Many in the blogosphere and the MSM have asserted that the current campaign by Israel against Hizb'Allah is all about re-establishing a deterrence:
The object is not to teach the jihadists a lesson; it is to utterly destroy their capability to attack Israel from Lebanon by destroying their caches and making it impossible for them to RE-OCCUPY (with weapons) any region in Lebanon from which they can strike Israel.
That's NOT deterrence; it's neutralization of the enemy's capacity to attack.
It's more like the Osiriak Preemption than like any previous Arab-Israeli war. WHY? Well, it's about going on the offense in order to neutralize the offensive capability of the enemy - and drawing a new line in the sand, rather than being about punishing the enemy and making them wary of attempting similar "adventures" in the future.
Bombing raids alone could punish the enemy, but it would not deter this enemy because they are jihadomaniacs whose sociopathic and suicidal rage cannot be deterred. And that's why Olmert - like Bush - has consigned deterrence (at least as it relates to the GWOT) to the dustbin of histry, where it belongs.
The goals which Olmert has set out for this campaign are concrete and attainable, and not abstract - like "deterrence."
The Olmert Doctrine has HUGE implications for Iran. Just as Israel cannot accept Hamas as the government of the so-called Palestinian Arabs, and cannot accept Hizb'Allah, (armed with missiles and rockets) controlling its border with Lebanon - Israel cannot - and will not - accept Iran armed with Nukes.
Israel is now paying the price for having allowed the jihadomaniacs on their Lebanese border to spend the last 6 years arming themselves to the teeth. They will not allow a repeat. Not in Lebanon. Not in Gaza. And not in Iran.
The Olmert Doctrine is simple: Israel will attack and destroy the enemy's capacity to make existentially threatening attacks. It's very much like the Bush Doctrine - as it should be: we are fighting the same enemy. Using the same strategy makes perfect sense.
That ain't hoping for peace by deterring the enemy; it's guaranteeing peace by virtually disarming the enemy. By neutralizing them. By defeating them if needs be.
The Israeli wars with Hizbullah in Lebanon and with the Palestinians in Gaza must be seen in the context of the pressing Israeli need to reestablish some semblance of a deterrent capacity.Another MSM journalist agrees:
Israel re-establishing the deterrentPipes more or less agrees - (via POWERLINE):
What does 'deterrent power' actually mean? Understand that, and you understand the remarkable savagery of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon...
But what does ''deterrent power'' actually mean?
Understand that, and you understand the remarkable savagery of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Of course, they are a ''disproportionate use of force'', as French President Jacques Chirac called them the other day. [Reliapundit: the journalist reveals her bias with this!] That is the whole point. Israel's ''deterrent power'' lies in its demonstrated will to kill and destroy on a vastly greater scale than anybody attacking it can manage. Its enemies must know that if one Israeli is killed, a dozen or even a hundred Arabs will die.
This has been the dominant concept of Israeli strategy from the very foundation of the state, and the ''kill ratio'' in all of Israel's wars down to its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 conformed to that pattern.
Deterrence cannot be reinstated in a week, through a raid, a blockade, or a round of war. It demands unwavering resolve, expressed over decades.THIS GENERALY CORRECT, BUT IN RELATION TO THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN - AND CAMPAIGNS AGAINST SUICIDAL/GENOCIDAL JIHADOTERRORISTS - IT'S JUST FLAT OUT WRONG.
The object is not to teach the jihadists a lesson; it is to utterly destroy their capability to attack Israel from Lebanon by destroying their caches and making it impossible for them to RE-OCCUPY (with weapons) any region in Lebanon from which they can strike Israel.
That's NOT deterrence; it's neutralization of the enemy's capacity to attack.
It's more like the Osiriak Preemption than like any previous Arab-Israeli war. WHY? Well, it's about going on the offense in order to neutralize the offensive capability of the enemy - and drawing a new line in the sand, rather than being about punishing the enemy and making them wary of attempting similar "adventures" in the future.
Bombing raids alone could punish the enemy, but it would not deter this enemy because they are jihadomaniacs whose sociopathic and suicidal rage cannot be deterred. And that's why Olmert - like Bush - has consigned deterrence (at least as it relates to the GWOT) to the dustbin of histry, where it belongs.
The goals which Olmert has set out for this campaign are concrete and attainable, and not abstract - like "deterrence."
The Olmert Doctrine has HUGE implications for Iran. Just as Israel cannot accept Hamas as the government of the so-called Palestinian Arabs, and cannot accept Hizb'Allah, (armed with missiles and rockets) controlling its border with Lebanon - Israel cannot - and will not - accept Iran armed with Nukes.
Israel is now paying the price for having allowed the jihadomaniacs on their Lebanese border to spend the last 6 years arming themselves to the teeth. They will not allow a repeat. Not in Lebanon. Not in Gaza. And not in Iran.
The Olmert Doctrine is simple: Israel will attack and destroy the enemy's capacity to make existentially threatening attacks. It's very much like the Bush Doctrine - as it should be: we are fighting the same enemy. Using the same strategy makes perfect sense.
That ain't hoping for peace by deterring the enemy; it's guaranteeing peace by virtually disarming the enemy. By neutralizing them. By defeating them if needs be.
No comments:
Post a Comment