The Myth of Proportionality

Seeing yet another news article with some diplomatic popinjay bleating about Israel's "disproportionate" response to being attacked, one is led to ask what exactly it is that such people mean by a "proportionate" response, and why exactly it is that any nation is obliged to respond to foreign aggression in a "proportionate" manner - whatever that is. Do people who insist on "proportionality" in warfare actually believe that the way to deter foreigners intent on lobbing missiles at you is to restrain yourself to only the weapons your attackers have at their disposal - as if one were abiding by rules of fair play in a tennis match - or is it that they simply don't believe Israel has a right to respond in an effective manner? Is this merely the brain-rot initiated in Vietnam by Robert McNamara run amok?

The idea of "proportionality" has no place whatsoever in warfare, and to pretend otherwise is either foolishnesss or disingenuity: warfare is fundamentally about using brute force to get the enemy to do what you want - in other words, intimidation by killing, or by the plausible threat of killing - not some athletic competition to be policed for unsporting methods such as steroid use, and a party which establishes a reputation for a swift and overwhelming response to aggression is much more likely to be left alone than one which tries to act in conformance with what European windbags seem to consider "proportionate"; Israel is no more obliged to restrain itself to exchanging the odd missile with Hezbollah than the United States was to dealing with September 11 by crashing a few jets into downtown Kabul. The only worthwhile measure of "proportionality" in a military conflict is whether or not the actions being carried out suffice to achieve the ends for which they are undertaken - and by that method, Israel's response cannot be characterized as "disproportionate": indeed, I'll go so far as to say that the more likely problem in the current conflict is that the Israeli government, burdened by delusional notions of "proportionality", will avoid going all out to crush Hezbollah rapidly, opting instead for the kind of "proportional", half-hearted actions which achieve little even though they bring just as much international condemnation as the more effective measures left on the table.

Then again, what am I saying? These are the same Europeans who drag their citizens to court for "disproportionately" [sic] defending themselves against intruders into their own homes ...

PS: Hezbollah agrees with me!

A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect
Israel to react with an all-out offensive after the capture of two soldiers, the first acknowledgment by the group that it had miscalculated the consequences of the raid two weeks ago.

Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of the Hezbollah's political arm, also told The Associated Press in an interview that the Shiite militant group will not lay down arms.

"The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel after the two soldiers were seized by guerrillas on Israel's side of the border on July 12.

So, there you have it - a blatant admission that the reason why Hezbollah felt emboldened to provoke Israel was that it expected "the usual, limited" (in other words, "proportionate" [sic]) response.

Comments

[Abiola]

"If you're correct, then poisoning wells, torture, etc. is morally justified in the current conflict."

I call it a straw man because the current conflict clearly requires no such thing other than in the mind of a lunatic or someone trying to puff up an absurd rhetorical argument. As for the arguments you bring up, I dare you to say that there are no circumstances under which torture is acceptable, while if you think poisoning wells is always wrong, perhaps you're also stupid enough to believe Sherman and Stalin were "morally unjustified" engaging in scorched earth tactics in their time.

"And that they are/won't, I think, demonstrates (put aside any tactical reasons for not doing so) that the concept of just war is alive and well."

Rubbish. One needn't believe in a dubious, nebulous concept like "just war" - whatever the hell that is - to see that in light of Israel's circumstances it pays no rational dividends for the Israelis to engage in the actions you're talking about. The goal is to crush Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and alienate the group from the rest of Lebanese society, and mass murder clearly wouldn't serve that goal. That you fail to grasp this much only betrays your unfamiliarity with the writings of even the likes of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, let alone more modern thinkers: do you really think it's airy fairy moral considerations which have prevented, say, communist China from wiping out the Tibetans?

"And that is one of the sources of the concept of proportionality that you're abusing. (Another source is Catholic law.)"

"Abusing"? No, the one doing the abusing here is *you*, not just by refusing to state clearly what exactly you mean by "proportional" if not a "kidnap for kidnap, rocket attack for rocket attack" permanent stalemate, but you also abuse my intelligence by presuming to give a place to "Catholic law" in a secular international order in which most of the actors aren't even from traditionally Christian societies. If you think either the Jewish state of Israel or even the Muslim Hezbollah do in fact or even should in principle give a damn to what "Catholic law" says about anything at all, your arguments aren't worth a brass farthing.

[gene berman]

Interesting that Catholic law concerning war should be mentioned. The Israelis caught the top rep of the church--a bishop, I believe, smuggling arms, ammo, explosives, etc. just a few years ago. The material was secreted in hidden compartments with which his official limousine had been fitted.

[fishbane]

I see that there's no point in trying to persuade. My mention of Catholic law was obviously (to someone who is arguing, rather than spewing) just an example of how widely shared the concept of Just War is; there are many other examples. (I'm not religious, but come from a Jewish family.) My father, for instance, was career JAG before he retired, and is horrified. But don't let the people who will bear the brunt of your wrongheaded ideas stop you from promoting dangerous ideas. That's what we pay them for, right? Much easier to throw Geneva to the wind.

Frankly, I expect this from the Freepers, but you're making me reconsider my former view that FD wasn't that lightweight.