De|ight in War
"De|ight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain and a positive crime in the statesman." -George S@nt@yana.
My philosophical persuasion tends to get me branded as a trigger-happy warmonger, but I like to think I'm slightly more passive than that. As I see it, there are two extremes on the matter: the far Left, that believes that nothing is worse than war and that it should be avoided at all costs; and the far Right, that would rather go to war than pursue diplomacy. It seems to me that there are far more members of the left extreme than the right, but they both nonetheless exist.
I tend towards the right side, though I am not as gung-ho on military force as some might expect. I tend to agree more with John S+uart Mi||, who said that "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." I also agree with Niccolo Machiavelli when he said that "War cannot be avoided. It can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
It goes without saying that I believe that war should not be avoided at all costs. War should definitely be avoided, sure, but not when the results from the avoidance of war are worse than they would be if the war had actually taken place.
There comes a time when people must realize that negotiation and diplomacy serve no purpose and that war becomes not an agent of aggression, but a necessity for survival. With recent developments, I'm believing more and more that Israel is reaching this point.
Granted, it is my firm belief that Israel's negotiations and diplomacy with the Muslim world have never served any purpose. But with the advent of weapons of mass destruction and what seems to be the imminent nuclearization of Iran, Israel now faces its largest existential threat to since its 1948 inception -- and was drawn into a war for its survival the day after.
During the last few years, we've been told that if Israel only pulled out of Gaza, there would be peace. Or if Israel would only pull out of Lebanon, there would be peace. Both have since come to pass, and neither have led to peace -- much like every other supposed proposal for peace from the Muslim world.
The stated goal of many in the Muslim world is the complete destruction of Israel, so I fail to see how negotiations or diplomacy will ever be useful. Thus, Israel shouldn't bother with them anymore. It should only do what is necessary to ensure its own survival. If that entails invading Lebanon, bombing Syria or preempting Iran, well, they shouldn't shy away from it. Unlike their adversaries, Israel need not destroy the entire Muslim world to achieve security.
posted by That guy @ 7:46 PM
3 Comments:
It seems rather likely we'll have to face Iran someday since Iran's President has the annihilation of Israel, the destruction of all Western civilization, and bringing about the end of world as we know it on his to do list.
As awesome as the Israeli army is, I don't think they could take down Iran alone. I think attacking Iran would require some assistance from their ally. Now if Israel's only ally HAPPENED to have forces along two of Iran's borders, then it might be wise to take advantage of that position and attack. After all, it's better to take on Iran before they have nukes than afterwards...
If Israel can single-handedly and simultaneously defeat the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon (while being out-numbered and out-equipped) and then single-handedly and simultaneously defeat the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria (in six days) and then again defeat Egypt and Syria (on an empty stomach -- it was Yom Kippur) I'm not too worried about them handling Iran.
Granted, it wouldn't be easy, but at the end of the day I think they could do it. Of course, if we just happened to be in the neighborhood (which we are) and lent a hand (which we probably would) it'd be all the better. But it's not necessary.
I sincerely hope you're right. Their army is incredibly impressive and I'd love to see them go after Iran. They shouldn't have to go it alone though. The rest of the world should step up to the plate and do what only Israel seems to have the courage to do. (ie, confront Iran's terror sponsored groups and hopefully confront Iran) "Should do" being the key phrase in there since, as you've correctly asserted, the UN won't be doing anything productive anytime soon since it's never done anything productive.
We're already over there, diplomacy isn't working, and we couldn't ask for a better position to invade from. I don't think the US would attack Iran first but I hope you're right that we'd lend a hand if Israel did make the first move and go into Iran. If Israel doesn't do so, I fear that nothing will be done regarding Iran for a long, long time.
Iran's Hezbollah may have meant to intimidate Israel into submission like Iran's done with the rest of the world. (Please mr. madman, don't try to build nuclear weapons. We'll give you anything you want, just don't do such a thing...) They picked on the wrong country and I'm glad to see they're not being allowed to get away with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home