Más de Liberty Bell, muy interesante realmente. John Podhoretz se pregunta si las democracias liberales se han vuelto demasiado “buenas” como para ganar una guerra. Me parece que mucho de todo esto hay en las recriminaciones de todo el espectro ideológico. Copio todo el artículo porque después se pierden los links y quiero que quede en el blog:
TOO NICE TO WIN?
ISRAEL'S DILEMMA
WHAT if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?
What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy - the idea that all people are created equal - has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries?
What if this triumph of universalism is demonstrated by the Left's insistence that American and Israeli military actions marked by an extraordinary concern for preventing civilian casualties are in fact unacceptably brutal? And is also apparent in the Right's claim that a war against a country has nothing to do with the people but only with that country's leaders?
Can any war be won when this is the nature of the discussion in the countries fighting the war? Can any war be won when one of the combatants voluntarily limits itself in this manner?
Could World War II have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Didn't the willingness of their leaders to inflict mass casualties on civilians indicate a cold-eyed singleness of purpose that helped break the will and the back of their enemies? Didn't that singleness of purpose extend down to the populations in those countries in those days, who would have and did support almost any action at any time that would lead to the deaths of Germans and Japanese?
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?
If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?
And if America can't do it, can Israel? Could Israel - even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel - possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?
If Lebanon's 300-plus civilian casualties are already rocking the world, what if it would take 10,000 civilian casualties to finish off Hezbollah? Could Israel inflict that kind of damage on Lebanon - not because of world opinion, but because of its own modern sensibilities and its understanding of the value of every human life?
Where do these questions lead us?
What if Israel's caution about casualties among its own soldiers and Lebanese civilians has demonstrated to Hezbollah and Hamas that as long as they can duck and cover when the missiles fly and the bombs fall, they can survive and possibly even thrive?
What if Israel has every capability of achieving its aim, but cannot unleash itself against a foe more dangerous, more unscrupulous, more unprincipled and more barbaric than even the monstrous leaders of the Intifada it managed to quell after years of suicide attacks?
And as for the United States, what if we have every tool at our disposal to win a war - every weapons system we could want manned by the most superbly trained military in history - except the ability to match or exceed our antagonists in ruthlessness?
Is this the horrifying paradox of 21st century warfare? If Israel and the United States cannot be defeated militarily in any conventional sense, have our foes discovered a new way to win? Are they seeking victory through demoralization alone - by daring us to match them in barbarity and knowing we will fail?
Are we becoming unwitting participants in their victory and our defeat? Can it be that the moral greatness of our civilization - its astonishing focus on the value of the individual above all - is endangering the future of our civilization as well?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5976/2758/1600/bush.jpg
ReplyDeleteAfter 14 days of fighting against the Hizbullah, still a third part of the State of Israel is threatened by missiles and rockets. Hundred of thousands of people are still sitting in underground shelters, for 15 days by now. This includes old people, new born babies, women and men. A quarter of the Israeli economy is paralyzed. Plants cannot ship their merchandises at time, and this will obviously have a long-term influence on the Israeli economy. Nasralla is threatening to attack southern to Haifa, and this means that soon my own home and family will be under attack.
ReplyDeleteWithin this situation, not to mention the constant concern and worry to the life of the kidnapped soldiers and those who defend the legitimate and worldwide/UN acknowledged borders of the State of Israel, there are voices here who call upon ceasing fire and starting negotiating with those who literally want to slaughter us and destroy everything we built since a little bit more than a century.
Zahal, the Israel Defence Forces, is trying to do a 'surgical' operation. This is being interpreted by our enemy as signs for weaknesses. Nasrallah says that the IDF managed to win three Arab countris in onoy six days (Six Day War, June 1967), and it cannot beat the Hizbullah in 14 days. So, shall we, the Israelies, show the Hizbullah our full power, at high cost of casualties, at both sides...? Or, should we acknowledge our strength, and still be patient and progress carefully? If we take the second option, would the worldwide public opinion and western world government give us the necessary support and backup, in terms of time? How long would our civilian population can bear sitting in shelters? How long could the Israeli society bear the number of innocent casualties, at both sides? How long would the Israeli society, can bear dead soldiers, some of them by the enemy's fire, and some, unfortunately, mistakenly, by our own forces?...
So far, most of the Israelies acknowledge the necessity of this fighting, to take the Hizbullah rockets threat away from our civilians, but how long would this support last? After all, we are not a terror organization, whose only concern is to kill as many civilians as possible. We are a free democratic society, who acknowledge the rights of its Arab citizens. Arabic Parlament Members, of the Israeli Parlament, were speaking against Israel actions, and expressed support of the Hizbullah. Can you imagine such a situation in your own country?
We want to go back as soon as possible to our normal life. To our hi-tech and medical acheivements, to our universities and civil rights discussions. We reach our hand for Peace with our neighbours. But are they ready for that? Are they ready to accept our existance in this area, or in the world, at all? Are they ready to benefit peaceful life, tourism and economy prosperity, and put their terror ways aside?
De Elena, una amiga española:
ReplyDelete¡Está muy bien el artículo, muy bien! He aquí una de las claves de todo conflicto "moderno" cuyo origen esté el temas "islámicos":
What if Israel's caution about casualties among its own soldiers and Lebanese civilians has demonstrated to Hezbollah and Hamas that as long as they can duck and cover when the missiles fly and the bombs fall, they can survive and possibly even thrive?
What if Israel has every capability of achieving its aim, but cannot unleash itself against a foe more dangerous, more unscrupulous, more unprincipled and more barbaric than even the monstrous leaders of the Intifada it managed to quell after years of suicide attacks?
And as for the United States, what if we have every tool at our disposal to win a war - every weapons system we could want manned by the most superbly trained military in history - except the ability to match or exceed our antagonists in ruthlessness?
Los dos párrafos finales tampoco tiene desperdicio, en serio, y creo que dan en el blanco de forma muy fina. Y ya no es un tema sólo de "superioridad moral", que eso influye, pero vamos a ser sinceros: Para un mundo dominado tanto por intereses económicos, COMO por intereses mediáticos, no creo que ningún líder se atrevería a justamente eso: "match de ruthlessness of the opposition". Pienso que los decision makers en estos asuntos verían una solución así como un suicidio político-mediático, razón por la cual no recurren a ello, más que por ningún asunto moral.
Como problema secundario, pero importante también, dicha "ruthlessness" no garantiza en modo alguno la solución del problema, como sí sucedió con la bomba atómica. Es prácticamente imposible erradicar la radicalidad islámica en su conjunto y, con tres que quedaran, estaríamos de vuelta al mismo conflicto, sino aun peor y más radicalizado. Se me antoja que una solución tipo Hiroshima no acabaría con la radicalidad islámica, sino que la "radicalizaría" todavía más. Pienso, en mi fuero interno, que si no se tuviera esa bien justificada "sospecha", ya se habrían utilizado métodos más contundentes.
En cualquier caso, y volviendo a "Hiroshima", si una respuesta ruthless hubiera tenido lugar justo después del 11 S, entonces hubiera podido ser engullida por un mundo horrorizado por la atrocidad. El 11 S marcó un punto de inflexión, al igual que lo marcó la bomba atómica, y contextualizar allá una respuesta ruthless hubiera tenido "justificación", pero ahora, descontextualizada (y entiéndeme bien como utilizo esta palabra!), es más difícil de explicar y mucho más arriesgado de utilizar.
¿Tu qué crees?
Anonymous, I fully understand and support the plight of Israel. I said it here many times. Israel, like any other country in the world, has the right to defend itself.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are a lot of people who share my point of view. The problem is that those who are “politically correct” tend to be far more vocal than moderates. I think it is true everywhere. It is easier and far more elegant to just go with the flow and blame Israel and the Jews for everything. It also places you in a higher moral plane. It does not matter that it is rubbish, effect is more important that substance for a lot of people out there.
My point is that we can disagree about Israel, the Middle East, Palestine, and whatever you want, but we have to start by treating the Jewish state just like you would any other country in the world. It has the right to exist and it has the right to defend itself. Nobody would even dream of saying that, for example, Argentina has a “legitimacy issue” because it broke away from the Spanish Empire in the 19th century. It is bullshit that only applies to Israel and barely disguises a very overt judeophobia.
To certain extent, some people consider a liability the fact that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the region governed by the rule of law. They say that consensual government and the power of public opinion may limit Israel’s options in this war. I personally believe the opposite is true. Those are the country’s biggest and most important assets. We must not underestimate the will of free people to defend themselves.
Needing Torture
ReplyDeletePosted by Stephan Kinsella at July 25, 2006 10:25 PM
On O'Reilly tonight, Bill was sparring with Democrat Congressman Gary Ackerman, who is on the House International Relations Committee. Discussing the double standard certain liberals have towards Israel--condoning more aggressive prisoner questioning than they would by the US--Ackerman said, "My view on terrorism is simple--I don't think that you should torture anybody who doesn't need it."
Reminds me a bit of the reported exchange "many years ago between the Chief Justice of Texas and an Illinois lawyer visiting that state. 'Why is it,' the visiting lawyer asked, 'that you routinely hang horse thieves in Texas but oftentimes let murderers go free?' 'Because,' replied the Chief Justice, 'there never was a horse that needed stealing!'"