Is Total Victory the Only Way?

[dbermanmd]

I posted a question the other day about "disproportionate response" - regarding the current war going on between Israel and Hezbullah.

Today's question: Is the best solution for this war a total and complete military victory for one side or do you think there are other viable alternatives that would provide that area with the best possibility for long term peace?

[vtie]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]292528[/snapback]</div>

Today's question: Is the best solution for this war a total and complete military victory for one side or do you think there are other viable alternatives that would provide that area with the best possibility for long term peace?
[/b]

What are you trying to achieve with your questions? It's obvious that you don't have the slightest interest in any other point of view.
But some of the responses to your previous thread at least learned me something: driving a prius doesn't mean that you are intelligent. Even Dubya suddenly seemed to be a fine and reasonable guy after reading some of those posts.

If you want an interesting and intelligent view on the current problems in Lebanon, read the latest Economist. This is a source that, without any doubt, belongs to the camp of the U.S. and Israel, but yet they gave a very balanced opinion. Definetely not the silly "blast them away" rethoric.

But let me try to answer your question anyway. It depends on how you define "complete military victory". There is no clear definition in the context of a terrorist organisation or any other underground movement. You can't fight terrorism like you fight a conventional enemy. In the situation of the Hezbollah, I see only two ways for Israel to defeat Hezbollah with armed forces:

* Kill or emprison each militant. This is of course impossible to achieve, because you don't even know who is militant and who is not. And the more bombs you drop, the more people you drive into the arms of Hezbollah. One option would be to use nuclear weapons, but I hope no one seriously advocates that...

* Occupy and control the entire territory from which the terrorists operate. Israel has done this in the past with Lebanon, and it turned out to be a nightmare. Actually, the Hezbollah itself was created as a reaction to the previous occupation of Lebanon by Israel. Just like the September 11 attacks by Al Qaeda were a direct consequence of the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (the holiest of all grounds for muslims)

So, no matter how you look at it, it's a massive piece of $hit, and there is no easy solution. Perhaps some priuschat members have played too much computer games, where dropping a few bombs is the solution to everything.

[TonyPSchaefer]

I have always viewed the US as the "Bully on the Playground." Both militarily and governmentally.

I'm not sure that beating up the other kids is a "solution." Oh sure, the bully has a few cronies and when a weaker kid needs muscle-for-hire they will hang out with the bully, but nobody really likes the bully. Actually, people love to watch a bully finally get what's coming to them. When you asked about disproportionate response, I had to wonder who was responding to what?

Yeah, we're the bully.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]292570[/snapback]</div>

I have always viewed the US as the "Bully on the Playground." Both militarily and governmentally.

I'm not sure that beating up the other kids is a "solution." Oh sure, the bully has a few cronies and when a weaker kid needs muscle-for-hire they will hang out with the bully, but nobody really likes the bully. Actually, people love to watch a bully finally get what's coming to them. When you asked about disproportionate response, I had to wonder who was responding to what?

Yeah, we're the bully.
[/b]

I think you are missing my point. The same way the US won unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany in WWII or the way the Civil War was won, etc - is that what is necessary to offer the best chance at peace between Israel and Hezbollah.

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 08:46 AM) [snapback]292528[/snapback]</div>

Today's question: Is the best solution for this war a total and complete military victory for one side or do you think there are other viable alternatives that would provide that area with the best possibility for long term peace?
[/b]

Here's a solution. Set up a pay per view where you have GdubYA, Dick Cheney, Rumsy and the PM of Israel in a wrestling ring with OBL, Kim Jong, nutcase leader of Iran, and head of Hezbollah. Give them all bats with some nails nailed into the bats. The side with the last man standing takes all. Proceeds from the pay per view go to rebuilding efforts. I get a 10% cut for the idea in which I'd use to cover all uncovered parking lots with solar panels.

[TonyPSchaefer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]292578[/snapback]</div>

I think you are missing my point. The same way the US won unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany in WWII or the way the Civil War was won, etc - is that what is necessary to offer the best chance at peace between Israel and Hezbollah.[/b]

Are you suggesting that we invade, overrun, and destroy?

We had to drop two (2) nuclear bombs to achieve surrender from Japan.
Germany was a mess before that war was finished.
At least 618,000 people died during the Civil War.

Is that what you're asking for?

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]292582[/snapback]</div>

Are you suggesting that we invade, overrun, and destroy?

We had to drop two (2) nuclear bombs to achieve surrender from Japan.
Germany was a mess before that war was finished.
At least 618,000 people died during the Civil War.

Is that what you're asking for?
[/b]

No, should Israel attempt to achieve a complete military victory or should there be a cease fire and / or peace keeping force separating them?

[TonyPSchaefer]

Okay. I apologize. I was all wrapped around the thought that we would consider going in to settle the thing. I'm better now.

However, I don't think it matters who is doing the bomb dropping and killing. I will never advocate that. Oh sure, sometimes people seem to deserve it, but there's a reason Jesus overruled the "eye for an eye" Old Testament thinking and replaced it with "turn the other cheek." But now that I've brought religion into it, I have to wonder if non-Christians should be expected to abide by "turn the other cheek". If Jews live and die by the Old Testament, we should expect that they will forever pursue "an eye for an eye."

There was a thread here that I can't seem to find in which someone argued that a person of true religious conviction would do whatever is necesary to defend their beliefs. If those beliefs include smoting and destroying thine enemy then I see so peaceful outcome to this struggle or any of the Middle-Eastern struggles that have been stewing for thousands of years.

As for me personally: given an option - and I think there's always an option - I will vote for peace-keeping and treaties any day.

[Mystery Squid]

The problem must be solved on THIS level...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_..._1/abraham.html

Excerpt

The Story of Abraham, from the Hebrew Bible


(Genesis 16:1-3, 15-16, 17, 21:1-2)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Jews tried to explain that the Land of Israel was theirs by divine right though they acknowledged that their ancestors had not originated there, they pointed to the promise made to Abraham (originally from the Neobabylonian city of Ur). Although the modern Zionist movement was largely non-religious, the idea of the "promised land" has had a powerful influence in creating and maintaining the modern state of Israel. Ironically, this same story also tells of the origin of another people, the offspring of Ishmael, whom Muslims identify as the Arabs. Both religions therefore trace their origins back to Abraham, and both hold the land of Israel sacred, though neither accepts the other's claims. Like Isaac, several major figures in Jewish tradition are younger brothers or outsiders who eventually triumph through virtue, wit, or skill--Jacob, Joseph, and David, for instance. This pattern reflects the self-image of a people who view themselves as survivors who needed the special intervention of God to triumph. Note the emphasis on a high reproduction rate, desirable in most ancient cultures, for only a minority of children survived infancy. [/b]

[Jack Kelly]

Thoughts about purely military options, like it or not (and I don't) must in this unique case be considered in the context of the overall situation.

You can't obliterate generalized hatred by bombing the entire infrastructure of Hezbullah to smithereens. You can only avenge, in spades, a stupid, provocative act.

At some point in history, barring Armageddon, Israel must co-exist with its neighboring states. How quickly mutually beneficial commercial and cultural relationships develop will depend largely on the fullness of the reservoir of hatred after the smoke has cleared.

Hezbollah and Hamas both achieved substantial political success---democratically---by avoiding excesses of corruption and making positive contributions to the socioeconomin welfare of their constituents, apart from their terrorist agenda.

I'd like to see Israel try small experiments in SUPPLANTING the "social service" efforts of Hamas and Hezbullah in Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon. Call it "foreign aid", but under the auspices of their own administration, via U.N.-overseen occupation. It would really be American aid, largely, delivered via Israel, given the level of aid we provide to Israel. It could not be administered as "charity", with condescension.

Perhaps some Muslims could be weaned from hatred and terrorism.

Got a better idea?