21 July 2006 | PatriotPost.US | Patriot No. 06-29
Nowhere is this reality seen more clearly than in the Middle East. Here, for nearly sixty years, the democratic state of Israel has been pressed to barter with Sunni Arabs, Palestinians and most recently Shi'ite Persians—their would-be "trading partners" —for a solution to the "Middle East Conflict." Among the other morally enigmatic names we're told to use for this trade, we might add "Land for Peace," "the Roadmap to Peace" and, of course, "the Dayton Accords."
Regardless of the blame-free nom de paix, the economic pattern behind Middle East violence is markedly similar: Israel is attacked or threatened with attack by those intent on annexing Israeli territory. Israel raises the transaction costs by retaliating in proportion to the threat (what's currently known in international parlance as a "disproportionate response") and, backed with a nuclear arsenal it's prepared to use, unceremoniously cuts the camel out from under the would-be Pan-Arabist, Ba'athist or Jihadist aggressor. Backed into a corner, the aggressor appeals to the United Nations, the Carter Center, Bill Clinton, France or the Presbyterian Church USA to "urge calm and restraint" on "all sides." That's the pattern every time. Wash, rinse, repeat.
When the international community leverages sufficient pressure on Israel, negotiations commence and the aggressor may get some of what he wants: Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, the Golan Heights, or lawless southern Lebanon, or self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. From these new strongholds, the same aggressors—in the latest case Hizballah and Hamas, supported by the rogue regimes of Iran and Syria—then mount new campaigns of aggression against Israel, hoping to get a little more out of their "partners in peace" each time.
At other times, thanks in no small part to U.S. support for Israel, the international community can't leverage sufficient pressure to curtail Israeli retaliation. Under these circumstances, particularly the present situation, transaction costs continue to rise for Hizballah, Hamas and their state sponsors. If the costs of the transaction exceed real or imagined gains, state sponsors will retract their resources, and terrorist aggressors will be forced to employ other methods for effecting the transaction.
This is why Israel's response to this crisis is anything but "disproportionate." When international pressure limits Israel's response to aggression, the terrorists win. They're encouraged to elevate the level of the trade, targeting civilians and generally operating at will in the belief that a truly proportional response—disabling the threat—will not ensue. However, when the costs of attacking Israel are raised beyond what the terrorists can tolerate, then we're really giving peace a chance.
In fact, the current conflict might well be considered Iran's much-anticipated response to the West's nuclear olive branch, and Israel's strategy of raising the costs provides a template for action. Such a strategy is one form of the doctrine of preemptive warfare, and that strategy will keep Israel safe and free as it engages one front in the Long War between Jihadistan and the West. It's wise to keep preemption in mind, because when Tehran decides to wed its newfound nuclear prowess to its support of terrorist proxies, lacking an SDI, it's the only alternative.
Open query...
"On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new 'surprises,' and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?" —Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz
On the Homeland Security front...
Mixed news this week from the HomeSec front, as the Senate unanimously passed its FY 2007 Homeland Security spending bill Thursday. On the positive side, the Senate passed an amendment (84-16) by Louisiana Republican David Vitter prohibiting government confiscation of citizens' firearms during a disaster—a response to the unlawful disarmament of New Orleans' law-abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
When it came to fulfilling its pledge to protect the nation's southern border, however, the Senate showed its usual self. In May, the Senate voted by an overwhelming 83-16 margin to build a border fence along high-traffic areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. In the same vote, they also endorsed construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the border. However, when it came time to fund construction of the fence and barriers this week, both of Sen. Jeff Session's amendments to that affect were unceremoniously rejected. In votes of 71-29—not far from the margin by which the Senate first approved their construction—the upper chamber, a la John Kerry, refused to fund the $1.8 billion needed for their construction.
So, when Jihadis cross the southern border and detonate a fissile device in a U.S. urban center, we know where the inevitable special commission investigation should begin.
From the "Department of Military Readiness"...
It took a multi-front global war to do it, but the Army is reining in domestic spending. Faced with high costs for overseas operations, the nation's largest armed service plans to freeze civilian hiring and new contracts, release temporary employees, and cancel nonessential travel. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker says the service will need $17.1 billion in FY 2007 to replace equipment warn out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and another $12 billion annually for several years following.
*PUBLIUS*
The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In God we trust.
2006 © Publius Press, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Nowhere is this reality seen more clearly than in the Middle East. Here, for nearly sixty years, the democratic state of Israel has been pressed to barter with Sunni Arabs, Palestinians and most recently Shi'ite Persians—their would-be "trading partners" —for a solution to the "Middle East Conflict." Among the other morally enigmatic names we're told to use for this trade, we might add "Land for Peace," "the Roadmap to Peace" and, of course, "the Dayton Accords."
Regardless of the blame-free nom de paix, the economic pattern behind Middle East violence is markedly similar: Israel is attacked or threatened with attack by those intent on annexing Israeli territory. Israel raises the transaction costs by retaliating in proportion to the threat (what's currently known in international parlance as a "disproportionate response") and, backed with a nuclear arsenal it's prepared to use, unceremoniously cuts the camel out from under the would-be Pan-Arabist, Ba'athist or Jihadist aggressor. Backed into a corner, the aggressor appeals to the United Nations, the Carter Center, Bill Clinton, France or the Presbyterian Church USA to "urge calm and restraint" on "all sides." That's the pattern every time. Wash, rinse, repeat.
When the international community leverages sufficient pressure on Israel, negotiations commence and the aggressor may get some of what he wants: Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, the Golan Heights, or lawless southern Lebanon, or self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. From these new strongholds, the same aggressors—in the latest case Hizballah and Hamas, supported by the rogue regimes of Iran and Syria—then mount new campaigns of aggression against Israel, hoping to get a little more out of their "partners in peace" each time.
At other times, thanks in no small part to U.S. support for Israel, the international community can't leverage sufficient pressure to curtail Israeli retaliation. Under these circumstances, particularly the present situation, transaction costs continue to rise for Hizballah, Hamas and their state sponsors. If the costs of the transaction exceed real or imagined gains, state sponsors will retract their resources, and terrorist aggressors will be forced to employ other methods for effecting the transaction.
This is why Israel's response to this crisis is anything but "disproportionate." When international pressure limits Israel's response to aggression, the terrorists win. They're encouraged to elevate the level of the trade, targeting civilians and generally operating at will in the belief that a truly proportional response—disabling the threat—will not ensue. However, when the costs of attacking Israel are raised beyond what the terrorists can tolerate, then we're really giving peace a chance.
In fact, the current conflict might well be considered Iran's much-anticipated response to the West's nuclear olive branch, and Israel's strategy of raising the costs provides a template for action. Such a strategy is one form of the doctrine of preemptive warfare, and that strategy will keep Israel safe and free as it engages one front in the Long War between Jihadistan and the West. It's wise to keep preemption in mind, because when Tehran decides to wed its newfound nuclear prowess to its support of terrorist proxies, lacking an SDI, it's the only alternative.
Open query...
"On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new 'surprises,' and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?" —Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz
On the Homeland Security front...
Mixed news this week from the HomeSec front, as the Senate unanimously passed its FY 2007 Homeland Security spending bill Thursday. On the positive side, the Senate passed an amendment (84-16) by Louisiana Republican David Vitter prohibiting government confiscation of citizens' firearms during a disaster—a response to the unlawful disarmament of New Orleans' law-abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
When it came to fulfilling its pledge to protect the nation's southern border, however, the Senate showed its usual self. In May, the Senate voted by an overwhelming 83-16 margin to build a border fence along high-traffic areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. In the same vote, they also endorsed construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the border. However, when it came time to fund construction of the fence and barriers this week, both of Sen. Jeff Session's amendments to that affect were unceremoniously rejected. In votes of 71-29—not far from the margin by which the Senate first approved their construction—the upper chamber, a la John Kerry, refused to fund the $1.8 billion needed for their construction.
So, when Jihadis cross the southern border and detonate a fissile device in a U.S. urban center, we know where the inevitable special commission investigation should begin.
From the "Department of Military Readiness"...
It took a multi-front global war to do it, but the Army is reining in domestic spending. Faced with high costs for overseas operations, the nation's largest armed service plans to freeze civilian hiring and new contracts, release temporary employees, and cancel nonessential travel. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker says the service will need $17.1 billion in FY 2007 to replace equipment warn out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and another $12 billion annually for several years following.
*PUBLIUS*
The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In God we trust.
2006 © Publius Press, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.