Acts of War

[juliod]

Judging by the thread in the apologietics forums, the current conflict in Lebanon has left a lot of people unsure what to think. Below are some points I want to make which might be good subjects for debate.

1) Every nation (including Israel) has the inherent right to unleash war on people they consider to be enemies. They do not have to engage in any formal justification, or even explain to anyone why they are doing it.

2) But the nation making war does have to look to the present and future in order to show that the war will make things "better". It must be expected that political constituents and international partners will hold a war-making nation accountable.

3) The mere utility of war as an instrument of policy is extremely doubtful. It is not likely that this conflict will make things "better" (for Israel or anyone else) in the short or long term. The use of conventional forces has dropped clean of the chart since WWII. No military action has yielded tangible benefits for any nation. Israel's many conflicts has not resulted in security and stability. India and Pakistan fought 4 wars and yet resolved none of their differences. Many nations (including the US and the Soviet Union) fought protracted counter-insurgencies, and universally lost. War among lower-tier nations has an equally dismal record over the last 50 years.

4) Individuals also have a right to wage war, but under the risk that they will be treated as a criminal rather than a combatant.

5) Residents of an area have an inherent right to defend against all threats, domestic or foreign. This right is absolute, and no one need obey conventions or legalisms in the defence of their homes and neighborhoods. This leads, however, to some of the most nasty internal fighting, ethnic cleansing, massacre, etc. Powers that seek to control such areas will treat these insurgents as criminals or (usually) worse.

6) The distinction between war and crime is entirely in the hands of the conventional powers. A nation decides how to respond to an incident involving non-nation-states. For example, we decided to respond to 9/11 with a "war" on terror. We decided against the alternative, which was to proceed under a law-enforcement paradigm. Given the well-established dis-utility of warfare, this was probably a mistake.

7) All people have the right to be treated well when captured, even if the "other side" does not do so. All persons have rights, all the time. If a prisoner is an acknowledged combatant, then they must be freely released as soon as the conflict is over. If the prisoner is a "criminal" then they have the right to a speedy trial in a proper forum with a genuine legal process. The current US practise of claiming that certain "illegal combatants" do not have rights is a shameful stain on our national character and history that I never expect to be expunged.

DanZ

[Metatron]

We could have, for example, have put pressure on Pakistan, which was the only government to recognize the Taleban. Pakistan is a dictatorship, with nuclear and other WMDs, with a history and current practice of supporting active terrorist groups, including coordination with their own military.

We DID put pressure on Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_re ... of_America

Pakistan moved decisively to ally itself with the United States in its war against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. It provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases, for its attack on Afghanistan. It has arrested over five hundred Al-Qaeda members and handed them over to the U.S. President George W. Bush and senior U.S. officers have been lavish in their praise of Pakistani efforts.

It would not have happened overnight, but by strong diplomacy and law-enforcement, Bin Laden's trial would by now be long over. Remember, we haven't captured or killed him, and terrorism is now a daily event in the headlines.

How the heck were you going to bring Bin Laden to trial if he is in Afghanistan protected by the Taliban (not to mention a fairly sizable force of Al Qaeda) which under your scenario would not be even remotely threatened?

As for the comment that terrorism is now a daily event in the headlines, it wasn't exactly a rare event before 9/11 either. Al Qaeda had already attacked us three times before 9/11 (1st World Trade Center attack, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the U.S.S. Cole) not to mention attacks from other Muslim whackjobs like Hezbollah (Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia).

Instead, Dubya was concerned only with getting his Bin Laden associates out of the country before any of them were implicated, and in pursueing his family fued with Hussein.

Looks like we're sailing away to Bush is Evil Michael Moore Fantasyland again. Got anything to backup this conspiracy theory claptrap?

And also, we have not actually had any success in Afghanistan. It's just the Soviet experience all over again. We control only the ground we stand on. Eventually the Taleban or some successor movement will take over.

Well we destroyed Al Qaeda's bases and training facilities, took out a lot of their leadership, smoked a whole lot of Al Qaedas and sent the rest up hiding in the mountains, so I wouldn't characterize the operation as totally unsuccessful. Under your scenario, these bases, training facilities, and Al Qaeda personnel would be fully operational and available to support terrorist operations against this country.

[Cephus]

Great! Then we are in agreement. I never claimed that the Afghanistan invasion was handled in an optimal fashion. I merely claimed that it was necessary.

It was so far from "optimal fashion" that I don't think we could even see that from where we were. If there was a way George Bush could screw up the "Global Disaster on Terror" more than he already has, I'd hate to see it.

I'm also rather leary of the efficacy of "nation building", especially in cultures so divergent from our own. It would be grand if democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq but overcoming the twin hurdles of ingrained tribalism and conservative religions that have evolved little since the middle ages is probably too much friction to overcome.

I'm leary of "nation building" regardless. Maybe we need to spend some time building our own nation rather than telling everyone else what to do in theirs. After all, we're hardly a shining example these days.

[MagusYanam]

It was so far from "optimal fashion" that I don't think we could even see that from where we were. If there was a way George Bush could screw up the "Global Disaster on Terror" more than he already has, I'd hate to see it.

So would I. But even though I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan I realise that it was indeed unavoidable. Some form of action had to be taken against Osama bin Laden and his abettors after the 9/11 attacks, though perhaps a police action and not a full-scale invasion would have been more appropriate.

I'm leary of "nation building" regardless. Maybe we need to spend some time building our own nation rather than telling everyone else what to do in theirs. After all, we're hardly a shining example these days.

Amen to that. But we're in a couple of situations right now where we don't really have a choice. The Taleban has come back in Afghanistan, and we're dealing with them now. The most effective way to relegate them to obscurity is to ensure that the nation is healthy. And it must be admitted that we made a huge, stinking mess of Iraq because our leaders didn't know the subtleties of the Iraqi political climate and they didn't have any contingency plan. (Not to mention the fact that our president, who claims to be a Christian, completely violated the Augustinian principles of 'just war', not to mention the more correct Christian stance of pacifism.)

Well we destroyed Al Qaeda's bases and training facilities, took out a lot of their leadership, smoked a whole lot of Al Qaedas and sent the rest up hiding in the mountains, so I wouldn't characterize the operation as totally unsuccessful. Under your scenario, these bases, training facilities, and Al Qaeda personnel would be fully operational and available to support terrorist operations against this country.

Terrorism is not like conventional warfare, as I'm sure you well know. We can destroy all the al-Qaeda bases, training facilities and leaders we please - that won't solve the problem. The problem won't be solved unless we put our money into striking at the head of the serpent instead of at the tail. The biggest weapon we have against terrorism is (drum roll, please)...

Foreign aid.

There would be no terrorists, no one to listen to the hate messages of spoiled rich kids like Osama bin Laden if they didn't have the motivation of desperation. Our policies with regard to foreign aid and support of governments which offer us cheap fuel have placed us on the receiving end of a lot of terrorism. We start getting tough on Saudi Arabia and spending more of our federal fiscal resources in actually making these angry third-world nations better places to live, and maybe their citizens won't be so angry with us.

[Cephus]

So would I. But even though I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan I realise that it was indeed unavoidable. Some form of action had to be taken against Osama bin Laden and his abettors after the 9/11 attacks, though perhaps a police action and not a full-scale invasion would have been more appropriate.

But in the end, we didn't take action against Osama bin Laden, we invaded a soverign nation and unseated their government. We didn't succeed in destroying Al Qaeda, we didn't succeed in capturing bin Laden, we didn't succeed in anything we supposedly went into Afghanistan to do, we just threw the Taliban out of power for the moment. So the question is, why were we really there? It sure doesn't look like it was to go after Al Qaeda.

Amen to that. But we're in a couple of situations right now where we don't really have a choice. The Taleban has come back in Afghanistan, and we're dealing with them now. The most effective way to relegate them to obscurity is to ensure that the nation is healthy. And it must be admitted that we made a huge, stinking mess of Iraq because our leaders didn't know the subtleties of the Iraqi political climate and they didn't have any contingency plan. (Not to mention the fact that our president, who claims to be a Christian, completely violated the Augustinian principles of 'just war', not to mention the more correct Christian stance of pacifism.)

But again, if our mission is to stop bin Laden, it shouldn't matter if the Taliban shows up in Afghanistan again. Our mission isn't supposed to be to destabilize governments, it is supposed to be to stop terrorists. We just keep creating massive messes because we think we can build nations without their consent. It's failing in both Afghanistan and Iraq because the people don't want what we're forcing on them.

Terrorism is not like conventional warfare, as I'm sure you well know. We can destroy all the al-Qaeda bases, training facilities and leaders we please - that won't solve the problem. The problem won't be solved unless we put our money into striking at the head of the serpent instead of at the tail. The biggest weapon we have against terrorism is (drum roll, please)...

Foreign aid.

No, buying people off isn't the answer. This is a problem to which there isn't a real solution, there's nothing anyone can do to stop terrorism and now that terrorists can get weapons that can cause mass damage, nobody will ever be safe again. But you can certainly minimize your chances of getting hit and stop painting big targets on your forehead and the fact that we are constantly pissing off the entire Muslim world with our actions isn't making us any friends. The US needs to learn that we do not run the world. We are not it's policeman. Not only does everyone not want to listen to us, a lot of people downright hate our guts because we try to force them to listen to us. It's about time we started acting like a MEMBER of the global club, not the group leader.

[Vladd44]

Being of the belief that Bush has used 9/11 as a rallying point for a war he had every hopes of on the day of his inauguration.... Iraq, I have little choice but to question every one of his motivations.

I understood that Afganistan was inevitable, but I would have preferred our boots on the ground, not proxies. With our people on the ground UBL would have been far more likely to have been caught. Can't pay the people who could have been on his payroll a month ago to catch him and expect any loyalty.

Iraq was a huge strategic blunder. Saddam was the best thorn in the side Iran had, our removal of Saddam will allow them to strongly influence Iraq in whatever form it ends up taking over the next decade.

Personally I see a partitioned Iraq, Shia, Sunni and Kurd, perhaps some loose confederation and revenue sharing set up among them, but likely not even that.

If the US wants to see democratically elected govts in the Middle East, then they must be prepared to accept whatever the people vote in. I cant help but believe that if things continue in Lebanon as they are we will see a much stronger Hezbollah presence in the next Lebanese Govt.

The roots of terrorism is the most basic of politics, Bread. To isolate ourselves from regimes that we don't like only weakens us. With the flow of money and goods across borders we can have much more control than we would ever have at the diplomatic table.

In My opinion the Bush administration has made the same mistake in both Afganhistan and Iraq. The first thing you have to do is establish order. On neither occasion have we committed sufficient troops to do so.

We didn't need 150k in Iraq, we needed 500k+. If we had put down a clear presence at the beginning most of the problems we have now woudnt even have happened. Through our unwillingness to do the job right we have brought the perfect enviroment for unrest to come about.

The only way we get out of Iraq without a total mess is to throw every boot we can on the ground in Iraq. We cannot expect to fix it and leave until we finish Square 1. Establish Control and Order.

Either way, as much as this war sickens me, I do not see us out in less than a decade unless we simply walk away from the mess that rummy, cheney, bush, condi and company has allowed to devolve.

But still, the first step must be to put sufficient numbers of troops on the ground to establish order.

We all already know not to count on the US Govt in a Natural Disaster, so stretch us further, If they can walk and carry a gun, Iraq they go.