Winning the wrong argument
In a Friday WashPost op-ed, Charles Krauthammer provides us with a sparkling example of what it is to be 100% correct while missing the point completely. Michael van der Gailen at The Moderate Voice then burns some photons leading the applause.
From where I sit, there’s no real arguing with the point that they’re making. Krauthammer, for instance, gets that there is no moral equivalence between what Israel is doing and what Hezbollah and its allies are doing right now. None. Israel is right and its enemies are wrong. Period.
The perversity of today’s international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London Blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.
But here’s the problem. How much satisfaction can we really wring from winning an irrelevant argument? An obvious argument? The wrong argument?
It’s easy to find simplicity if you’re willing to view the issue from a sufficiently narrow context. In a vacuum, both men are remarkably correct. But Israel doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it exists in one of the most complex geopolitical contexts in world history.
In essence, Krauthammer and van der Gailen don’t seem interested in talking about the disease, only the symptoms.
A military solution imposed on this context that is unacceptable to nearly everyone in the region is unacceptable as policy. It may calm things down for awhile – you may kill a few terrorists and drive the rest underground. Symptom treated. Mission accomplished!
But once underground, the disease grows and festers. It will be back, and next time it will likley be better prepared for the treatment that worked last time. Like any good virus, terror mutates and becomes resistant to remedies that used to work.
As I’ve noted before, I don’t necessarily have any answers. The world made some decisions several decades ago that, moral proportion notwithstanding, have not proven terribly practical to date. I don’t fault Krauthammer for having a swipe at people who are so ludicrously wrong, but frankly I’m tired of us all having the wrong debate over and over and over again. Hezbollah needs scrubbing from the face of the Earth. We can argue whether Israel has given its Arab neighbors cause to feel aggrieved all we want, but at this point I don’t think I’m being radical in noting that:
1: The region’s Muslim nations do feel aggrieved.
2: If every single second of the past six decades suggests anything at all, it’s that the region’s Muslim nations are likely to continue feeling aggrieved so long as both they and Israel exist.
Which means that we either get serious about finding a solution that all parties are willing to accept (cue laugh track) or accept perpetual war as the natural state of the Middle East.
The latter – and if you go to Vegas, this is the one to bet on – is guaranteed to provide us all with ample opportunities to work up a righteous lather over moral proportionality for the rest of our days.
And having a claim to being morally right is a sure to solution to complex problems, right?
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
I quite agree. I posted something similar on fortysomething(?) last week. Hezbollah wants to kill innocents; the IDF is trying (imperfectly) to minimize civilian casualties.
How come so many folks can’t grasp that??
I quite agree. I posted something similar on fortysomething(?) last week. Hezbollah wants to kill innocents; the IDF is trying (imperfectly) to minimize civilian casualties.
How come so many folks can’t grasp that??
You might have a look at my additional remarks on the comment thread here: http://community.livejournal.com/worldpolitics/101582.html
You might have a look at my additional remarks on the comment thread here: http://community.livejournal.com/worldpolitics/101582.html
You might have a look at my additional remarks on the comment thread here: http://community.livejournal.com/worldpolitics/101582.html
i’m not so sure they DON’T grasp it. look at what happened this weekend. this is ALL about PR. i’ve seen that since before we went into afghanistan.
israel, like the USA, can’t seem to use PR very well. in fact, everything we do only makes it worse. we’re good with selling sex and money and gadgets, but we seem to take a really really long time with selling ideas…new or old…useful or not.
since this latest flare up started, i have found myself saying the same thing over and over and over again. THE WAY WE FIGHT WARS NOW MAKES NO FRIGGIN SENSE!!!
i know it sounds horrible, but to even TRY to minimize hitting civilians makes no sense. all it does is prolong war. civilians can always say that a war isn’t really between countries. that “it’s not about us, it’s about things we don’t have any control over. we’re just pawns.” but in all types of government, it’s the people who either elect, or allow, their leaders to do the things they do.
we and israel are always trying to be so damned nice about how we kill people. we try to go after specific targets with precision guided, GPS smart bombs. so when we screw up, it’s more PR for the other guys. but war is SUPPOSED to be ugly.
if this wasn’t bad enough, our targets have no problem at all with hiding in the civilian population, knowing full well that if we went after them, civilians will get hurt. they plan on it. to them, it’s a win-win situation. they escape, or they get a weeks worth of front page headlines. and as long as we allow civilians to believe “it’s not about us,” this kind of thing will go on forever.
i know, i know. we’re supposed to be better than all this. but war is about LASTING CHANGE or STATUS QUO. anything in between means it ain’t really over. just ask the koreans. it’s only when the alternative is so ugly and painful, and the people get pissed off enough, that real change happens. that’s why revolutions are so destructive. they HAVE to be.
i’m not so sure they DON’T grasp it. look at what happened this weekend. this is ALL about PR. i’ve seen that since before we went into afghanistan.
israel, like the USA, can’t seem to use PR very well. in fact, everything we do only makes it worse. we’re good with selling sex and money and gadgets, but we seem to take a really really long time with selling ideas…new or old…useful or not.
since this latest flare up started, i have found myself saying the same thing over and over and over again. THE WAY WE FIGHT WARS NOW MAKES NO FRIGGIN SENSE!!!
i know it sounds horrible, but to even TRY to minimize hitting civilians makes no sense. all it does is prolong war. civilians can always say that a war isn’t really between countries. that “it’s not about us, it’s about things we don’t have any control over. we’re just pawns.” but in all types of government, it’s the people who either elect, or allow, their leaders to do the things they do.
we and israel are always trying to be so damned nice about how we kill people. we try to go after specific targets with precision guided, GPS smart bombs. so when we screw up, it’s more PR for the other guys. but war is SUPPOSED to be ugly.
if this wasn’t bad enough, our targets have no problem at all with hiding in the civilian population, knowing full well that if we went after them, civilians will get hurt. they plan on it. to them, it’s a win-win situation. they escape, or they get a weeks worth of front page headlines. and as long as we allow civilians to believe “it’s not about us,” this kind of thing will go on forever.
i know, i know. we’re supposed to be better than all this. but war is about LASTING CHANGE or STATUS QUO. anything in between means it ain’t really over. just ask the koreans. it’s only when the alternative is so ugly and painful, and the people get pissed off enough, that real change happens. that’s why revolutions are so destructive. they HAVE to be.