Tigerhawk has some thoughts on this lefty canard:
During 2006’s Hezbollah war I wrote this post, which remains sadly germane to the present fighting with Hamas:
The left claims that the powerful states of the world, especially the United States and Israel, need not fear for their security because they can use their military power to deter aggression. To a post-Cold War lefty, the magic of deterrence supposedly obviates the need to intervene preemptively, or to remove regimes that commit “petty” acts of war against us or even declare themselves to be our enemy. See, e.g., the most frequently offered reasons why we should not have removed Saddam, or should not consider military options to deal with Iran. We can, after all, obliterate any power that actually attacks us, so why worry?
What your basic anti-defense lefty does not admit, however, is that effective deterrence requires not only the capability to retaliate, but that the threat to retaliate be credible. The former without the latter is worthless.
The requirement that retaliation be proportional reather than “massive” destroys the credibility of the threat to retaliate and therefore the effectiveness of the deterrance. Why? Because it allows the attacker to determine the price he will pay for launching the attack. If the attacker knows that he can absorb a blow equal to the one he delivers, then he will not be concerned that the defender has the capability to retaliate massively.
This is like limiting the penalty for property crimes to restitution. Why not rob the bank? If you’re caught, you only have to give the money back.
The advocates of “proportionality”, therefore, are undermining the effectiveness of threatened massive retaliation as a means for preventing war. If the left succeeds in promoting this ridiculous idea as a new norm of international behavior or requirement of international law, it will have destroyed the effectiveness of deterrence, the one means that we know reliably prevents war in the first place. Surely this is not what the left and the Europeans hope to accomplish.
Surely not…
[Update a few minutes later]
Michael Totten asks what a proportionate response would look like:
The Israeli counterattack is, indeed, disproportionate, but it could hardly be otherwise. “At last count,” J.G. Thayer wrote, “one Israeli and two Palestinians (sisters, ages 13 and 5) died from rocket attacks. So a proportionate response, one presumes, would have required Israel to kill a single Palestinian and two of its own citizens.”
There were, I suppose, other “proportionate” responses available aside from killing one Palestinian and two Israelis. The Israel Defense Forces might have launched thousands of air strikes against targets in Gaza to match the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at the cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. It’s unlikely, however, that this is what Israel’s critics have in mind.
So what do they have in mind? What would a legitimate and “proportionate” response actually look like? Surely they don’t believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.
It’s hard to know what they believe, other than that Israel is intrinsically evil.
[Late morning update]
More thoughts from Alan Dershowitz:
The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians.
The attacks on Israeli citizens have little to do with what Israel does or does not do. They have everything to do with an ideology that despises – and openly seeks to destroy – the Jewish state. Consider that rocket attacks increased substantially after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, and they accelerated further after Hamas seized control last year.
In the past months, a shaky cease-fire, organized by Egypt, was in effect. Hamas agreed to stop the rockets and Israel agreed to stop taking military action against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. The cease-fire itself was morally dubious and legally asymmetrical.
Israel, in effect, was saying to Hamas: If you stop engaging in the war crime of targeting our innocent civilians, we will stop engaging in the entirely lawful military acts of targeting your terrorists. Under the cease-fire, Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the course of firing rockets at its civilians.
The world (and much of the media) is nuts when it comes to Israel.
[Afternoon update]
Heh. Disproportionate humanitarian aid:
No indication yet that any aid packages have been strapped onto the 6300 (and counting) missiles those humanitarians from Hamas have fired into Israel since 2005. It seems to me this Israeli aid is very disproportionate. We’ll be back to let you know if the New York Times thinks it should stop until Hamas catches up.
I won’t hold my breath.
Given how many people are dying, it would be reassuring if Israel had any kind of strategy beyond simply leaving Hamas in place, but it doesn’t. Arguments about proportionality miss the point. The deaths and injuries Israel is inflicting, as well as the rocket attacks that prompted Israel to act, are going to be utterly meaningless, because the status quo will be restored by springtime. Hamas will pledge to stop rocket attacks, Israel will eventually back off, and then “rouge” attacks from Gaza will slowly ratchet up again. I was completely in favor of the Isreael’s 2006 attack on Hezbollah, because I thought it would make life better on both sides of the border if Israel could eradicate or at least severely disable Hezbollah. This time, it is clear that Israel has no intention of severely hurting Hamas. I don’t know if the whole war is just an pre-election ploy by Labor and Kadima, or if it constitutes some sort of bargaining with Hamas, or if it even involves some sort of pre-Obama positioning, but this attack seems far too cynical and too lacking in an overall strategy to make life better to be worth all the innocent deaths. The tie-in to proportionality, I guess, involves the calculus of death: Actions that lead to a lasting Middle East peace might unfortunately cause the death of many innocents, and these deaths might be “worth it”, but the tactical positioning that Israel is currently engaging in might only be “worth” the same small number of deaths caused by the rockets, and really, why should such ineffective purposeless maneuvering even be worth that much?
So, Bob, what would you have Israel do?
They were perfectly content to keep the cease fire; it was Hamas who broke it. By the way, I’m sure you noticed that Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israeli cities, not caring who or what they hit. Where is the ‘strategy’ to that?
Back when I was carrying an M16, we actually had classes on the laws and customs of land warfare. We were taught that a “disproportionate” response was one that is massively in excess of that needed to end the threat and for which there were workable alternatives (such as, nuking a city to stop a single sniper instead of a mortar attack).
Therefore, *by definition*, the Israeli attacks are not disproportionate, since they have not (yet) stopped the rocket attacks. One could argue that they are inappropriate or futile, but than you would have to suggest some alternative, almost all of which would be more, rather than less, destructive to Gaza.
Tom, I agree – Hamas doesn’t have a strategy for victory. The rockets are not only evil, they are stupid. (I started to make that point above, but my thinking got sidetracked. As a friend of Israel, it is more interesting for me to criticize Israel than Hamas.) Furthermore, I think Hamas does care who they hit — they just lacks the ability to target properly. If they had the means, they might actually prefer to hit innocent civilians.
I don’t know what the answer is. (Sorry.) I just think that killing people without a good strategy is a morally bankrupt activity.
I recommend reading the editorial page of Haaretz.com if you want to see what I might have said if I was smarter. Haaretz is a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, but hosts a op-ed pieces from the entire spectrum of Israeli politics.
For example, left-leaning historian Tom Segev wrote an interesting piece:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050706.html
And alternatively, from the right, on today’s opinion page, former Likud (conservative) defense minister Moshe Arens discusses 7 ways to stop the rockets.
He discusses a prolonged air attack, anti-missile systems, negotition, etc. He ultimately concludes that just as German V-2s couldn’t be stopped until the launch pads were captured, the rockets from Gaza can’t be stopped until the launh pads in Gaza are held by Isreali ground troops. In the comments section, people disagree, pointing out that the rockets are mobile, an underground can’t be effectively suppressed, and the occupation damaged Israel. Some call for a much more prolonged air assault instead. All of the answers amount to going in circles — back to the 80s or back to the 90s but no one has an answer.
I personally think that Hamas would have reduced its rocket fire in response to carrots, and, crucially, that these very carrots are what Israel is going to offer Hamas when Israel’s attack ends. That’s why Israel’s attack is unnecessary.
In the end, I think only a comprehensive peace offered to Fatah (or its successor) on the West Bank can delegitimize and bring an end to the popular support of Hamas in Gaza.
I personally think that Hamas would have reduced its rocket fire in response to carrots, and, crucially, that these very carrots are what Israel is going to offer Hamas when Israel’s attack ends.
What “carrots” would Hamas be interested in? They’re primary goal is the destruction of Israel. How do you bribe someone who wants to kill you?
For starters, Hamas wants the economic blockade lifted. They’ll probably get some reduced and limited version of that.
Rand, here’s an simplified overview of the economic situation in Gaza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm
You can see almost at a glance that there are ample opportunities for carrots (including, literally, carrots!)
Bob,
if the Palestinian Gazans are hungry, shouldn’t they be smuggling “carrots” and not rockets?
Yes, they should smuggle in carrots and sanity (or grow their own). But insanity in an enemy is no excuse for useless killing of innocents.
The only ‘carrot’ Hamas deserves is a boot to their ungrateful face ala the one Kirk gave Kurge in ST III.
“But insanity in an enemy is no excuse for useless killing of innocents.”
Quite true. So if Israel were to apply Totten’s second approach to proportionality (sending hundreds of missiles in without concerning themselves with what they hit) this might be a relevant point for Israel.
Israel is targeting enemy weapons depots and command centers that have intentionally been placed in residential neighborhoods. Their enemy relies on weak minded lefties in the West to wail about the “needless” loss of life to protect terrorist resources.
Israel is, in fact, putting its own people in harm’s way to achieve the goal of killing as few noncombatants as possible. Israel is defending it itself in a moral fashion by targeting and destroying an enemy that is determined to use cowardly tactics. The Israeli approach is far more moral than any alternative I’ve yet to hear from people who are pained to look upon the real and staged images coming out of Gaza.
On another note, if you look at the Gaza strip on a map, you will notice that it has land boundaries with two countries. Before you go on about an immoral blockade and what Israel – a stated enemy of the those in control of Gaza – should do about it, think long and hard about why Egypt doesn’t allow supplies in.
Joe, do you think Israel’s current attack will actually change the situation? Do you think Israel plans to get rid of Hamas? Do you think that in, say, a year’s time Hamas will have any fewer weapons than it has now? Do you think the rocket attacks will end?
I’m all for an attack if it would actually accomplish anything, but I think this one won’t. Sometimes this kind of discussion reminds me of space policy — you can be pro-NASA, and yet think that NASA is currently doing a horrible job with manned space, and you can be anti-NASA and yet be pro-space. I’m very pro-Israel and I’m not against killing terrorists, but I don’t see what is being accomplished by this latest attack by Israel.
The alternative to this attack is not necessarily sitting back and doing nothing, but lets consider that possibility. Sitting back and accepting inaccurate rocket fire from Gaza would result in fewer Israeli deaths than this assualt, and, at the same time, doing nothing would serve to make Hamas look ineffective. Instead, this attack gives Hamas a chance play the victim, and worse, it has a chance to look like the victor here (in the eyes of the Gaza public).
Bob,
I can’t tell you how it will change the situation. Maybe Hamas will be weakened enough for Fatah to step in. Maybe it will buy Israel a year of quiet. I don’t know how Hamas is bringing weapons in. Maybe Israel is doing this as a precursor to clamping down on known weapons supply lines. No one knows when the last battle in this fight will occur- just as no one knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the revolutionary war at the time.
What I do know is that lack of knowledge on these points is not a reason for inaction. The exact same arguments were given against going to into Afghanistan. When you have an enemy attack you from ground, you attack that ground when you can. If they are the kind of craven weakling who attacks from behind a child, then they – not you – are responsible for the child’s death. The accomplices of these cowards include people who make excuses from them.
As for what this attack accomplishes. It destroys enemy capacity to perform attacks. It ensures that people trained by Hamas are permanently removed from the picture, it destroys Hamas infrastructure and materiel. It disrupts any plans for bigger enemy attacks. I hope you’re not one of those morons who say things like, “For every terrorist killed, two take his place.” But the two that take the place of a trained leader are untrained canon fodder. That is success. That is reason enough for an attack.
Your analysis of sitting back is flawed. Sitting back would allow the enemy the time and resources to plan and execute bigger, more deadly attacks. Sitting back has been demonstrated in the past to guarantee bigger attacks. Sitting back has never removed an enemy. I cannot understand how it has become a valid military analysis to believe that giving enemy room to breath and build capacity to wage war is somehow a nuanced way to win. The idea is childish.
Hamas will never look ineffective as long as they have big contingents willing to make excuses for them no matter what they do. When those contingents stop, Hamas will cease to be effective very quickly since all they have is propaganda. If you want to reduce the violence in the middle east, I suggest you find a way to remove the idea of a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
People who propagate that idea are the servants of terrorists.
proportionality is retarded.
I’ve lived a relatively violent life, and to accomplish the things that I wanted (which I haven’t accomplished, because of punishment for my reactions which were disproportional to the initial acts, even though I was VERY restrained) I had to exact punishment on others.
Sometimes it’s by acting out of form to call punishment onto others who acted against me, sometimes it was me beating the living snot out of someone, sometimes it was me absorbing, without defense, punishment to punish others.
I have decided that No longer will I play the game, I will simply punish those who wrong me. That is how it should be.
Bob,
I believe that central flaw in your analysis (and I applaud you for making an attempt at a coherent analysis of the situation, something few on the left ever bother to do) is that you presume that Hamas (and those fringe groups associated with it) are using the same set of ‘victory conditions’ (i.e. economic prosperity, political gain, etc.) that you might adopt in similar situations. This is, I believe, fundamentally incorrect, and in fact is what negates so much of what passes for ‘analysis’ on the left (I do NOT include you in that criticism) when it comes to the middle east. Hamas and associated groups (even Fatah, though they seem to be a bit moderated by corruption, not excactly a good thing…) are driven by a deep comittment to destroy the state of Israel, and they honestly believe it to be their religious duty to do so. Such people cannot be reasoned with, and cannot be ‘bought off’ with carrots. In point of fact they see such offers as signs of weakness..
I am reminded of LBJ’s offer of economic aid to Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War. The idea was that the US would provide the North with economic benefits (notably dams…LBJ seemed to think that Uncle Ho was just another governor he could buy off) in exchange for the North accepting the South Vietnamese government as legitimate. Whatever the merits of LBJ’s offer (which I believe was sincere, for what it was worth), his complete failure to understand Ho and his motivations was as total as it was fatal to his attempts to negotiate. In a similar fashion, ignoring that we are dealing with people here who simply are not going to respond to the same sort of risk/reward calculations that we do is extremely dangerous, and ultimately self-defeating.
The economic blockade makes it difficult (NOT impossible, but expensive) for Hamas to bring in military hardware, and ultimately undermines its ability to provide any economic benefit to its population. Like the blockade of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, it isn’t perfect, but it does slowly strangle and distort the economy, and undermines not only the military capability of its target, but the legitimacy of that government as well. While no Confederate army in the field was ever forced to withdraw because of a lack of munitions, the effects of the blockade on the Confederate civilian population over time inexorably eroded the ability of those armies to resist.
Hamas must be defeated, destroyed, and discredited, as it has proven time and time again that it cannot be negotiated with. Remember, we are talking about an organization that refuses to even acknowlege the right of Israel to exist, what possible basis for negotiation is there? If no moderates exist among the Palestinian people who wish to live in peace (even a cold peace of necessity, I do not expect them to embrace their neighbors), then they cannot claim themselves to be innocents, and thus any attacks against them are entirely appropriate, even necessary.
None of this brings me pleasure, and I wish with all of my heart and soul that some other alternative was possible. With that said, wishful thinking and failing to recognize that one’s enemy simply isn’t playing by the same rules that you are is a recipe for disaster in the end…
I don’t understand the concept of proportionality in warfare.
Set the objective, and then achieve it.
The Jews have the means, but no objective.
The other side has the objective, and is waiting for Iran to supply the means.
I often wonder why those on the left, who are so enamoured of the notion of ‘proportionality’ seem to object to the idea of porportionality of goals. Since Israel’s goal is simply to be left alone in peace (and yes, I do understand that some reasonable people object to their being left alone in peace in posession of what they – the Palestinians – believe to be stolen lands), while the goal of their enemies is to utterly destroy the state of Israel, and kill all Jews in the territory, perhaps the problem of proportion lies with the goals of Israel’s enemies, not their response to those enemies.
Hamas cannot be negoitated with. But Hamas is not all of the Gaza strip.
The issue, at least for me, is effectiveness. Israel’s previous punative expeditions haven’t been effective. These expeditions, and the blockade, have in fact strengthened the radicals.
What Israel should be doing in Gaza is what Petraeus did in Iraq – work to split the hardliners (in Iraq, the Al Queda) from the moderates. That’s hard to do with bombs, precision or otherwise.
I think it is a fatal flaw to only rely upon your highest level of retaliation as a means to deterrence. One should still play all the other cards in the deck and just keep the last resort Ace tucked up the sleeve for when you really really really need it.
If you take all of your retaliation options off the table except only leave the most destructive and vile then the likelihood that you will actually use that last resort option goes up dramatically. One will just be pushed, and pushed, and pushed a bit further, and then one day…..
What Israel should be doing in Gaza is what Petraeus did in Iraq – work to split the hardliners (in Iraq, the Al Queda) from the moderates. That’s hard to do with bombs, precision or otherwise.
Ummmm…Chris. The “moderates” are providing targeting info to the Israelis. It is Hamas that is being hurt in the current Israeli campaign, not “moderates.” Their precision-guided munitions are doing exactly what needs to be done — causing maximum pain to Hamas while minimizing collateral casualties.
Israel doesn’t have to do anything to “split” them from Hamas. Hamas did that themselves in the coup in which they murdered many Fatah members.
Rand – I hope you are correct, because it’s not apparent that is what’s happening.
If it’s not apparent to you, go argue with Jeff Goldberg.
Josh suggests that Israel is using ‘their highest level of retaliation as a means of deterrance’, and argues that this is a poor strategy. I might counter that given the extreme (almost excessive) lengths that the Israelis have gone to in order to minimize civilian casualties (some are inevitable, given that Hamas has taken equally extreme measures to maximize them…), what we are seeing right now is hardly the highest level of retaliation that the Israelis are capable of. Mass use of ground troops in a move to reoccupy the Gaza strip (after which a Petraeus like CI campaign might be implemented) is one option, and further up the escalation ladder than that lies the possibility of doing what the press already accuses them of, mass murder with indiscriminate use of aerial bombing rather than precision weapons. Simply put, the Israelis are being remarkably restrained, though they get little credit for it.
As for comment that Chris made, Rand’s response is right on target…literally in this case. Hamas has been badly surprised by the quality of Israel’s targeting, made possible in large part by an effective network of informers using cell-phones. This is a commonplace phenomenon on the West Bank as well, and is one of the reasons you rarely see Hamas figures in public. It gets reported, and they are quickly introduced to Mr. Hellfire missile.
With this said, there are always cases where too many civilians die, no matter how carefully an attack is planned and executed. Let’s remember however, that the Palestinians and their enablers in the global press have a long history of deliberately faking civilian casualities, and obscuring just who those dead bodies were and what they were doing before they became dead bodies…
Every dead civilian’s blood, both in Israel and Gaza, is on the hands of Hamas, who are war criminals, not Israel.