EDITORIAL: What peace is there to keep?

Toronto Sun ^ | 2006-07-30 | (editorial page)

[Clive]

The safe position to take on the Middle East today is that there needs to be an immediate "ceasefire."

A ceasefire maintained by "peackeepers."

Let's examine those two terms.

To begin, here's what a "ceasefire" would mean right now.

It would mean Hezbollah gets to reload.

Believing that a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel right now would bring any real peace to Lebanon, Israel, or the region, is as naive as believing that a United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon would do the same.

There's been a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for almost 30 years.

Anyone notice any peace breaking out there recently?

In reality, any "peacekeeping" force in southern Lebanon, composed of UN, NATO or other forces, would have to be a fighting force capable of keeping Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

That's what the beleaguered Lebanese government failed to do after Israel voluntarily withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. That's why Hezbollah was able to launch a sneak attack on an Israeli military outpost from southern Lebanon, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others. And that, everyone agrees, is what started this latest confrontation.

So, who in the world's up for that job? Canada? Not with our military already stretched to the limit in Afghanistan.

The United States? Great Britain? Australia?

Impossible. Any of those forces acting as peacemakers in southern Lebanon would become prized terrorist targets themselves, perhaps even more so than Israeli soldiers.

The European Union?

How effective have most members of that alliance been in fighting terrorism since 9/11?

The Arab League? The only thing its members might ever conceivably agree on, if they thought for a moment they could actually win, would be to attack Israel. Fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon simply isn't on their radar.

Russia? Japan? China?

Okay, now it's getting silly, isn't it?

So let's hear from those advocating a "peacekeeping" force to maintain a "ceasefire" along the Green Line between southern Lebanon and northern Israel. And be specific.

Whose soldiers would man it? How many? What will be their rules of engagement? Will they be able to shoot first, or only shoot back? What will be their mandate if Hezbollah hides among civilians while attacking them? Will their response have to be "proportionate"? What does that mean -- that you have to take as many casualties as the enemy or stand down? Name a war where that rule has ever applied -- to either side.

Those are the kinds of questions that underlie simplistic calls for a "ceasefire" maintained by "peacekeepers."

That's why Stephen Harper, the first pro-Israel Canadian prime minister since, well, 1993, got it right last week when he said the only way a lasting peace can be achieved is if the nations IN THE REGION want it. And that would mean nations like Syria and Iran (among many others in the Arab/Muslim world) being prepared to fight terrorism instead of supporting and financing it. Needless to say, don't hold your breath.

[fanfan]

Canada ping.

Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[slowhandluke]

In "just war" proportional means that the violence inflicted must be proportional to the injury inflicted.

Got a reference? I thought the violence inflicted must be proportional to the ends desired. In this case, whatever violence is required to get the Muslims to stop firing rockets and never start again.

[Carry_Okie]

It must be bewildering to work in the MSM while being capable of such clear observation.

Doesn't he know that wishful thinking can determine any outcome? Can't he see that babbling for peace makes one righteous enough that one's inherent whizdumb will convince Muslims raised from the cradle to be psychotic killers to just lay down their arms and make nice with their Jewish therapists?

Five more years with the rest of the morons in the newpaper business and this guy will be screaming for the exits.

[ArGee]

Even then the discussion should be about just reasons for going to war rather than the conduct of a war.

While I mostly agree with this statement, don't you think it also applies to the definition of victory?

For example, at one time in human history victory was defined as killing all males and taking the women and property as plunder.

In 1945 victory meant destroying the Nazi party, then re-building Germany for the Germans.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

What were they observing??

Perhaps they were abusing young girls? I seem to have heard about sex scandals regarding the UN in other parts of the world.

Shalom.

[upchuck]

There will be peace... when the last radical muzzie (and that includes huzzies; just a flavor difference) is dead and the mechanism that produced them (primarily Wahhabi schools) is dismanteled.

[dirtboy]

They are, however, entirely unjustified in targeting civilians

Ah ... so if Hiz launches attacks against Israel from civilian positions, Israel should not counterattack. And if Israel does counterattack against Hiz embedded among civilians and kills civilians, Hiz can count on useful idiots such as yourself to condemn them with moral equivalence. Radical Shias teerorist organizations around the world thank you for your support.

[dirtboy]

The only possible answer is: To benefit the side that's currently losing.

A lot of well-intentioned liberals and centrists think that no war is preferable to war in all circumstances. However, if war is not carried out to its bitter end, you will just have another one further on down the road ... and another one ... and another one. That was the lesson of WWI and WWII, and the difference between a cease fire and unconditional surrender.

[Grampa Dave]

"Five more years with the rest of the morons in the newpaper business and this guy will be screaming for the exits."

Most of the sane ones have left or are trying to. We know of two who have left. One was a retired AF photographer and a very good photographer. He left the local rags about 6 years ago when all they wanted was PC pictures of illegals, lesbians, gays, now hags and the enviral groups.
If he took a picture of good news or about happy normal people/couples, it never got past the editors.

The other is a 50 something woman, who became an alcoholic working for fishwraps in S California along with most of her peers. She went to AA and was told to go to N California and get out of the newspaper business. She did and has been sober for over 12 years. She feels that coming demise of the fishwraps is good for America, most Americans and those working at any level for a fishwrap.

[blue-duncan]

As long as Lebanon permits Hezbollah to remain and fight within their territory they are targets unless they want to point out specifically where Hezbollah is hiding. It all would stop if Lebanon demanded Hezbollah leave and if they could not enforce the demand ask for outside help in removing them. It is all so simple.

[Old Student]

"They are, however, entirely unjustified in targeting civilians - even if Hezbollah is as well.

To hell with both of them."

How do you tell the civilians from the terrorist, who wear civilian clothing? One answer for you is that they're the ones you can get a secondary explosion from when you hit them.

I won't swear that the Israeli Army and Air Force aren't targeting civilians, but it's darned hard to avoid them, sometimes. Especially if your opponent isn't at all interested in minimizing civilian casualties. During the 1st Gulf War, we caused quite a few civilian casualties, despite trying very hard to avoid them, because our opponent wanted to use them as a weapon against us. They used the upper levels of a bunker as a civilian shelter to try to keep us from hitting it. Unfortunately for them, we didn't see that it was stuffed full of women, children, and old people until after they started pulling bodies from the rubble we reduced it to. Bad timing on recon flights, I guess. On the other hand, we might have hit it anyway, as Saddam supposedly used that bunker fairly often.

Civilians who allow a government to go the way Iraq did then, and Lebanon does now, deserve what they get.

[xzins]

***In "just war" proportional means that the violence inflicted must be proportional to the injury inflicted. ***

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

Proportionality essentially involves the issue of mercy balanced against threat and injury.

Since the Just War theory comes from a Christian source, this makes sense. There would be a regard for mercy.

[slowhandluke]

**In "just war" proportional means that the violence inflicted must be proportional to the injury inflicted. ***

This sort of depends on which part the injury is to be inflicted on, does it not? If it is (in this case), the Israelis, we are back to an eye-for-an-eye, which I doubt is what the Catholic Church would come up with considering how long they've studied the issue.

This quote is more likely: the end being proportional to the means used. , and is what I remember from college philosopy class, and supports the "don't kick them when they are down" view. Even with your view on this, I would argue that since the injury is on-going, it would seem we should not be considering a limit on Israel; certainly not until the injuring by the Muslims is done.

Israel gets to do what it needs to do to stop the rockets, and not just to achieve a temporary cease fire to allow resupply. If that means bulldozing everything flat from Haifa to Tehran, it's just.

Here is the paragraph from the link I gave on the issue of proportionality:

"The final guide of jus ad bellum, is that the desired end should be proportional to the means used. This principle overlaps into the moral guidelines of how a war should be fought, namely the principles of Jus In Bello. With regards to just cause, a policy of war requires a goal, and that goal must be proportional to the other principles of just cause. Whilst this commonly entails the minimizing of war's destruction, it can also invoke general balance of power considerations. For example, if nation A invades a land belonging to the people of nation B, then B has just cause to take the land back. According to the principle of proportionality, B’s counter-attack must not invoke a disproportionate response: it should aim to retrieve its land. That goal may be tempered with attaining assurances that no further invasion will take place. But for B to invade and annex regions of A is nominally a disproportionate response, unless (controversially) that is the only method for securing guarantees of no future reprisals. For B to invade and annex A and then to continue to invade neutral neighboring nations on the grounds that their territory would provide a useful defense against other threats is even more unsustainable.

[Eagle74]

I believe this would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else.
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power.”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

While I mostly agree with this statement, don't you think it also applies to the definition of victory?

I consider that part of the process of deciding to go to war. One has a idea of what type victory is intended when one decidses to enter the process.