People keep urging Israel to keep their responses to terrorist attacks “proportionate”. What?! Who would say such a crazy thing except those in love with war? If they kill three people, and, wanting to be proportionate, Israel kills three people, that only keeps the cycle of violence going on forever. And that is not a cycle you want to be on, because, if you do too well, the French will act all surprised when blood tests on a man reveal the presence of testosterone.
Responses to attacks must be disproportionate to end wars. This is basic war logic that one learns on the first day of war school. Obviously, many critics of Israel have never been to war school. Also, they hate Jews… but this is common and unremarkable. What is important is to understand how disproportionate responses end wars. If you always respond proportionately, then the enemy who is bad will always know the risks with each attack since he knows exactly how you will respond. But, with disproportionate attacks, the enemy (who still is bad) will not know how you respond, for any response can happen for someone who responds disproportionately. This makes bad people who are the enemy scared.
Let us look at real world example: If terrorists blow up a car and Israel responds proportionately by blowing up one of the terrorists’ cars, this will not scare the terrorists because they have crappy cars. Thus, terrorists will continue to blow up good Israeli cars while collecting insurance on their crappy cars when Israel responds proportionately. Now, if terrorists blow up a car and Israelis respond disproportionately by blowing up five cities – cities the terrorists like – this is much more likely to discourage the terrorists. They will think, “If Israel keeps responding in this disproportionate way, they will blow up all our cities a thousand times over by the time we destroy all their cars. We don’t want that; our stuff is in those cities.” Thus, through disproportionate responses, the conflict is ended. This is good and smart way to fight.
Now, a disproportionate response does not have to be more than the initial attack; responding with much less is also disproportionate. Let’s say terrorists murder five Israeli families. Instead of murdering five terrorist families (a proportionate response) or nuking Mecca (disproportionate response of greater force), the Israelis could respond by kidnapping one of the terrorists’ goats and put lipstick and a dress on the goat (which would be really ridiculous since it’s a male goat). Then, the Israelis could broadcast video of the goat and everyone standing around laughing at the goat in a dress (who is also wearing lipstick). While this would be a disproportionate response, it would be unlikely to discourage bad people as much as killing and explosions do (unless terrorists fear nothing more than the public mockery of their goats; then this is a very strategic response).
Some worry that disproportionate responses to terrorist attacks could harm civilians. My solution to this is to not worry. Civilians serve little purpose in war; whether they live or die gives little advantage to either side since they don’t fight (that’s why they are civilians). This is why I don’t understand why terrorists target civilians since those aren’t the ones they need to be worried about killing them. It may be easiest to kill little Israeli children, but they are no threat compared to older Israelis with machine guns. I guess terrorists are unable to do a proportionate response or higher since Israelis with machine guns tend to kill terrorists, so they target civilians. This is not good strategy though, as it only angers those with machine guns who were the bigger threat to begin with.
So, to end this conflict, Israel must continue with disproportionate responses. If terrorists shoot someone, then Israel must bomb a city. If terrorist blow up a building, Israel should destroy one of the terrorists’ greatest holy symbols – the Eiffel Tower. Then terrorists become very scared and pee their pants and can’t buy new pants because they’re too busy protecting their goats from public ridicule. When the enemy is reduced to a bunch of scared people with soiled pants standing in front of their goats, then war is won and conflict is over. This you learn on last day of war school.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as “If Someone Mugs You, You Mug Him Back and Kill His Family: A Guide to Self-Defense” and numerous textbooks for war class at war school.
One of your best, Frank, and its logic is flawless.
I object to your disproportionate use of humor. Your funny is much more funny than mine.
Most of the time the “proportionality” critics make the frame too small, and Frank has fallen into a similar trap here.
The intent of Hezbollah is the eradication of a sovereign Israel and they are willing to kill as many Israeli’s (and Lebanese) as that takes. Therefore, the true measure of proportionality is not measuring the actual casualities but rather to measure the actual casualities against the intended targets. Hezbollah wants to target millions of Israelis and several hundred or even several thousand Lebanese civilians are a proportionate cost to achieve that aim. Israel wants to protect those same millions of her citizens, and those hundreds or even thousands of Lebanese are proportionate collateral damage when put in a balance.
The crucial difference is that Hezbollah is deliberately targeting civilians while the Israeli’s are targeting what they believe are Hezbollah assets and launch sites.
The better question is whether the Israeli actions to date are half-measures and whether or not an Israeli occupation of the Bekaa Vellay will be necessary to break Hezbollah.
I’m more confused after reading this than when I started. What kind of goat are we talking about? I would guess a Nubian– but could it be an Oberhasli? Or a Togg?
It’s difficult to formulate a mental model of the stakes involved if I can’t picture the goat properly.
So… make Islam just like Japan circa 1945?
How about an orthogonal response, like nuking the moon?
“If they kill three people, and, wanting to be proportionate, Israel kills three people”
Didn’t you mean, Israel kills 600, FrankJ?
Does anybody else have this irresistible urge to shout out “Jimmy!” ala Timmy from South Park every time Jim comments? Or is that just me?
Jimmy!
Frank’s next feat, after predicting the logical responses of Hezbollah, will be predicting the logical resposes of a group of cats.
//Didn’t you mean, Israel kills 600, FrankJ?//
There wouldn’t be 600 if those 597 would just read the tracts and get out of the building…unless of course the Hezbollah thugs broke their feet, locked the doors and maybe shot them in the head beforehand making certain there would be a fair number of civilian casualties to blame on Israel…JIMMY!!!
Here is a must read article on the subject by Charles Moore.
Distorted media analysis of Israeli intentions
Moore is no relation to the other fat guy.
The link above was a very well written piece, but sorry it wasn’t funny.
In light of that article, maybe Jim should run for a seat in the British Parliament. He could get a title added to his name. Sr. Jim could be the ultimate back bench idiot. Every time there is debate he could shout “But what about the dead children”. OK, so no-one would actually vote for Jim.
Short of that Maybe Jim could work himself into position as George Gallway’s joy boy.
Now Frank, you shouldn’t provoke Jim by threatening to put his goat boyfriend in a dress. You know he’s turned off by women.
I’m sure he’d be OK with it though if you dressed his goat like a dead Jew. He really seems to like those.
“Jimmy!”
Speaking of the moral equivalence of Israel to Hezbollah. Where is Jim’s diatribe against Hezbollah.
The problem with people like Jim is they profess moral equivalence but save ALL of there venom for Israel and the US. Maybe I missed it, but where is the Jim screed against the outrageous actions of Hezbollah? I know, I didn’t miss anything. Jim and his ilk are perfectly happy to save all of their hatred for the Israeli’s and Americans.
I’m going outside and see if I can make an omelet on the hood of my car!
Be back this evening.
By By Jimmy!
Good points all around Frank, esp. on “JIMMY!”. Although a cartoon more appropriate is Bevis and Butthead when the gym teacher orders Butthead to “Kick me in the Jimmy!” twice. As in this episode, I think Jimmy is just a dick and a nut crying out for help.
There was a case of disproportionate force used the other direction in Faluja, where the contractors were killed to lure the US into an immediate ambush. The US stood still for a while until the terrorists A) were off guard and B) had taken their criminal tendencies out on the local population, to the point where when the US did move in, they had no difficulty finding locals who would point out where the a-holes were. I don’t think that was an option for Israel in this case, though.
This will give you an idea why Israel will prevail:
An Arab was walking through the Sahara desert, desperate for water, when he saw something far off in the distance. Hoping to find water, he walked towards the image, only to find a little old Jewish man sitting at a card table with a bunch of neckties laid out on it.
The Arab asked ‘Please, I’m dying of thirst, can I have some water?’
The man replied ‘I don’t have any water, but why don’t you buy a tie? Here’s one that goes nicely with your robes.’
The Arab shouted, ‘I don’t want a tie, you idiot, I need water!’
‘OK, don’t buy a tie. But to show you what a nice guy I am, I’ll tell you that over that hill there, about 4 miles, is a nice restaurant. Walk that way, they’ll give you all the water you want.’
The Arab thanked him and walked away towards the hill and eventually disappeared. Three hours later the Arab came crawling back to where the man was sitting behind his card table.
He said ‘I told you, about 4 miles over that hill. Couldn’t you find it?’
The Arab rasped ‘I found it all right. They wouldn’t let me in without a tie.’