Reply #95: What's the virtue in a "proportional" response?

[Recursion]

If you keep your responses proportional, doesn't that just make war a more attractive alternative to your enemy, and end up killing more people?

Don't you think the US Civil War would have dragged on longer if Sherman had kept his attacks "proportional" to the Confederate threat? Then how many tens of thousands more would have died?

Iraq and Afghanistan have become slaughterhouses, IMO, because we were so obsessed with "proportionality" (and it's the same damn mistake that the same damn neocons made in Vietnam) -- use as little force as possible, on the theory I suppose that war is just another form of persuasion rather than the end of civilization (which it is). War is the dissolution of all social bonds, and if we must fight we should show no restraint other than the basic dictates of humanity outlined in the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War. If we have any hesitation about showing so little restraint, we should not go to war. If the US attacks someone, we should leave absolutely no doubt about the outcome: death, devastation, the fury of Hell unleashed on earth. And that is exactly why we should not go to war except in the most extreme circumstances, when all negotiations have failed and after we have been attacked first.

Israel seems to understand half of that now -- the only problem is, they refuse to view their enemies as enemies, and instead view them as criminals (we make that mistake too, and frankly International Law as it stands aids us in making those mistakes, since it's been assumed since WWII that in any conflict at least one side must be criminal). They need to negotiate for the release of the soldiers, because negotiation in war is what you do. However, they also need to make clear that their negotiation is not necessarily coupled with their attacks; if Hamas and Hezbollah want Israeli actions against them to stop, they need to negotiate for that too. And, they'll need to find some kind of believable assurance they can give Israel that if they agree to a truce, they will stick to it.

Neither side is very trustworthy at the moment. Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas have all 3 violated truces and ceasefires before. If one can say there is any positive aspect to an escalation of violence (which one can't, really, except in a sadly relative sense), it is that all three forces will have trouble concealing the costs of violence from their people now. That fact, I hope and pray, will be the beginning of peace.