To further examine the question, "Is There a Conservative Foreign Policy?," it's worth examining the vastly different reactions from folks on the Right to the current event dominating discussion, the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

"Iran is our enemy," Andrew McCarthy writes at NRO of the hostilities between Lebanon and Israel. "This is our war. Israel is doing our heavy-lifting." Larry Kudlow believes Israel is "defending America’s homeland" in its fight against Hezbollah. "All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy, and security against the Iranian cat’s-paw wholly-owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel is doing the Lord’s work." Bill Kristol writes in a provocative Weekly Standard editorial entitled, "It's Our War," that "what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States." Kristol calls Hezbollah's incursions into Israel "an act of Iranian aggression," which should be answered by the United States with "renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran."

But other voices, also speaking from the right side of the political divide, offer assessments that clash with those of McCarthy, Kudlow, and Kristol.

Ivan Eland puts most of the blame on Israel for the current violence. "Even if Israel is given the benefit of the doubt for an explosion in Gaza on June 9 that killed a family of seven (witnesses blame Israeli artillery but Israel denies causing it), Israel clearly killed 11 Palestinians, including nine civilians, in Gaza on June 13 using a missile strike on a van," the Independence Institute's Eland writes. "In the latter case, the Israelis would argue that they were going after 'terrorists' in the van and that the civilians just happened to be in the way. But Hamas could claim that its later June 25 killing of two Israeli soldiers and capturing another was an attack on legitimate targets in retaliation for the first two Israeli actions." Lou Dobbs, who may disagree with the libertarian Eland on trade and immigration, nevertheless finds at least some common ground regarding the Israel-Lebanon war. "In the Middle East," Dobbs asks, "where is our sense of proportion? Where is our sense of perspective? Where is our sense of decency?" Pat Buchanan writes: "there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed, but Israel refuses to sign."

Obviously, some of these perspectives represent extremes, and there are plenty of opinions in between the Israel-as-bad-guy position and the Israel-is-fighting-for-America position. I reference the diverse views not to persuade the reader of the rectitude of one view over another, but to persuade the reader of the confusion the labels "conservative" and "right" unleash when it comes to foreign policy. The issue needn't be Israel and Lebanon. Just about any foreign policy controversy will demonstrate the wide chasm in the thought of right-leaning figures on America's role in the world.

There's something stale when conformity of thought reigns in a movement. There's something artificial when the diversity of thought is so great as to leave no room for uniting themes. The latter is the situation the Right finds itself in today regarding foreign policy.

The charges of anti-semitism are coming fast and furious this morning.

The Protocols of Pat Buchanan at Frontpagemag.com.

You Want to Know What Anti-Semitism Is? at the Corner from Pod Person #2.

Dan,

Could you explain what you mean by "There's something artificial when the diversity of thought is so great as to leave no room for uniting themes"?

What is artificial? The diversity? The collection of these different views under the same category, "conservative"?

P.S. I'm not criticizing, just trying to correctly understand your conclusion.

The IRA often kidnaps british soldiers don't they? I wonder how reactions would be if the Republic of Ireland got invaded because of it.

Ralph: By artificial, I mean the movement, or label even, of conservatism. It puts all these people under the same banner who, particularly on foreign policy questions, believe very different things.

OB, it seems that disagreement with anything Israel is the new "racism". I suppose you're either with them or you're not and and if you're the latter, you're an anti-semite.

Buchanan's typical view is isolationist and this applies to what's currently going on in the Middle East across the board. The fact that he thinks that Israel's war should not be our war demonstates not that he's anti Israel (or anti Jew) but that he's anti U.S. getting too involved in a foreign affair that doesn't directly concern us.

"It puts all these people under the same banner who, particularly on foreign policy questions, believe very different things."

I think the tie that binds is a common position, more or less, on social issues Think, for example, of the united opposition to the Miers nomination.

If realism, the foreign policy strictly concerned with American national interest, is the foreign policy of conservatives, than realists/conservatives should support Israel. The United States is currently being challenged by Iran for Middle East regional dominance, something which no serious thinker denies.

Israel's actions are hurting Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, and by proxy, Iran itself. This is good for America, because it hurts America's regional challenger.

So, an American self-interest concerned realist should support Israel.

NOTE:

If a conservative is one who believes in practicing traditions that have, in the past worked, wouldn't isolationism, a foreign policy oft-associated with paleoconservatism, not in fact be conservative at all? It has failed countless times throughout American history to produce desirable results for the American national interest.

BenT: You are assuming the regional dominance in the middle east is something that it is in our vital interests to have/maintain.

Also, you are assuming that interventionism has done well for the US in the past. It's effect on domestic policy, however, has certainly been disasterous from a conservative point of view. More power isn't always good for a person or nation, right?

"BenT: You are assuming the regional dominance in the middle east is something that it is in our vital interests to have/maintain." -Skeptic

Only if you want the US to be a global power, yes. If you are in favor of the global decline of the United States, you would oppose Israel's actions. It is my stance that the US can more effectively protect its interests as a large global power than as a two bit player.

"Also, you are assuming that interventionism has done well for the US in the past. It's effect on domestic policy, however, has certainly been disasterous from a conservative point of view. More power isn't always good for a person or nation, right?" -skeptic

Define "interventionism". It is normally associated with a liberal minded foreign policy, which is about the exact opposite of realism.

Ben: Oh, now I'm in favor of the "decline of the U.S." Your word "decline" begs the question at issue: is being a global superpower with dominance in all regions in the US interest? Not easy to answer, but don't you think that people who are busy watching over others or telling other people what to do often have to neglect their own affairs?

m-w: "the theory or practice of intervening; specifically : governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country." That was easy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/468osmmx.asp

I must say the commenters here are among the smartest on the web. Therefore, it is with some trepidation that I post these comments. Who knows, if my ana-lysis is flawed and other readers can point out the flaws, I amy learn something!!

Is there a conservative foreign policy? In part I, it seems conservatism is at least partially defined by sticking with those things that are tried and true. In other words, we stick with things that work and we are leery of new ideas that may exist in someone head no matter how smart he or she may be. (I'm partially quoting from what Dan had written earlier.)

I further define conservatism as very simply, GOVERNMENT STAY OUT!! I would suggest a conservative foreign policy would be limited to areas where American interests are directly affected. If the government is smaller, there will likely be less opportunities for the government to involve itself in foreign entanglements.

Before America commits itself to war, four very basic questions should be asked. 1.)Does this enemy pose a survival threat to the US or is there significant risk that it could in the future? In the case of Islamic extremism, the answer to this question is probably not at this time, but it has the real potential to become a survival threat, if it is not dealt with. 2.)Is this enemy a proxy for someone else? For example the powers behind Hezbollah are Iran and Syria and the main powers behind Iran and Syria are Russia and China. In other words, you need to be sure to properly define your enemy. By asking who the main supporter of an enemy is we may be able to more effectively apply our diplomacy or military pressure to the main supporter. In the case of Russia, military action would be inadvisable. 3.) Are you willing to fight the war through to the end to achieve a decisive victory. In the case of Iraq, the answer has so far been no. We never committed enough troops to fully secure the country. We still have not. We are left to hope the Iraqis can do it. 4.)This question may be the most sobering of all. Should it become necessary to win a war, are we willing to use the ultimate weapon in our arsenal. This would be nuclear weapons.

In answering all four of these questions, the answer to the first question is either yes or probably. The answer to the second question is no. We have done a poor job of defining this enemy. "War on terror" is a very lazy term. A more appropiate term would either be "war on Islamic Extremism", "war on Islamo-Fascism", "global war on Islamo-Fascism," or something to this effect. Political correctness prevents anyone with any major political influence from even beginning to suggest we might be at war with Islam itself. Also very little diplomatic effort seems to have been directed at trying to get Russia or China to withdraw their support from the Islamic Terrorist supporting states of Iran and Syria. Diplomacy could be being done behind the scenes. Few or us will be privy to some things that happen behind the scenes. At this time, the answer to the third question is no.
Finally, the answer to the fourth question appears to be an emphatic no.

Given that the answers to three of the four questions are no, it seems the the invasion of Iraq would not qualify as sound conservative foreign policy.

Furthermore, if we assume a Conservative foreign policy would be one that sticks with those things that worked in the past and only deviates when they don't work, the Iraq war probably would not qualify as a Conservative foreign policy. This is for two basic reasons. They are as follow: 1.)A military is generally used to "destroy" something or to "subdue" something. It is an inappropriate use of a military to "liberate." Btw, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or "Operation Enduring Freedom" are terrible names for a military action. More appropiate names are "Desert Storm" or "Operation Infinite Justice." When we bowed to political correctness to change the name of "Operation Infinite Justice" to "Operation Eduring Freedom" I sensed we could be headed for trouble!!

I think Islamic Extremism is an enemy that must be defeated. If I could do this without "liberating" a single Arab country I would do it. Once this enemy has been subdued and its fighting forces destroyed, "liberty" may well be the end result, much as it was for imperial Japan and Nazi Germany at the end of WWII.

A true conservative foreign policy for an invasion of Iraq would have called for at least 500,000 troops. Enough troops would have been needed to overthrow the government, pacify the country, secure all of the weapons caches, do a thorough search of all of the potential WMD sites, secure the country's borders, secure the oil fields, secure the oil pipe lines, and secure the country's coast line.

We only brought in enough troops to over throw the government. Keep in mind that 500,000 is only enough troops for Iraq. If you want to drive a final stake through the heart of Islamic Extremism, at a minimum, the governments of Iran and Syria will need to be removed or they will need to change course. You will likely need significanly more than the 500,000 troops sent for the war in Iraq. A conservative foreign policy would include enough troops to actually pose a credible threat to Iran and Syria. A conservative foreign policy would have called for massive troop mobiliztions, as well as to maintain the quick strike capability that we currently have. The reason for this, is becuase these policies have worked in the past. When the politicians and the military planners decided on a smaller attack force and worked under the assumption that "Democracy" would just happen to spread from Iraq to the greater middle east, they deviated from the tried and true to untested theories.

In the final ana-lysis, given how the Iraq War has been executed this action does not seem to be a conservative foreign policy. This becomes especially so, given that to date we have not been willing to pay the price necessary that would be necessary to win it decisively.

The bottom line is a true Conservative would have done this differently and probably not at all. After all, at this time the Aemrican people are not willing to pay the price that would be necessary for a decisive win. Its foolhardy to go into something the American people are not going to be commited to.

Another mistake we made was when the government was removed and we called for Democracy we allowed Islamic Extremists to enter the political process under the assumption that this would "moderate" them. This would be a bit like allowing the Nazis to enter the political process after WWII ended!! This combined with the failure to secure the borders enabled Iran to gain influence in the political process. This likely emboldened them into pushing the fight into Israel through their Hezbollah proxy. By allowing our enemies to enter the political process of the liberated Iraq we subsituted tried and true policies for an untested theory that existed in someone's head. This is the assumption that a mortal enemy is going to change course because he now gets to join the political process.

Taking all of these considerations in mind s conservative foreign policy would use the military very sparingly. There are actually very few military engagements in the history of the Republic that would meet the critera I have listed. The only ones I know of that would meet the criteria are the American Revolution and WWII.

Ben,

I'm an evangelical Christian. This does significantly affect my judgement concerning Israel. I wanted to make this clear before I continue so that it is known where I am coming from.

I agree with your take on supporting Israel. It is consistent with Aemrican interests. They are a Western style democracy and their enemies are also enemies of us. Islamic Extremists would likely be our enemies even if Israel never existed. As such, Israel is a valuable buffer between us and them.

I would like to ask you a question. You suggest that isolationism has failed to produce desired results for the Aemrican people. It seems to me, if we used military power much less this would be in our interests. The use of military power around the world and the postioning of military forces around the world breeds resentment in some cases. It would be better for us to lessen some of our involvements around the world. How exactly has a policy of isolationism not yielded desired results?

I read the article Ralph linked to. Krystol says that Bush is right. The reason Syria is being a pain is that their leader Assad know he's done IF..., "if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, [if] Iraq goes in the right way . . ." Krystol then concludes by saying that with Bush we are likely to win.

Three huge ifs. All of them look really bad right now. And Krystol's argument for hope is??? What??? That to suspect otherwise is to be weak. All he does is complain about how "weak" the people who disagree with him are, and how "strong" Bush is. OK. I'm convinced. Peace in the Middle East.

Q: Why does Ralph think this is worth reading?

Not because I thought it was profound. I thought it was relevant to Dan's post, i.e., it is one conservative (Kristol) criticizing the foreign policy of another (Will).

Yes, Kristol is such a virile manly man. The machismo of these talking heads and rasputins is so tiresome. I don't particularly care that they all bowed out of the conflict of their generation by being sure to be in college instead of Vietnam and few of them have any military credentials to speak of. But I do get sick of their apparent desire to pound their chests like simians who can type. It is really as pathetic as race car drivers pushing viagra.

And then when I think of how blithely they praise the murder of women and children (like Israeli war crimes of destroying power plants in Lebanon to ensure that their sick, elderly, women, and children will die from impure water and heat) the inherent pusillanimity behind their bloodlust becomes even clearer.

Yes, Bill so many "weaklings" abound. Should we challenge you to an arm wrestling contest? Or a piss-- contest as we say down south?

Brian

Where is your source for the Lebanese power plants? I haven't heard about it from the American msm yet. They generally are hostile to Israel or they treat the parties as equals. Israel. As such, they would be all over it. Also terrorists hide among civilians, therefore these water plants may have a military value. If this event occured, there is probably a military significane to the target. Other wise the US would be urging Israel to call a cease fire. To my knowledge this has not happened yet.

Brian

I found some information on your claim about the Lebanese water plants. I still think the targets had military value otherwise they would not have been targeted. War is not a nice thing. It is something we should all seek to avoid. From further thinking about my LENGTHY post earlier, it seems, if countries all followed a conservative foreign policy, almost all wars could be avoided.

"Ben: Oh, now I'm in favor of the "decline of the U.S." Your word "decline" begs the question at issue: is being a global superpower with dominance in all regions in the US interest? Not easy to answer, but don't you think that people who are busy watching over others or telling other people what to do often have to neglect their own affairs?" -skeptic

I didn't say you were in favor of it. But it is what the course of action you advise would lead to. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for whether it is in our self interest to be a global power, I would maintain that it is in the self interest of all beings, and conglomerations of beings, such as nations, to survive. Being strong is the best way to ensure continued survival.

"I agree with your take on supporting Israel. It is consistent with Aemrican interests. They are a Western style democracy and their enemies are also enemies of us. Islamic Extremists would likely be our enemies even if Israel never existed. As such, Israel is a valuable buffer between us and them." -B.Poster

I support Israel for many reasons. However I should make clear that in this particular instance, I would support Israel even if it was just another Arab dictatorship. They are fighting our enemies, and that is in our self interest.

"I would like to ask you a question. You suggest that isolationism has failed to produce desired results for the Aemrican people. It seems to me, if we used military power much less this would be in our interests. The use of military power around the world and the postioning of military forces around the world breeds resentment in some cases. It would be better for us to lessen some of our involvements around the world. How exactly has a policy of isolationism not yielded desired results?"

Isolationism, when employed, has continuously resulted in large scale, foreign conflicts, which America has then eventually been dragged into at the cost of much more blood and treasure than would have been necessary if it had been more pro-active and fierce in defending its interests.

Ben

Thanks for the response to my post and for answering the question I posed. I think I can see what you are saying. For example, had we responded proactively to Hitler, as opposed to trying to appease him we might have been able to save alot of lives. The reason I say we might have been able to save alot of lives is because we cannot "kmow" for certian what would have happened had we attempted to stop Hitler in say 1936. I think it is rasonable to think it probably would have saved alot of lives. All of this being said, being pro active can lead to its own set of problems.

It's ultimately going to come down to how well the action is executed whether it is proactive or not. As you wrote, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We didn't execute the Iraq war as well as we should have. Two main problems arose. 1.) To few troops were used. This meant the borders were not secured, as such the supply lines to the insurgency were not cut off and the weapons caches were not secured. 2.) We allowed Islamic Extremists such as Al Sadr to enter the political process. Both of these situations allowed Iran to gain influence in within Iraq and emboldened them to expand the war to Israel.

Even before the 911 attacks, I strongly suspected that a war between Islamic Extremists and Western style Democracy was inevitable. The two cannot peacefully coexist side by side. If their is a silver lining to this, our miscalculations on Iraq did not trigger something that would not have happened anyway. It merely sped along a process that was inevitable. If the American Government will stay out of Israel's way, they will take care of Hezbollah. I agree with your take on Israel. Their enemies are our enemies, so to me it seems to me to be logical that we would support them.

The strategy of the Islamic Extremists and their communist allies appears to be to engage the US in a series of skirmishes. The Islamic Extremists forces seem to lose all of the battles. When the battles go bad for them, they ask for a cease fire. In the past, the cease fire were usually granted. It always seems as a result of the cease fire they end up with more than they had before and we end up less. Their goal appears to be to gradually wear us down until they are able to win. In the case of Iraq, they seem to have concluded that they cannot alter the political situation so they have decided to increase the targets on civilians to try and make the Aemricans and our coalition allies lose their nerve.

The Islamic extremists are not as united as all that. I will lay out what, as far as I can tell, are the strategies of some of the major factions therein:

By Bin Laden's own admission, Al Qaeda's strategy is to get the United States to engage in war with many different Islamic nations at one time, thereby, at least in Bin Laden's mind, creating a civilizational conflict between Islam and the West which will result in the destruction of the West.

Iran's strategy is good old fashioned power politics. Kick the US out of Iraq, and in so doing, become the dominant power in the region. From what I can tell, Iran seeks to make a Shi'ite crescent of influence across the region, stretching from Iran, through Southern Iraq and the Shi'ite areas of Saudi Arabia (coincidentally and importantly, the Shi'ite areas of Saudi Arabia are where the oil fields are) and then up through Southern Lebanon. With Syria as a state, which, while not Shi'ite, would be a client to Iranian dominane. Just as Syria was a client to Egyptian
dominance during the age of Nasser.

Hezbollah and the Shi'ite factions in the Iraqi Insurgency are really nothing more than Iranian clients, and take their orders from Tehran. So their strategy is about the same.

Near as I can tell, Iran calculated that with the US distracted in Iraq, and Israel busy with Hamas, they would take the opportunity to assert their power, through the proxy of Hezbollah, in Southern Lebanon. However, they miscalculated, and Israel now appears intend on invading Southern Lebanon and stamping out Hezbollah for good.

If Iran chooses to do nothing, this will be a large defeat for them and much egg will be on their face. If they choose to aid a Iraqi style insurgency operation, they will be forced to divide their resources between Iraq and Lebanon. This will most likely result in a general weakening of the Iraqi Insurgency and a lackluster performance from any insurgency that might pop up in Lebanon.

There seems to be, currently, no way out of this situation for Iran that will not be a defeat.

As for Russia and China, both recognize that the Middle East is the most strategically important region on Earth. Seeing that the US is momentarily weak, having had its regional presence given the boot from Saudi Arabia, and now trying to re-settle in Iraq, they feel they can use Iran as a foothold into the region by supporting it in its own drive for dominance.

B. Poster,

The power plants had military value? The Lebanese army hasn't even been fighting w/ Israel up to this point! Let alone the fact that destroying civic utilities like that is against accepted international law. Look, if I ignore the obvious fact that Israel made use of the kidnapping of 2 soldiers to launch a preplanned attack and invasion on another country and spin it as similar to our invasion of Afghanistan it still fails to pass muster. Even saying that Lebanon was a haven for terrorists, the Lebanese government is no Taliban in any shape or form.

Finally, pacifism is not a legitimate position except in the sense of total and complete revocation of all violence in a deeply religious sense by an individual (and never a state). But in taking seriously the call to be a standard bearer of Christ in the world I see no means by which I can simply say "war is not a nice thing"; wars must be fought justly and for just purposes or we will only be ruined by them, if not materially, then spiritually and morally.

Despite what Ralph may say I do not desire to see Israel "pushed into the Sea" but my desire for their security does not give me license to celebrate or condone unjust means of their securing it. Why do conservatives see this clearly on the micro level but not on the macro level? For example, who would think that when a person realizes they are going to be fired that they are given license to kidnap their bosses family and starve them to death? Or if a shady ex-con moved into your neighborhood and threatened your wife who would condone setting fire to the ex-con's house while he and his 3 children were asleep inside? We cannot condone unjust means of securing our interests, either material or physical.

Why is the notion that we are commanded by natural law and divine positive law to be just in our actions both individually and collectively as a nation (as regards political policies we support and call for) considered anathema to the right? Geez. I mean their seems to be unanimity on the part of conservatives that funding U.N. "family planning" initiatives, including abortion, is an injustice at the level of national/international politics. Conservatives were often sensibly morally opposed to the spread of international communism as a fundamentally unjust misapprehension of human nature and society. But apparently warfare by us and our allies always gets carte blanche. What an incredible disconnect.

And Ben-T, when did isolationism ever start a war? That is an odd claim to make. And when did isolationism ever exist anyway? Not intervening in some conflict is quite different from isolating oneself from others. If you have WWII in mind then shouldn't you be attacking appeasement instead of isolationism?

Brian

Thanks for the reply to my post.

I'm not sure if the power plants had military value. I'm inclined to think they did. The US is Israel's major supporter in the world. Even that support is not always reliable. Israelis have often chafed at the double standards we have sometimes shown them. For example, we have advised them to "show restraint" in a situation where we clearly would not. Right now the US has limited political capital within the world community to run diplomatic interference for Israel. At least this is my assumption as to why the US has not pushed for a cease fire yet. I'm not sure. In the past, US officials would have run to podiums all over the country and probably the world calling for a cease fire and counseling the Israelis to show restraint by now. Given the precarious ability of their most important ally to help them, Israel is not going to go bombing targets willy nilly. If they were doing so, the Americans already would be joining the chorus that is calling for a cease fire. They haven't. At least, this is to the best of my knowledge. This is why I'm inclined to believe the targets had an important military value that would be mission critical to winning.

The invasion of Lebanon probably was preplanned. If someone is attacking you, you would generally make plans to defend yourself. Hezbollah had been using Lebanon to attack Israel for quite some time. Israel withdrew from Lebaon just to have the terrorists set up shop and attack them from there. They had finally had enough. To suggest Israel tried to spin something is to suggest they are lying. This would need to be proven. Think about it like this. If a terrorist organization set up a base in Canada or Nexico and this organization used this location to launch attacks on the US killing our citizens and kidnapping our soldiers, we would respond with extreme prejudice. To be blunt we would probably respond with even more force than Israel has.

Lebanon has brought this on themsleves by not doing anything to disarm Hezbollah even though they knew it was attacking their neighbor. This is at best a criminal act and at worse an act of war.

No one here wants war. I agree with you that they must be fought for just purposes. Israel is currently fighting for its self defense. This is a just purpose. Ultimately we will judge Israel's leaders by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish.

I'm not sure what a just means of securing the defense of a nation is. It does seem to me that the constant quest for a "proportional response" that liberal elites call for only guarantees that the conflict will go on indefinitely. This will mean that casualties on all sides over the long haul will be higher. This doctrine favors the weaker side. They are able to stay in the fight until they get strong enough to over power their opposition. What is needed is a disproportionate response to end the confilct quickly and decisively. This should save lives over the long run and should result in peace.

Examples of wars that were won decisively are WWII and the Civil War. The end result of these wars are lasting peace. Examples of wars not won decisively were WWI and the Korean war. With Korea the conflict is ongoing and WWII had to be fought to finish WWI. It could be argued that WWII led to the unintended consequence of the Soviet Union. It is better to not fight wars but, if they must be fought, they should be fought to a decisive conclusion. In Israel's case this is truly for their survival. They should use a disproportional response to win and do so quickly. If we had only used proportional responses during WWII the war would likely still be ongoing.

I don't think warfare by us or our allies gets carte blanche treatment. Admittedly I'm more inclined to accept our postion than that of the other side. We have a free press that investigates and criticizes the government with absolute impunity. We actually encourage this self examination. Criticizing the Iranian governemnt, the Chinese government, or the Russian Government within their respective countries will get you severe persecution.

In fact, earlier I argued that before we engage in war we should ask some very important questions. 1.) Is the enemy an existential threat to the country or is there a reasonable possibility that it could become one? 2.)Has the enemy been properly identified? 3.)Are we willing to see the war through to its conclusion? 4.)Are we willing to use the ultimate weapon at our disposal should it be necessary? The Iraq war does not meet all of this criteria. In fact, I argued that based on this it should not have been fought. I'm definitely not giving us carte blanche treatment. In fact, I think our mis managaemnt of the situation in Iraq may have led to what is going in now between Israel and Hezbollah.

I understand the need to criticize the actions of Israel and the US. Their actions should be closely examined, however, we also need to criticize the terrorists as well. The media tends to give them a free pass or to gloss over their actions.

Lebanon does not really have an army to speak of. Military ana-lysts have descrived it as existing only "on paper."

Ben

I appreciate your ana-lysis. You may be correct. There is a human tendency to view an enemy group as monolithic but this is usually going to be false thinking!! Personally I don't want to dominate the middle east. I would much rather develop energy alternatives and extricate ourselves from this region but this would take time to do. That being said, if Iran were to gain hegemony over that region this would be an unmitigated disaster for us. The Iranians would use it to export terrorism all over the world. They have said so in no uncertain terms. As such, they MUST be defeated or neutralized.

You seem to be optimistic about this. You could be on to something about forcing Iran to open up a second front in Lebanon. This may well weakent he "insurgency" in Iraq. Israel will defeat Hezbollah. I just want the US to stay out of their way, in this one. I pray that this all works out. Everyone needs peace.

Brian,

"Look, if I ignore the obvious fact that Israel made use of the kidnapping of 2 soldiers to launch a preplanned attack and invasion on another country and spin it as similar to our invasion of Afghanistan it still fails to pass muster. Even saying that Lebanon was a haven for terrorists, the Lebanese government is no Taliban in any shape or form."

This discussion has already been had (see the comments for Dan's July 17th post, "Between a Rock and a Hard Place"). Skeptic, arguing your position, surrendered the field.

As for civilian targets and casualties, Hezbollah is part of the civilian population. Every village in Southern Lebanon is a Hezbollah stronhold, as is Souther Beiruit. Hezbollah soldiers reside in houses, store rockets in houses, and operate in houses. Therefore, targeting houses, knocking out power to those houses, etc. is, in my opinion, legitimate.

"And Ben-T, when did isolationism ever start a war? That is an odd claim to make. And when did isolationism ever exist anyway? Not intervening in some conflict is quite different from isolating oneself from others. If you have WWII in mind then shouldn't you be attacking appeasement instead of isolationism?" -Brian

I didn't say Isolationism ever started a war. I said isolationism, and also appeasement, yes, allow enemies to grow to the extent that if and when we do end up fighting them, doing so is much harder than it would have originally been.

An important note, from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5206284.stm

"The Iraqi army has foiled a potentially deadly attack on UK troops in Basra, the British army has said.

A routine patrol discovered five Katyusha rockets aimed and ready to fire at a base housing around 200 soldiers of the Light Infantry.

Major Charlie Burbridge said the 107mm calibre rockets would have caused many casualties if they detonated on target.

The Iraqi army made safe the weapons, which Maj Burbridge said had a range of 7km (4.35miles). No-one was arrested"

Katyusha rockets. The same weapons currently being used against Israel by Hezbollah.

Made in China, sold to Iran, and then shipped to Shi'ite militants across the region. Confirmation, methinks, of my theory.

Ralph: I hardly "surrendered the field." I actually hadn't read your post till just now. I have seen many commentators say Hezbollah's actions were provoked by Israeli attacks killing civilians. Israel couldn't control Hezbollah when it was there, what makes you think the lesser Lebanese army would do it so easily that their not doing it would amount to state sanctioning of Hezbollah's activities?

And finally, given the fact that you've equated all Lebanese civilians with the terrorists as legit targets because you beleive they support the terrorists by letting them feild a political party, and given the fact that you think wiping out entire cultures and nations in order to pacify the Muslims would be morally ok, I can't take your judgment seriously about just conduct of war. You basically don't accept the distinction between combattant and noncombattant (just like OBL!), and you don't care at all about how many bystanders get killed as long as one or two bad guys or bad guy-supporters do too. Gee, I wonder if that battle plan will create more or fewer Hezbollah supporters? This is unchriatian and unjewish, given that one is not to take more than an eye for an eye. Really, American hawkish conservatives and Israel really need to get a sense of proportion and stop thinking that their innocents are more valuable than the innocents among Arabs and Muslims and Christians.

I suppose you didn't see my last reply in the comments for "World War Ten" either. This discussion is spread over several threads and it's tiresome to repeat points already made.

"I have seen many commentators say Hezbollah's actions were provoked by Israeli attacks killing civilians."

"Commentators" from Hezbollah t.v. don't count. Perhaps you didn't notice that every G8 country (not exactly friends of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy) blamed Hezbollah.

"What makes you think the lesser Lebanese army would do it so easily that their not doing it would amount to state sanctioning of Hezbollah's activities?"

They AGREED to occupy a buffer zone along the Southern border to prevent attackes by Hezbollah. That's the ONLY reason Israel withdrew. So they didn't honor their agreement. Either they don't want to, which amounts to a sanction of Hezbollah's activities, or they can't and the obligation becomes Israel's.

"Given the fact that you've equated all Lebanese civilians with the terrorists as legit targets because you beleive they support the terrorists by letting them feild a political party...."

I've said no such thing. Some of the civilians are terrorists or terrorist supporters. What is Israel supposed to do when innocent civilians happen to live in the house next door to Hezbollah soldiers who are storing rockets in their living room? They dropped leaflets telling the civilians to vacate, and then they bombed the target.

As for proportionality, war is not and ought not be proportional. If the victorious army kills 75% of the losing army while the losing army kills only 25% of the victorious army, it is unreasonable to complain about proportionality. Had the victorious army killed fewer of the losing armies soldiers, it might not have been victorious.

You are a sophist, and morally serious discussions with you about Israel, terrorists, or Muslims is impossible. Excuse me, while I "surrender the field."

Fair well.

Or farewell, whichever you prefer.

I only write again to acknowledge that you gave me a good laugh w/ this last post Ralph. "Hezbollah T.V."? Seriously, I am not being sarcastic that response cracks me up.

It is also sophistry as sceptic said. I can see why she is giving up arguing with you as it is frustrating albeit also amusing. That is how you mix in dismissive quips like that amongst your straightforward arguments.

I haven't read all the other posts you refer to but as to what you just wrote about proportionality you don't understand the principle if you think it means an army can't kill "more soldiers" of the opposing army. I tend to think that that is just another sophism on your part and that you are perfectly aware of how proportionality works, but I may be mistaken. If there is confusion on that point then certainly we can discuss it.

You guys need to enjoy life more. What fun is argument without a little rhetoric mixed in. Skeptic can trade quips with the best of them. And I've known you, Brian, to take the gloves off every once in a while. We all have skin thicker than tire tread, so what's all the fuss about.

As for the sophist charge, it's never bothered me and it doesn't bother me know. I kind of enjoy it. It's accurate to a point: I try out arguments to see if they work; and if they work, I adopt them. It is my method to seek the truth. This last bit is what separates me from the Sophists proper. But I suspect Skeptic uses the word a bit like liberals use "fascist" to mean "anyone who disagrees with me." Whatever.

Now, we can either quit this discussion because I'm not "serious" enough. Or we can examine "proportionality" because I truly do not understand it, and if you are willing, would like to have it explained to me.

Ralph,

I will enjoy life more when I get done reading the 95 books I have to finish by mid-September!

Proportionality is used in two ways as regards just war theory. First as part of the decision of whether to declare a war in the first place, the authorities should ask themselves whether the good sought and that can be reasonably believed to result outweighs the evil/destruction that the war will bring and that war simply is in essence. So the proportion of good results to the evil of war as means needs to be examined.

Then in terms of the actual means of warfare proportionality refers to attacking military objectives w/ the amount of force necessary but not in excess, and with no disproportionate damage to civilians. This means that the damage that will be done to noncombatants could outweigh the military need of attacking a specific target; all destruction of civilians can't be callously waved off as "collateral damage." It also means that if you can destroy a military target w/ say 3 conventional missiles then don't drop a nuke.

But, of course, in any of these cases more enemy combatants can certainly be justly killed than casualties the other side takes. I think the only way you could get a violation of proportionality from killing more enemies than casualties you suffer is the means. Like, if the enemy surrenders and then you just line them up and mow them down, something like that.

As for why these considerations should be a part of evaluating wars, the argument comes from natural law considerations (reason's side) and divine positive law considerations (the faith side). Divine positive law would mean that proportionality is a deduction from Divine commandments such as "don't murder" and "love thy neighbor." At least that is my simplistic understanding of it, but I think that is correct.

The natural law side would I guess start with the basic principle that good is to be done and evil avoided. The metaphysics of ethics, of practical reason, points to the good as perfective of our natures. So, anyway, just war theory is an attempt to work out the principles for the practical intellect with regards the evil of war and the goods desired or aimed at as result.

Brian,

Thanks for the explanation. Believe it or not, it's news to me.

I wonder at the derivation of just war considerations from the divine and natural law.

With the divine law, it seems to me that the commandments are directed to individuals and not to regimes. Is it a given that strictures on individual behavior can be extended to the behavior of nations? As for the particular commandments, the prohibition against murder seems to beg the question since "murder" is "unjustified killing"; and how is any war consistent with loving one's neighbor?

I would add that there are several instances in sacred scripture in which God orders the Israelites to destroy every man, woman, child and animal of their enemy. Is it possible for the divine law, which issues from the eternal law (i.e., the law of the mind of God) to be contrary to another direct command of God's?

I am not familiar enough with Aquinas to know in what ways he differs from Aristotle's conception of virtue, but the Aristotelian political virtues (i.e., justice in the broad sense) concern relations between citizens. Does the question of political virtue even come up between the citizen and the foreigner, much less between the city and the foreign nation (if Skeptic's not too busy, perhaps she could shed some light here)?

Ralph,

No worries if it is news to you. I think the fact that I am a "cultural" Catholic in the positive sense of having been educated in Catholic schools from birth makes the just war tradition of natural law just more of a given for me, and consequently a basic prejudicial foundation for my opinions on foreign policy.

I would say that the rights of individuals, and responsibilities, usually have their ana-logues in the corporate rights and responsibilities of the state, that there is less distance between the strictures imposed on individuals and those imposed on sovereigns than one might first assume. For example, the responsibility of seeking the common good of the family allows for the possibility of coercion in defense of the family by the father; so to does the responsibility of the common good of the citizens entail the right of coercion by the sovereign. From this natural responsibility/end of serving the common good comes the proper right of coercion but just as the father can't act w/o any moral guidelines or boundaries in defense of his family neither can the state in defense of its citizens.

As for the OT, few parallels can be drawn from the actions of the ancient Israelites to what modern states can do as they were under a theocracy directly ruled by God who in certain instances demanded the dispossession of specific peoples because of the sins they had committed against Him. No country, not even the modern Israelites, have that sort of divine dispensation now, although the fact of "guilt" of a nation is a factor in determining if coercion against them is acceptable. As for interpreting scriptural commands as regards warfare in general, this is why theologians like Aquinas made the big bucks.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm