with a knife on a bus, and then runs to the back of the bus full of by-standers. Are you justified in indiscriminately shooting everyone on the bus with an AK-47 to get to him? Especially if you found out later that he slipped out the window. The Samizdata crowd, who never heard of a good reason not to kill Ragheads, would say yes.”
A most pathetic analogy,much better,
A man with a gun shoots your wife,and takes cover behind other passengers,from there he keeps shooting at you,Do you:-
Call the UN?
Die quietly to get the whole horrid experience over quickly?
Tell him you fully support his political objectives?
Point out that proportionallity demands that you are allowed to shoot someone on his side?
Recite the Shahada?
Nick M
“They are won by the enemy surrendering.” Looking at wars in general, it would seem to that a prerequisite of surrender is the disablement of the military as a threat. If not in absolute terms, then at least as so far as it recognises that further offensive action is futile.
As for the War on Terror, off-topic I say, this post is about proportionality of military action against military targets in a civilian environment, nevertheless…
Regarding stateless militias attacking you if they are on your own territory, you deal with them according to domestic law. If they are on foreign soil you ask the country on whose territory they are on to deal with them. If they refuse, or in reality are providing succour to such militias I can’t see why you shouldn’t consider that as tantamount to an act of war; essentially I believe the Israeli position.
As regards large numbers of disaffected Muslims, it doesn’t worry me in the slightest. I’m not exactly content with the way things are, but I’m not going to start terrorist action over it and the same will be true for the vast majority of the: “large number of diasffected Muslims”.
In the current context I don’t think disbandment is needed; I think if they publically recognised the right of Israel to exist, returned the kidnapped soldiers, gave up a substantial portion of armaments and ceased and apologised for the rocket attacks.
“Wars which are not won decively have a nasty habit of having to be fought again. ” Maybe, but it’s not the only factor, the First World War was won pretty decisevly, and it ended up being fought again.
“How did it do for the IRA?”
Britain surrendered to the IRA,Northern Ireland was sold out to buy peace.
Fortunately the IRA has not, as yet,called for a Greater Irish Catholic See,with the return of the Inquisition and the exterminating of heretics.If they had,no doubt Blair would have given it to them.
As for the War on Terror, off-topic I say, this post is about proportionality of military action against military targets in a civilian environment, nevertheless…
I reckon that makes my comment on-topic. It is a major issue in the WoT. Remember Fallujah?
I’m not going to start terrorist action over it and the same will be true for the vast majority of the: “large number of diasffected Muslims”.
True, but there is still enough of them that do for it to be a big problem, espeically if you live in Haifa right now.
In the current context I don’t think disbandment is needed; I think if they publically recognised the right of Israel to exist, returned the kidnapped soldiers, gave up a substantial portion of armaments and ceased and apologised for the rocket attacks.
I think that is tantamount to disbanding and I think the Hez bosses would agree.
“Wars which are not won decively have a nasty habit of having to be fought again. ” Maybe, but it’s not the only factor, the First World War was won pretty decisevly, and it ended up being fought again.
But WWI wasn’t won decesively. Germany wasn’t invaded before it surrendered. This gave rise the myth of being “stabbed in the back” and that the “Wehrmacht” hadn’t been defeated on the field.
Right. There is already a critical mass of disaffected Muslims. A capitulation here, a concession there isn’t going to noticeably shrink membership in militant Islamist organizations. The complete resignation of the Israeli government and the foundation of a new single state in Palestine with no Jewish character might<./i>, but that is too high a price to pay.
It ended up being used as an excuse to fight a completely different war. But this could have been prevented if the Allies had been willing to kill the serpent in the shell.
No matter what Isreal does, it will be deemed “dis-proprtial” by the Islamofacsists, their supporters and their Dhimmis.
This whole argument is advanced merely as a full employment scheme for useless diplomats and the hapless UN.
.. unleash the poodles of peace after the war is won!
Nick M
I agree that propotionality comes into the War on Terror debate, but I don’t think that the War on Terror debate comes into the proportionality one. Perhaps we’ll just differ on that point.
I’d agree with what Joshua wrote on the large numbers of dissafected Muslims.
Maybe the Hez bosses would agree that what I suggest is tantamount to disbandment. I am of course merely taking my own viewpoint; at the end of the day they’ll be the ones that need the ceasefire and in the West we should hold firm so as to ensure they don’t dictate the terms of any ceasefire.
“But WWI wasn’t won decesively. Germany wasn’t invaded before it surrendered.” If I may refer to your first post replying to mine: “Wars … are won by the enemy surrendering”. I’m struggling to see where you stand on this.
Joshua
I agree with your comments on the First and Second World Wars. With hindsight I should have pointed out that if a war is “fought again” then the interim can never be truely regarded as anything more than a ceasefire. Of course in reality the reasons behind any war are usually complex and often hidden; so it is difficult to actually say that a war has been fought again.
As I have argued in a recent post in my blog Libertad y Razon(Link) (if you read Spanish), in the context of just war theory (which is not only a “theory” in the sense of “cafe conversation”, but has ruled formal International Law for centuries) “proportionality” means not that you can only react upon an agression by doing only the exact amount of damage to the aggresor. That idea is the most absurd thing I have heard these days.
Proportionality refers to the effectiveness required for a means to achieve a definite goal. If your goal is to protect your life from an assailant that is threatening you with a knife, then you are not justified in using a nuclear bomb, but you certainly are not limited to using a knife only. You can use a gun and shoot several times if necessary, even inflicting death upon your assailant.
So, in the case of the current Lebanese/Hezbollah crisis with Israel, proportionality has to be evaluated by asking first what is the legitimate objective of Israel. The answer is: ensuring the protection of its citizenry from the actions of Hezbollah. If to achieve that goal it is necessary to bomb Hezbollah’ installations, vehicles and hiding places, then it is proportionate to do so. And if it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties, specially because it is Hezbollah’s way of doing things to use civilians as shield, then it is perfectly proportionate.
So, the next time you see a cockroach in your house, you are right in not using a bomb to kill it. But you are justified in killing it by means of insecticide, even if the cockroach had not sprayed insecticide upon you first.