“If Israel uses its military decisively to wipe out Hezbollah, such an action will simply create a whole new generation of terrorists.”
Someone close to me recently lectured me on this fact. It appears to makes sense prima facie, but such an enlightened-sounding utterance falls apart as an empty truism with the addition of a little perspective. The Middle Eastern conflict must be viewed from a long-term angle, whilst attempting to countenance the ramifications of the alternative tactic mentioned. Those who might be attracted to the deceivingly pacific fog shrouding the above statement would benefit from realising that by strategically not responding in kind to a belligerent act by zealots like Hezbollah is no silver bullet to the problems of the Middle East; on the contrary, such a strategy may well carry consequences that could ultimately be unthinkably awful.
A powerful expression of the quote I provided above can be found in Steven Spielberg’s recent movie, Munich. The moral of that tale is identical to the one pronounced by my close relative; if one hunts down and kills those who planned and carried out the kidnapping-murders of the Israeli athletes at those fateful Games, all one does is inspire a new and more brutal generation to rise up in its place and start spreading increased chaos.
In response to this assertion, I ask; was this same generation not destined to pollute the earth with their hatred and intolerance in one form or another? Israel, by its relatively frequent, um, non-diplomatic actions, may well have inspired many, many Muslims to embark on violent jihad over the course of its existence. However, if Israel left – for example – the horrors of the Munich Olympic Games unanswered, it is perfectly conceivable that the people who reacted to Israel’s subsequent blatant retaliatory assassination programme by joining Islamic militant movements would readily join the same sorts of organisations (or even Arab state militaries) when inspired and emboldened by a flaccid Israeli reaction to a travesty of this kind, or perhaps an aura of weakness created by such a profound act of Israeli inertia in the face of this sort of crime. Long and rambling sentence, sorry. Considering that the existence of Israel is an anathema to so many Middle-Eastern Muslims, Israeli inaction and the perception of Israeli weakness is plausibly just as strong an inspiration to take up arms against the relatively tiny Jewish state as a hail of super-potent Star of David-marked precision-guided missiles.
The overarching problem – and this extends beyond Israel and into the international arena – is Islam and its unique propensity, amongst the major religions, towards radicalism. It seems more than likely that Israel will defeat Hezbollah in the future, however I have no doubt that some other radical Islamic organisation will fill any breach left expeditiously. If radical Islam’s nature is hydra-like, as those urging Israeli restraint imply from the above quote (and I believe they are correct), chopping off the heads of the hydra when they appear until the organism is exhausted through struggle or circumstance seems a perfectly logical grand strategy for the enormously durable West to pursue over the decades.
The ideal that lasting peace could reign in the Middle East if Israel would simply act passively towards its aggressors when she comes under attack is delusional nonsense. Israel is (again) biblical territory in Huntingdon’s oft-quoted, prescient – and surely by now undeniable – Clash of Civilizations, and ultimately the conflict between the liberal West and conservative Islam is a fiendishly complicated, opaque and unpredictable game of strategy that will be played out over many, many years. Every move in this game has the potential to yield both highly predictable and confoundingly unpredictable consequences. It is predictable that when Israel neutralizes an external threat using its military, a certain kind of person will be motivated to fight this force. Conversely and equally predictably, if Israel fails to respond adequately to an external threat, the enduring pan-Arab desire to drive the Israelis into the sea will stir in the heart of the same sort of person, provoking a similar outcome. I fear Israel, due to its location, will suffer negative long-term consequences emanating from the actions of the armed belligerati of conservative Islam, regardless of whatever strategy Israel chooses (ranging from rank appeasement to overwhelming military retaliation) to deal with blows bestowed by these aggressors, for that is the nature of the consolidated foe. Hence, Israel needs long-term support from the Western world. Israel may not be a liberal place itself in many ways, but in many ways it is the (somewhat unlikely) vanguard of liberalism.
James,
What is the general attitude amongst Australians in regard to this conflict? I know what the Australian media have been saying – Tim Blair points this out on a daily basis – but how about the ‘word on the street’? In Britain it’s truly sad. Have the Australian people been infected by the type of bias you hear from the journalists?
Failure to comprehensively defeat terrorists will encourage more to join what they see as a winning cause.
Ken: probably not to the same extent as the Brits, but I’d say so. On the other hand, I’ve detected that popular opinion has become considerably more cynical towards Islam post “cartoon rage” – ordinary people are a lot more forthright in speaking their mind about the failings of Islam. However, I don’t imagine they have much time for Israel, either.
Of course, the Australian chattering classes continue to support Anyone But Israel, like they always have.
Deterrence works –
Other than for the archtypal “I got a gun, take me to Cuba” type, airline hijacking as we know it now was invented by the PLO to use against Israel.
Israel responded with “You hijack our planes, you die”. This was before the atrocity of the suicide bomber was invented, and it worked. When was the last time an Israeli flight was hijacked? And yes, I am aware beefed up security paid a major part as well, but teach them that they don’t win and the go away, for a while anyway. If only to invent new tactics.
Ken & James, I find that in my bit of Oz support for Israel is pretty strong. I haven’t conducted scientific sampling, but everyone I have spoken to is pro Israel, although some are pretty hesitant to admit it until after I have given an opinion.
Actually, I have found this to be part of a wider pattern. A number of times I have attempted to discuss Islam with people, and they are reluctant to give any opinion at all. It is only after I am forthright in expressing an opinion that they are willing to open up and state a dislike of the belief system. On this subject people are cowered, hesitant to express their opinion. The lefty chateratti have everyone terrified of being branded racist to the point that they are shutting down debate.
For the heads to become actually dangerous requires some serious backing. That is why Syria should have been part of the targetting of a weel planned campaign to kill of the threat for a decade again. This was not done. Instead there was a half-assed random air campaign followed by a last minute ‘oh god, maybe we’d better do something real’ when they called up enough reserves to actually accomplish the most minimal of goals… which I do not believe they fully accomplished.
This round was more like giving the head a few deep cuts and wounds… which means round II will be worse and within the decade.
If the UN does put together a large enough force, gives it teeth and the French use them to bite Hezbollah and forceable disarm them, there might be a decade of respite on that border. Maybe.
[starts to chuckle]
[laughing out loud]
[rolling on the floor helpless with mirth]
Yes just as the decimation of Napoleon’s Grande Armee and the destruction of the Wehrmacht on the Russian front created stronger French and Greman militaries.It is an idiots argument,the destruction of its skill base always reduces the ability of an army to function.That is the point of war.
I strongly suggest the samizdat crowd listen to Bob Dylan’s 1983 number NEIGHBOURHOOD BULLY. Plus ca change….Shalom etc; Taus.
The German Army of 1944 was bigger than German Army of 1941… Of course war forces a split. There are those that turn hardcore and supporters and there are those that backoff and stop supporting. The patern varies but usually either side gets more warriors but looses low level and logistic support.
One problem in the Levant is that war never reaches its end, since 1973 there are always an outside meddling.
The French wibbling over the mandate is so ironic considering the force by which they and so many others were pushing for an “immediate” solution. Now they are asked to actually DO something and not just talk about something and tut-tut when it does not happen the reaction is rather different.
France is not daft, though. Disarming Hizb’Allah will be very difficult indeed.
I agree, it is a bit of a mug’s game for Israel. However, only two the extremes are discussed: Overwhelming military strikes and total appeasement, and both lead to disaster. In truth there are plenty options in between.
Bombing of largely civillian structures like apartment blocks, roads and airports, is likely to produce widespread hostility, particularly if it’s seen to be done by aircraft 35,000ft in the air – whereas a targeted capture of Hezbollah millitants will probably go down a little better.
The best way to cultivate peace is to send out a message like “if you leave us alone we won’t touch you, but if you (personally) attack us, we’ll hit you back”. Unfortunately the currently message appears to be “if Hezbollah attacks us, we will probably blow your house up”. Since most Lebanese civillians don’t have the power to stop Hezbollah, although they may able to join them, this is not a very constructive message.
Unfortunately using “its military to decisively wipe out Hezbollah” isn’t an option for Israel either because Hezbollah is fighting an underground war and it’s simply not possible to identify who belongs to Hezbollah and who doesn’t. The solution is neither continuous attacking, nor always remaing passive – it’s knowing when to do each.
First we need a definition of this thing “liberalism”.
Does it just mean (as media types like “Jon” Snow would suggest) just sex, drugs and pop music? Although these days “watching football” would have to be on the list of what the elite consider their central beliefs.
If liberalism has anything to do with liberty (rather than liberality as in being generous with other people’s money – J.S. Mill style “liberalism”) then YES it does include not using the criminal law against vice – but this does not mean that vice is good.
Civilization depends on most people most of the time resisting vice. It also depends on property rights.
Not vast taxation and government spending, nor endless regulations controlling every “economic” aspect of life and fiat (government command) money with a credit bubble financial system.
Contrary to what is said by the likes of Mr Blair, Western Civilization is doing very well right now.
The Welfare State is out of control all over the Western world, the financial system is a credit bubble joke, and the fraud passed off as a picture of private life back in the 1940’s by Dr Kinsey has almost become a reality today.
In most of West few (Western) babies are being born, and people live lonely lives with fewer and fewer people having strong families or being involved in voluntary societies.
More and more people either work for the government, live, in all or part, on benefits, or work for corportations that depend on a drip feed of central bank backed credit.
I am not an “anti usury” fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being a money lender as long as one has the money one is claiming to lend and does not still claim to have it after it has been lent out (however the two principles I have just mentioned are rejected on the basis that they would “destroy the financial system” – which means that the financial system is a mess).
It is true that the forces of Islam will hate the nonIslamic world (not just Israel) whatever the nonIslamic world does (the Mahdi did not need the existance of an Israel to lauch attacks into Christian areas in the 1890’s – indeed such Islamic attacks have being going on since the 7th century A.D.). But it is simply not true to imply there is some struggle going on between the ideologies of the “Liberal West” and Islam.
The point is that there is no ideology of the “Liberal West” – there are lots of bits of technology, and there is the economic capital built up by previous generations. But there is no strong coherent “Western ideology” facing Islam.
The West’s main problems are internal (if every Muslim in the world died right now these problems would still exist). Nor is vice an ideology.
The decay of a civilization should not be presented as the basic principle of that civilization.
It is true that most people have not believed in the principles of limited government since at least the 1930’s (if we are talking about the United States), but most people still tried to work hard, live responsibly, play an active role in various clubs and societies in their community and bring up strong familes.
In much of the Western world (especially in Britian) these things are no longer true.
And it is not the fault of the Muslims.
For Western Civilization to recover people must try and recapture the traditions and principles of our civilization – just killing Muslims is no substitute for that.
When you have a big fat ugly threatening pustule come up on your face, the best way to deal with it is to wait until all the nasty yellow poison concentrates. Then just a gentle squeeze will blast all the puss onto your bathroom mirror and a few dabs of TCP will have the job sorted.
Well Israel did not choose the timing of this conflict, was unprepared for it, and hence has not got rid of all of Hezpussbolah. They were in such a rush they even forgot to bring the TCP
Anyone who thinks the UN will be, or bring, the TCP is insane. More like the sun cream cos all they are going to do is stand around getting sunburnt, watching Hez being resupplied by by Syria and Iran and doing nothing at all about it. Oh but the owners of all the best French restaurants in Beruit are rubbing their hands (assuming they were not sighted next to a Hez rocket battery and had to hastily change their name from Le Chateau to The Hole In the Wall overnight). Because that is where you are going to find the French “Peacekeepers” lunchtimes and evenings, just like you find them eating at Bellapais Abbey instead of Ali’s Caff in Northern Cyprus. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the UN is fighting a hard gastronomic task on behalf of us all, Globally.
I’m afraid Israel is going to have to do this all over again.
Thouroughly. And dont forget the TCP!
I am always surprised by those who seem to think that people do not respond to incentives. It is particularly surprising that so many Libertarians seem to think that way.
If we make some kind of economic activity highly profitable people flock to it even if we make it illegal as in the case of drugs. This surprises no one. Yet if we make violence suddenly very profitable, either economically or politically, many seem startled that people flock to it.
If some little group commits a successful act of terrorism and profits from it they will try to repeat the act and others will seek to emulate them. It’s not rocket science.
Effective responses to terrorism decrease terrorism. Killing the leaders and attacking the state sponsors is the best way. Creating the exact opposite political outcome that the terrorist seek is even better. The idea that making terrorist failures makes terrorism more attractive is simply counter to everything we know about human nature.
I disagree completely because…
…there is indeed a Western ‘ideology’, just not a coherent organised one. Western ‘ideology’ is really just a series of tacit world views, a meta-context if you like. Yet is is still quite real and it is a world view more powerful that Islam could ever be. It may not be an ideology the way your Dad might have understood it, with a party and a manifesto to express it, but it is a series of beliefs that puts us in inevitable opposition to militant Islam just as surely as militant Christianity once did.
No, overwhelming military strikes generally lead to victory. What leads to disaster is less-that-overwhelming military strikes… better to make no strikes at all if you are not prepared to do what it takes to win, which is why Israel should never have started the recent war as the government’s stated war aims and actual willingness to use force to achieve them bore no relation to each other. If the IDF had put a corps level force into Lebanon by the end of the first week, with instructions to actually implement the government’s declared war aims, we would be having a very discussion now.
Funny the Koran says that Allah’s will creates terrorists.
Lucklady,
The Wehrmacht may have been up in numbers,but no army can stand the degradation of its experience troops,.Towards the end of the war old men and little boys were conscripted.Germany was in retreat from Russia after Barbarossa saw the decimation of of Germany’s best divisions.
It isn’t simply numbers it is quality
Maybe i wasnt clear.
I know that was one of the reasons i posted it. The fact that German Army was bigger didnt put them nearer victory.
Incentives:
“The widespread view that Hezbollah won has both propelled and been propelled by a wave already washing over the region. Political Islam was widely seen as the antidote to the failures of Arab nationalism, communism, socialism and, most recently, what is seen as the false promise of American-style democracy.”
“The lesson learned by many Arabs from the war in Lebanon is that an Islamic movement, in this case Hezbollah, restored dignity and honor to a bruised and battered identity.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/19/ceasefire-fallout-all-the-wrong-lessons/
I also fundamentally disagree with Paul Marks. If there is no Western ideology, then what’s to decay?
The “decay of Western civilization” meme is a bit of a cliche, and wholly inaccurate – Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” seems more fitting.
I have edited the first paragraph of this comment – I wrote it last night (after having a few wines) and when I re-read it the tone was more combatative than I first intended
I believe their is a western ideology and one that overlaps significantly with the Anglosphere’s ideology. It is degrading at the hands of the Statists who are, lets face it, Communists who cannot face their own beliefs so dress up the poison pills with sugar to make them easier to swallow.
As for “creating a new generation of terrorists”, Islam is quite capable of doing that alone.
To Perry.
Well first, of course, I should have written “contrary to Mr Blair, Western civilization is not doing very well right now” (I left out the “not” – but I hope my view was clear from the context).
As for Western ideology not being what my Dad understood by an ideology.
Well Harry Marks did not tend to use the word “ideology” (although I did hear him use it a couple of times), but I sort of understand your point.
However, my father did not normally think of beliefs as a “party program”, he thought of basic beliefs as basic beliefs.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by “meta contexts” (and other such).
But it is fairly clear that (at least to judge by the British) there is no basic system (or coherant set) of beliefs held by the majority of the population that can be linked to a Western tradtion.
It is not just the economic field (where the population still believe in the Welfare State and in the regulation State – in spite of all the failures) although unlimited government spending and regulations (and, of course, there can be no real distinction between “economic” and “non economic” regulations) is hardly a good thing.
Nor am I pointing at just “special” things like “gun control” (where the rejection of the Western tradtion by the population is fairly clear).
One can point at just about anything.
90 days without charge (not without trial, which is bad enough, by without CHARGE) “yes pease” say the vast majority of people (see the front page of the “Daily Telegraph” a few days ago).
Perhaps “freedom of speech” is the last scap of the Western tradtion that most British people still believe in.
But do they?
What about racist speech?
Already people reject the principle of freedom of association (i.e. allowing people to NOT associate if they do not wish to do so) – “civil rights” (i.e. telling people who they must associate with in employment, trade and other matters) are widely accepted.
The cult of “nondiscrimination” may have been created by the elite – but their control of the media and the “education system” has had an effect (sure few people are totally brain washed, and some people react violently against the conditioning – but most people are influenced to some extent).
I do not know other populations as well as I know the British.
But I have lived here all my life, and I am telling you Perry – most British people do not have a set of basic beliefs that can be fitted in to a concept of Western tradition.
As for the “meta context”.
Would this be the meta context of social breakdown (the decline of the family and of all voluntary institutions)?
This is a dying culture (being a libertarian, I tend to argue that the main cause of it being so is statism).
And the Muslims (mudering swine as a lot of them may be) are NOT the basic cause of this being a dying culture.
I still believe that many (perhaps most) people can be reached by reason.
I am often mocked for holding that vast numbers of people can understand information and arguments if they are presented to them well enough – but I still hold that. Even television does not have to be “talking heads” – such journalists as Brian Walden proved thirty years ago that most people can understand information explained by visual aids (bar charts, pie charts and so on) if correctly explained and honestly used (and Walden’s “Weekend World” – with first the presentation of needed information and then a serious discussion of policy was the top rated politics show in the Britian with vast numbers of viewers).
Therefore I do not hold even the British population to be formally “doomed”.
But we must accept where we are. Most people do not accept the basic beliefs of the Western tradition – so it is a matter of trying to win them back (not representing what they already believe).
As for the line (of Hayek and others) that social practices and traditions are (in large part) tacit rather than based on beliefs – fair enough.
Cultural practices have been undermined in part by perverted incentives and in part by the rise of evil ideologies (such as “social justice” and “anti discrimination”). It is the job of people of good will to reverse these incentives and to struggle against these evil ideologies (not to endlessly express support of them – as Mr David Cameron and his comrades do).
It may take a long time to reverse the decline of our culture – but just because a task is difficult does not mean it is not possible.
As long as we first accept the reality of our position.
My own case is that it would only take one Western nation (even a small one) to come out the other side of the Welfare State and the rest of “progressive” ideology for the task of rebuilding to become much less difficult (the nation would serve as an example).
However, I do not believe that such a society will emerge by chance – no society is just going to save itself from modernism by “social evolution” (or other Hume-Hayek stuff).
The actual beliefs of most people in that society will have to change for the way things are done to change.
Or, if the beliefs of the majority of people are already basically sound, they will have to overcome the beliefs of the ruling elite.
What is needed is a population that looks to voluntary action (individual, family and voluntary associations such as churches and nonreligious organizations) rather than the state.
That population is not, at this time, the British – but there may be other populations in other parts of the Western world (perhaps Flanders or certain Swiss Cantons, or some parts of the United States) where many people have beliefs far closer to what is needed.