A terror war

[ErikViking]

Alot of focus has been on the Israelian attacks on Hisbollah covering amongs civilians. I find it hard to accept that an army knowingly kills civilians. But since their enemy is conducting that way they face this terrible dilemma. This is more aboud a sliding scale of morality than a question of right and wrong. I tried to make some extensions:

One terrorist in a building with 1000 children - Don't think Israel would bomb that target.

1000 terrorists in a building with one child - That target I think would be bombed.

So those desicisions are probably made every time and I hope the Israelian commanders have serious agony in making those descisions too. It will be their price to pay. Maybe they can get some relieve knowing that the truly evil acts wasn't theirs but rather the ones forcing them to rationalize over life and death of innocent children.

BUT

Israel claims to fight Hisbollah. They use their armed forces in an attempt to neutalize this enemy and finding it a bit hard. So they are "putting preasure" on the civilian population by laying the infrastructure in ruins in hope that the civilians will distance themselves from Hisbollah. Now this is terror. They are striking a secondary unarmed non-combatant group to achieve their goals. An act of terror warfare. I find it wrongful.

I'd like to make a comparison to anther, recent war. USA wanted to ensure that Iraq didn't have WMD. We can stick to that pretext, other scenarios has been discussed elsewhere. USA openly challanged the nation of Iraq and subsequently declared war. In this war they have fought both regular army, guerilla and terrorists and still not resort to terrorising the civilian population. The devastation on infrastructure was a result of modern warfare and actually USA took steps not to destroy but to ensure a functioning society.

I think it is a huge difference.

 

[Annie]

Alot of focus has been on the Israelian attacks on Hisbollah covering amongs civilians. I find it hard to accept that an army knowingly kills civilians. But since their enemy is conducting that way they face this terrible dilemma. This is more aboud a sliding scale of morality than a question of right and wrong. I tried to make some extensions:

One terrorist in a building with 1000 children - Don't think Israel would bomb that target.

1000 terrorists in a building with one child - That target I think would be bombed.

So those desicisions are probably made every time and I hope the Israelian commanders have serious agony in making those descisions too. It will be their price to pay. Maybe they can get some relieve knowing that the truly evil acts wasn't theirs but rather the ones forcing them to rationalize over life and death of innocent children.

BUT

Israel claims to fight Hisbollah. They use their armed forces in an attempt to neutalize this enemy and finding it a bit hard. So they are "putting preasure" on the civilian population by laying the infrastructure in ruins in hope that the civilians will distance themselves from Hisbollah. Now this is terror. They are striking a secondary unarmed non-combatant group to achieve their goals. An act of terror warfare. I find it wrongful.

I'd like to make a comparison to anther, recent war. USA wanted to ensure that Iraq didn't have WMD. We can stick to that pretext, other scenarios has been discussed elsewhere. USA openly challanged the nation of Iraq and subsequently declared war. In this war they have fought both regular army, guerilla and terrorists and still not resort to terrorising the civilian population. The devastation on infrastructure was a result of modern warfare and actually USA took steps not to destroy but to ensure a functioning society.

I think it is a huge difference.

Any loss of innocents is something to regret. However, the 'laying waste' to the infrastructure has everything to do with trying to keep Hizbollah from being rearmed by Syria.

The US has many more people than Israel, bringing weapons into Iraq from our enemies wasn't our biggest problem, it was jihadis trying to join in. I'm quite sure we probably hit some innocents and missed some jihadis. War is bad, but sometimes the only recourse.

 

[ErikViking]

Any loss of innocents is something to regret. However, the 'laying waste' to the infrastructure has everything to do with trying to keep Hizbollah from being rearmed by Syria.

The US has many more people than Israel, bringing weapons into Iraq from our enemies wasn't our biggest problem, it was jihadis trying to join in. I'm quite sure we probably hit some innocents and missed some jihadis. War is bad, but sometimes the only recourse.

Yes. I guess you are right about Syria. (This war is a bit complex with nations not fighting but rather uncontrollable groups within those nations) But think of it, would USA had taken that course, I don't hink so. Maybe calling the Lebanese government out: You fix this or we fix you.

The war in Iraq on the otherhand was very focused. USA said what they was going to do and then did it. On military basis it mus have been one of the best performance ever, both in efficency and the low level of destruction.

Also another big difference is that USA took responsibility for its actions (And still do - is it a first time in history? A nation defeating another AND rebuild to be able to pull out). Israel claim to accept a peacekeeping force once they are satisfied with the Hisbolla situation. An more honest and long term peace approach would have been to say something like: "We know this is bad, but as soon as this is over we will start helping you getting back on your feet. We are not evil, you know." And then do it.

 

[Annie]

Yes. I guess you are right about Syria. (This war is a bit complex with nations not fighting but rather uncontrollable groups within those nations) But think of it, would USA had taken that course, I don't hink so. Maybe calling the Lebanese government out: You fix this or we fix you.

The war in Iraq on the otherhand was very focused. USA said what they was going to do and then did it. On military basis it mus have been one of the best performance ever, both in efficency and the low level of destruction.

Also another big difference is that USA took responsibility for its actions (And still do - is it a first time in history? A nation defeating another AND rebuild to be able to pull out). Israel claim to accept a peacekeeping force once they are satisfied with the Hisbolla situation. An more honest and long term peace approach would have been to say something like: "We know this is bad, but as soon as this is over we will start helping you getting back on your feet. We are not evil, you know." And then do it.

We did the same after the American Civil War to some extent-tried some rebuilding. Advocated it after WWI, but Wilson couldn't get that through. We certainly did after WWII, Marshall Plan.

I don't think Israel is being as bad as you think. More to the point, when the fighting stops, see what happens. Remember, they pulled out of Lebanon, much of Gaza. You might want to read some of the Israeli military blogs, you'll see even now, many are trying to help the Lebanese, even from tanks and such.

 

[ErikViking]

We did the same after the American Civil War to some extent-tried some rebuilding. Advocated it after WWI, but Wilson couldn't get that through. We certainly did after WWII, Marshall Plan.

Thanks!

I don't think Israel is being as bad as you think. More to the point, when the fighting stops, see what happens. Remember, they pulled out of Lebanon, much of Gaza. You might want to read some of the Israeli military blogs, you'll see even now, many are trying to help the Lebanese, even from tanks and such.

Actually, I don't think of Israel as being particulary bad. Maybe their history have made them sort of harsh. I also don't think Israel is about expanding territory for use, this is a defensive action bottom-line. It will be interesting to see what is going to happen, but right now I (even if you reduced it a bit) feel Israel is doing the wrong thing.

Intrestingly enough: I would have had a greater understaning if Israel DID fight the Lebaneese government openly. That would also have justified their severe destruction of communication, energy and infrastructure, and maybe even reduced the need for it. Now it is all sort of fuzzy.

 

[Annie]

Intrestingly enough: I would have had a greater understaning if Israel DID fight the Lebaneese government openly. That would also have justified their severe destruction of communication, energy and infrastructure, and maybe even reduced the need for it. Now it is all sort of fuzzy.

I don't think that the Israelis see Lebanese government in total as bad. Sure they have that minority of Hizbollah that were elected, 3 cabinet members, but all in all, the Lebanese and Israel have done ok, except for the border. Hizbollah has been pushing on the Lebanese military, UN UNIFIL, and civilians for over the past 6 years. I think Israel is hoping that the government is propped up and supported by other governments after this, to keep Hizbollah under control.

 

[ErikViking]

I don't think that the Israelis see Lebanese government in total as bad. Sure they have that minority of Hizbollah that were elected, 3 cabinet members, but all in all, the Lebanese and Israel have done ok, except for the border. Hizbollah has been pushing on the Lebanese military, UN UNIFIL, and civilians for over the past 6 years. I think Israel is hoping that the government is propped up and supported by other governments after this, to keep Hizbollah under control.

Yes. I didn't mean that I thought Israel should have declared war, but their strategy of bombing infrastucure would have been more appropriate. There is something that is hard to understand about the middle east. Think of it: Another nation bombing bridges and airfields in order to get clear your country of a militia (It would be your term for them) while your government does nothing. It is quite strange even if there is an explanation. If I was a leader I would not let another nation decide what level of collateral damage would be accepted in my country, I would defend all my civilians.

 

[Annie]

Yes. I didn't mean that I thought Israel should have declared war, but their strategy of bombing infrastucure would have been more appropriate. There is something that is hard to understand about the middle east. Think of it: Another nation bombing bridges and airfields in order to get clear your country of a militia (It would be your term for them) while your government does nothing. It is quite strange even if there is an explanation. If I was a leader I would not let another nation decide what level of collateral damage would be accepted in my country, I would defend all my civilians.

If Lebanon moves at all, either/both Israel and Hizbollah would act against them. Both armies are superior to the Lebanese. If you check out Lebanese bloggers you will find some that want Israel to keep going and at least clip the claws of Hizbollah, so that the Lebanese could have a chance-problem then is, Syria and Iran.