The Rules of War

[msmcghee]

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/05/the_rules_of_war/

May 14th, 2008 by MESH

From Philip Carl Salzman

Let us imagine (in the style of political philosophers) that a small country, for illustration let’s say Paraguay, is deemed by its neighbors to be a usurper and illegitimate. Further, that on numerous occasions, Uruguay to the southeast, Bolivia to the southwest, and Chile to the far west, mount military campaigns against Paraguay in order to eliminate it and divide its resources among themselves. It is notable, on the occasion of these invasions, that the great powers, Brazil and Argentina, stand neutral and strictly committed to non-interference.

Plucky Paraguay, however, whether out of devotion or desperation or both, repeatedly overcomes the odds, blocking the invading Uruguay, Bolivia, and Chile, and turning the tide toward defeating their aggressors. At this point in each conflict, however, the neutral and strictly non-interfering great powers decide to make an exception in order to stop Paraguay from defeating its enemies and from imposing any penalties on them for their aggression. Any temporary gains that Paraguay makes must be rolled back, say the great powers, and everything returned to the aggressors, otherwise the results would not be “proportionate.”

As the aggressors have been repeatedly blocked by plucky Paraguay, they have thrown up irregular guerrilla armies, call them Ama and Ezbolo, to harass and undermine the civilian population of Paraguay. Paraguay is strong enough to strike and eliminate them, but the menacing great powers say Paraguay may not, that actually stopping the attacks would be “disproportionate.”

In short, the rules of war, as defined by the great powers, are that the aggressors may invade as they like, but they may never lose anything for having done so, and that guerrilla armies may attack freely, and may not be eliminated. In short, military aggression is cost-free; while defense is disproportionate and disallowed. This formula guarantees for the great powers an endless drama to observe and amuse themselves. And, of course, it encourages aggression, one of the few remaining cost-free entertainments.

<snip>

[razors edge]

1. I don't care what Paraguay keeps.

So long as they do it on their own dime, not mine.

[msmcghee]

3. So then, it's a tax issue with you. n/t

[razors edge]

7. No.

That would be an over simplification.

Our distribution of support, financial and otherwise, leaves no doubt that we are no longer capable of being an honest broker.

The attacks on those who even dare ask for an honest discussion have devolved into demonization.

I find myself wondering if my country has been overly influenced by the Israel can do no wrong crowd, or the Israel must expand so we can have the rapture soon crowd, or just simply the what the fuck, there is gold in them darn hills of dead people crowd.

Whatever the reason may be, I no longer wish to be funding it.

[msmcghee]

8. You said,

DW: "The attacks on those who even dare ask for an honest discussion have devolved into demonization. "

In some cases they do. In other cases people on each side of the issue have been able to carry on a discussion and learn more about the others' views. It's a violent conflict and people are dying and people's lives are being damaged on both sides. It takes effort to not let one's emotions control the discussion. I struggle with that all the time.

DW: "I find myself wondering if my country has been overly influenced by the Israel can do no wrong crowd, or the Israel must expand so we can have the rapture soon crowd, or just simply the what the fuck, there is gold in them darn hills of dead people crowd."

I think the majority of Americans believe that Israel is in the moral right as far as the basics, if not always in the details - and that Israel's Arab enemies have irrational motives and should not be attacking the citizens of Israel. That majority of Americans elects our leaders who decide what to do with our tax money. I don't think the "crowds" you mention have much influence compared to the majority of Americans who just think it's right to stand by one's allies and assist them when they are attacked.

DW: "Whatever the reason may be, I no longer wish to be funding it."

I can appreciate that - even though we disagree on the underlying issue.

[razors edge]

12. Thats where we are.

I'm no denier type, Right to exist is fine by me. I just think we need an open forum that is not spending all it's time looking backwards at what happened and refusing to look forward to what will happen if we don't change this situation.

I basically have the Mike Malloy take on it, if anyone has the right to be pissed and self protective, that would be the people of Israel. I don't think the problems there exist in a vacuum without outside inflammation. And I don't blame any single entity.

I just don't know any other way to support a solution than to advocate for the American people to remember what Washington said about foreign entanglements.

[msmcghee]

9. Some additional infromation on this:

Poll: Americans Have Overwhelming Support for Israel

Published: 12/14/07, 12:40 PM

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) Americans' support for Israel in the conflict with the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza remains extremely high, with 62 percent of Americans considering themselves supporters of Israel and only 9 percent as "supporters of the Palestinians." These are some of the findings of a new bipartisan poll commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP).

By a similar margin (61 to 10), Americans believe the U.S. should support Israel in the conflict with the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. TIP says this is in stark contrast to a 2002 poll, when fully 68 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should take neither side in the conflict.

The poll also shows Americans do not believe the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear projects and worry the NIE report will make the U.S. less safe. The survey shows that while 75 percent of likely voters had heard about the NIE report, only 27 percent believed its assessment that Iran’s nuclear program ended in 2003, while 69 percent believe that the nuclear weapons program is still underway.
85% of those polled consider Iran a serious threat, including 44% who consider it an immediate threat.

'NIE makes us less safe'
Additionally, 64 percent fear America “will be less safe” based on this intelligence estimate “because it might lead to reduced pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear capacity for good.” Only 27 percent thought “we are more safe” after the estimate “because it shows the threat from Iran is not as imminent as had been believed.”

<snip>

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124580

[razors edge]

13. Do you have

a current poll on how many Americans still believe we found WMD in Iraq?

Something tells me this number would be pretty close to the number who think Iran is a threat, and I would bet a paycheck that all those who still think we did find WMD in Iraq believe Iran is a threat.

Fool my once...

[msmcghee]

26. No matter what Americans believe . . .

. . in this country those Americans elect their leaders - and that's the cause of tax dollars going to Israel. Would you like to propose a better system?

[razors edge]

27. Better informed voters...

....:shrug:

[msmcghee]

28. There's tons of information available. The . .

. . internet makes it almost effortless to retrieve compared to just 10 years ago. I find that most would rather not burden their minds with politics and conflict except in the most superficial ways. They prefer the safe canned version of politics and conflict they get on American Idol. Then, many who are more involved in politics are involved only on the emotional level. For them it's like a high-school football game - without all the rules. Informing themselves means to know the points of argument to support their side of the issues and the best put-down for the opposition.

I'm not putting you down - just offering a different perspective. But, when you say "better informed voters" it sounds like a cliche' to me. When most people say "better informed voters" I think they mean "more voters who agree with my beliefs".

How would you improve the system?

[Dick Dastardly]

10. What about Europe which cost us as high as 150 billion per year or

Japan which has cost us as much as 30 billion a year or S Korea which has cost us as high as 50 billion a year. Now it seems the 2-3 billion a year since 1973 that Israel costs us and actually comes back here for defense purchases is more worrysome to some than 200 billion and not to mention actual American blood spilled and ready to be spilled. Why is that some complain only about Israel 3billiom but not the others who get 75 times more. Why is it only with Israel that some say we are not honest brokers because of the money and support we give them. Why is it only Israel that because of the support and money we give them that they insinuate some nefarious influence occuring. Why is Israel singled out exclusivly for all this. Something doesnt add up, why?

[razors edge]

14. Have Europe or Japan

racked up 80+ UN resolutions against their treatment of an occupied people since WW2?

Edit: I am curious where you get those figures for the money going to Europe and Japan, do you have a link?

[notfullofit]

15. Re UN censures

'Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen harshly criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel.

"At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.

At a press conference in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also rebuked the council when asked about its special session on Gaza.

"I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.

Hillel Neuer, the executive director of UN Watch, said the only other country to be condemned by the council was Myanmar, and that happened only once.'

Speaks volumes........

[azurnoir]

19. What speaks volumes

That Ban Ki Moon is calling the Human Rights Coucil on the "carpet" about paying too much attention to Israel and more importantly not paying enough attention to other human rights abuses?

At a press conference in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also rebuked the council when asked about its special session on Gaza.

"I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.

That does speak volumes

[LeftishBrit]

23. I am quite encouraged by Ban Ki Moon.

[LeftishBrit]

16. And there is the whole point but in a different way than you mean

The UN - partly because the Arab states tend to hang together on this one issue; partly probably because of the influence over a long period of the Soviet Union - have tended to be disproportionately critical of Israel as compared with other countries. (There are some signs that this might be changing, though Libya seems pretty determined that it shouldn't!)

It's not that the UN SHOULDN'T have criticized Israel's treatment against an occupied people. I think that most of the criticisms were justified. But why not some more criticisms of the Arab countries for their treatment of Jews, Palestinians, each other when not uniting against Israel, and often their own people? Why not some more criticism of the Soviet Union for its domination of Eastern Europe, or contemporary Russia for its occupation of Chechnya? Or China for its occupation of Tibet? Or Burma/Myanmar for its HORRIBLE treatment of its own people; only now truly in the spotlight? Or the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s and 80s? Or Spain for being a fascist dictatorship up until 1975? Or the UK and USA for their immoral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and current occupation? Or...

Now why is this relevant? Because the UN are the people who really SHOULD be acting as honest brokers. They should be the international police, to whom people on all sides can go when suffering from grievances. If they were willing and able to do their job - which would involve honest criticism of, and pressure on, Israel AND Palestinians AND the Arab states, then perhaps a lot of the problems would be less severe by now, and Israel might never have become so dependent on American support.

Now there are lots of things involved, and I have no wish to scapegoat the UN, whose existence, with all its limitations, has probably helped to prevent a Third World War. But the fact that the UN has criticized Israel more than other countries is not a sign that Israel is worse than any other countries; it's a sign that the UN is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to act impartially. The UN is, up till now, biased against Israel, and the US is doubtless biased toward Israel - but the latter is to quite a degree *caused* by the repercussions of the former. It's better for any person or country to depend on the equal and impartial protection of the law, than on special help from a bigger friend - but if you can't get the former, you're much more likely to welcome the latter.

[msmcghee]

20. I'd go further than that . . .

. . when any institution that has worldwide prestige and diplomatic power over many nations - that is organized to prevent wars where innocent civilians are killed - fails to apply its power and prestige in a scrupulously impartial manner - that organization will end up causing the deaths of innocent civilians, more so than if they did not exist as an institution.

As an example, the UN Charter calls for member states to come to the aid of any member that is attacked by another state and for the UN to use its power and prestige to defend that member.

Arab states and Palestinians have been attacking Israel from before it was officially declared a state and member of the UN. The UN has done nothing to defend Israel but has done much to condemn Israel's own defense of its people - a defense that has been remarkable in its attempt to minimize the suffering of Arab civilians compared to any other modern state engaged in offensive or defensive war.

Many of the dead and injured Palestinians over the last 60 years - to say nothing of their miserable living conditions could have been prevented had the UN done its duty in 1948 according to its own Charter and helped Israel deal a crushing blow to the Arab League. The same can be said for 56, 67, 73, etc. An argument can be made that the outcome is worse today than it would have been had the UN not been there to stop Israel from defeating their attackers each time - because the attackers knew they could do it again and again and they would pay no serious price. There would have been a war, Israel , with assistance from other UN members, would have won it decidedly and made her enemies pay that serious price - and there would probably would have been peace since then - or at least what passes for peace in the ME.

A serious defeat of the Arab League 60 years ago could also have shaken up their societies enough so that modernization of their value systems could have proceeded into the modern era making constant wars in that part of the world less likely.

The only thing worse than no broker for peace - is a dishonest broker for peace.

[Vegasaurus]

29. There's that hypocrisy again

Israel's human rights abuses are worse than those of all the other brutal authoritarian regimes,according to the UN.

As I said, life in Gaza may suck, because they have terrible leadership that cares so little about their citizens, but it is a picnic compared to life elsewhere in the world.

Elsewhere in the world, there is no food and fuel being delivered by an enemy, no advanced medical care offered by an enemy.

And yet Israel has more criticism than any country in the world.

Fascinating.

[razors edge]

30. I like your analogy of the situation.

It almost makes the corrupt pandering to Israel seem justifiable. Almost.

We all know that the US has vetoed many more resolutions than those that have actually been allowed to pass.

The collective punishment in Gaza is systemic and under our umbrella.

Now, I don't think any objective person can say this situation has not happened before. Think crusades.

I'll leave you with this...



Israeli hawks should learn from the fate of the Crusaders, writes Alexander Cockburn in Syria

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/35388,opinion,a-warning-from-history-for-israels-new-crusaders

Thirty years ago, when the state of Israel had travelled only half its present journey since 1948, I interviewed General Matti Peled in New York. As an army general, Peled had been a notably tough administrator of the Occupied Territories, but in retirement had become a dove, publicly urging his country to negotiate seriously with the Palestinians. Abandon the illegal settlements, he said, return to the 1967 borders and resolve all the other issues obstructing a proper peace.

"What do you think will happen," I asked the former general, "if no Israeli government ever emerges strong enough to take such a path?"

"Oh, I think we'll end up like the Crusaders," he answered. "It might take some time, but just like them, in the end, we'll be gone."

[azurnoir]

2. Oh a "tidy" portrayal indeed

with a gaping hole,are those evil guerrillas made up of the native population that those brave "plucky" Paraguayans forced out of their "huts" so as to accommodate the "new" population of "plucky" Paraguayans? Did this scenario happen more than once a over period of time, say 60 years or so?

[msmcghee]

4. I'd say that the "evil guerrillas" . .

. . are the people who failed to destroy Paraguay in their repeated attempts to do so using combined armies . . so have now turned to insurgency and asymmetrical warfare where conventional warfare has failed . . because they know there will be no penalty for doing so.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Yeah, it was very confused and sloppy...

But that guy's specialty is anthropology, not international law. And it's hard to take anyone seriously who's said in the past that Arabs are trying to finish off what Hitler started...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. It's hard to fathom that humans in the 21st century twist themselves into knots to legitizimize

their oppression of another people.

Will our species ever progress beyond that? Will we ever move past narrow self-interest?

Will we ever say "never again" and mean it?

[Dick Dastardly]

11. "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"

Gen William T. Sherman

War is at best barbarism. Its glory is all moonshine... War is hell.-Gen William T. Sherman

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”-William Tecumseh Sherman


"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli



No we will never change

[oberliner]

17. "Never Again" generally refers to the Holocaust

That is - that we (the world) will never again allow the attempted mass extermination of a people such as what took place during the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, recent history in Rwanda, and current events in Sudan show, unfortunately, that humanity continues to be capable of the sort of atrocities that the world ostensibly found so shocking after WWII.

Hopefully, the world will take action in the face of such genocidal movements and make the slogan of "never again" into a reality.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Judging from the horrors of the Pol Pot regime, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc.

and currently Darfur - I fear not yet.

But I certainly hope that we do mean it very soon, and before humanity manages to exterminate itself completely.

[msmcghee]

21. I think serious consideration should be given to . .

. . the idea that the reason genocides continue, unabated, is that the UN has no credibility with war criminals, largely due to the abject failure of the first test of its principles - to the defend new state of Israel in '47 - '48. It's been downhill since than and no aggressor or two-bit dictator takes the UN seriously today. What good has been done in preventing wars and defending people from aggression has been done by NATO.

[LeftishBrit]

22. I think that was a symptom, not a cause, of the problem

The problem is that the UN is made up of many countries with very different aims; many of them at each other's throats; and is therefore relatively powerless.

I think that they perform a useful role, just by their existence, in reducing the risk of global war. However, they have been pretty useless in preventing or stopping regional wars.

I am not sure that they could have done much in 1948. However, it's possible that if they'd really done their explicit job of looking out for Jerusalem, when it was still supposedly 'international', they might have prevented the 1967 war - and therefore the Occupation.

For that matter, despite their justified opposition to a pre-emptive war on Iraq, they certainly didn't prevent Bush and Blair et al from invading, with disastrous results!

[msmcghee]

24. It's not clear to me which of my statements you believe was a "symptom" . .

. . rather than a cause - or a cause of what. But I think I get the general point you are making.

Yes, the siege of Jerusalem was an horrific event for the citizens of that city. It provided ample warning to the UN of what was ahead. If that siege had been broken early on by UN member states such as the US and a strong defensive perimeter placed around the city - the Arab League would have gotten the message that they would be taking on the free world by attacking Israel and the 1948 war would never have occurred. (Also, the civilian deaths at Deir Yassein never would have occured.) Instead, the UN sent the message that we were not even going to bother to defend the religious Jews of Jerusalem from Arab guns - that the Jews were on their own. The Arab League saw a defenseless victim - something that always seemed to stir their war passions - and the rest is history.

[msmcghee]

25. Also, the global war was prevented by the stark reality . .

. . of MADD (mutual assured destruction) in the eyes of two secular powers that were not guided by religious insanity. It was not prevented by the UN's posturing.