The terrible war in Lebanon has been discussed from all sorts of ethical and legal perspectives, but the simplest way of judging war is to look at its consequences.
After weeks of bloodshed, with the vast majority of victims being ordinary people (mostly in Lebanon thanks to the use of airstrikes as a weapon of terror, but with many killed and wounded in Israel as well) whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it’s hard to believe that anyone could claim that any good consequences are going to come out of this for the people of either Israel or Lebanon (though of course this is precisely the claim being made not only by the belligerents but by their outside backers, from Bush on one side to the Iranians on the other). But as we’ve seen time and again, the logic of war, once started, is remorseless. However obviously wrong the initial decision to go to war, the consequences of ending it always seem almost worse, at least to those who have to admit that the death and destruction they have wrought has been pointless.
And all this was not only predictable, but predicted by nearly everyone who looked at the situation objectively.
Whether all this is put in terms of just war, consequentialism or some other way of thinking about things, a central problem is that the parties act as judges in their own cases, and, at times when war is brewing, are bad judges even of their own interests, let alone of the justice of their claims or the effect on others.
At best, war is doing evil that good may come, and most of the time the indirect consequences are also evil. The great majority of wars, revolutions and insurgencies have done more harm than good, and in most cases, everyone involved has been worse off than if they had made peace on the basis of the status quo ante at the earliest opportunity. This is obvious as a general proposition (the fact that the same handful of exceptions is quoted over and over again only goes to sharpen the point). But everyone thinking of making war sees themselves as one of the exceptions.
John Quiggin 
Terje’s analysis is the correct one and discussing a recent war is not going to shed any light on the maximal avoidance of war . Nicholas Gruen by criticizing the employment of ” mechanical rules” to avoid war inadvertently goes down the path of maximising warfare as a political intrument. Rules will be used, sooner or later, by a supra national body to states at war. The perceived state of war is a end state in the politiical game ; generally once parties are in that state they is no exit unitl exhaustion sets in. A supra national body may or not become a party in this conflict in order to bring this state of exhaustion forward and minimise civilian and military casualties.
Chris;
I think there are two parteis both of whom must be bought to a political outcome.
The USA smashing one leaves the other with the ‘rewards’. This is not likely to be stable situation.
Boznia,Iraq etc etc etc etc etc show how difficult outside ‘interference’ can be particularly when either strong external forces do not care enough or alternatively care to much about outcomes.
On balance I am of the opinion that if we cannot see a clear exit strategy then the least costly action in the long run is to let them fight it out and accept the outcome.
On this basis Rawanda would probably have been the only circumstances where I would have supported forceful interference.
Taust,
Generally, I too am in favour of non-interference unless there is an overwhelming case that the good outweighs the bad.
However, we are currently in a situation where there is active interference from the US in favour of one party, Israel.
Currently, the US provides significant support for Israel, financially, militarily, diplomatically whatever.
It is this lop-sided support that enables Israel to flout UN resolutions, international law and basic humanity, not to mention a halfway decent settlement with the Palestinians.
All I am arguing is that the US should rebalance its intervention in this dispute, either by ramping up support for the Pals or withdrawing support for the Israelis. (Although you could argue that given massive historical support, the Israelis would now be able to continue doing what they like without US support)
Only if this does not work should more aggressive interference be contemplated.
However, I do not think that it would take much more than US and UN insistence on a reasonable settlement for the Israelis to comply.
Even the most ardent Zionist realises that time will eventually run out for the Israel Project if it does not reach a settlement – demography, technology catchup, nuclear terrorism or an Iranian/Syrian/Eqyptian bomb will eventually win out.
Isael should have remembered the advice given by Walt Kelly’s Pogo;
“Never pick a fight with someone smaller than you. If you win you’re a bully, and if you lose you’re a bum.”
I think Hezbollah may be the bum.
Despite continued rocket attacks it does appear Hezbollah have been weakened, threats by Syria and Iran to physically enter the conflict did not materialise. The rejection of the UN peace proposal by Lebanon and the Arab League has gained Israel further time to pound Hezbollah positions. With their leader now forced underground Hezbollah may need to look to make alliances within Lebanon if they wish to remain a political force – with the Druze?
In the meantime the national spirit in Israeli has grown enormously.
All this will contribute to the nature of discussions at the sheduled meeting August 22 with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Iran may argue that they have shown restraint and that Israel is the aggressor. They have shown that they can argue from any position real or unreal to justify their goal, that of obtaining nuclear weapons. What needs to be determined at the meeting is the depth of the West resolve to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapon capability.
rog – this is good even for you. Can you not recognise even the slightest bit of over-reaction by Israel. Pounding civilian infrastructure is not the way to deal with terrorists. It only increases their popular support. The local population does not blame Hezbollah for the destruction only the US as it sees Israel only as an extension of the US.
“What needs to be determined at the meeting is the depth of the West resolve to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapon capability.”
In previous discussion you have said that you are pro-nuclear power. What could be wrong with a state persuing a peaceful nuclear program?
Rog,
I think you are dead wrong.
Within 6 months, Israel will have evacuated the Sheba Farms, and Hezbollah will be hailed as the heirs of Saladin, regardless of whether the land is transferred to Syria or Lebanon.
You also display a narrow-minded understanding of military capabilities. The great strength of guerilla armies is that they do not require or depend upon infrastructure as conventional armies do.
Israel’s trumpeting of the “destruction of Hezbollah’s infrastructure” is a furphy – the mobile rockets they deploy can easily be replaced, and thanks to Israel’s barbarity, the recruiting ranks will be full.
Having said that, you are no less or more educated about such matters as Israel’s top brass.
Even an idiot like Olmert will realise that the only way of disarming Hezbollah is retreating out of occupied land, not just in Lebanon, but in Syria and Palestine.
Ender already you are confabulating;
“Pounding civilian infrastructure is not the way to deal with terrorists. It only increases their popular support.”
You are implying that Hezbollah did not have much support prior to the pounding. Obviously pounding is good for Hezbollah-more pounding please!
rog – confabulating – really??
“con·fab·u·late Pronunciation (kn-fby-lt)
intr.v. con·fab·u·lat·ed, con·fab·u·lat·ing, con·fab·u·lates
1. To talk casually; chat.
2. Psychology To fill in gaps in one’s memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.”
Yes we are talking casually or do you think that I am replacing fantasy with fact?
”
You are implying that Hezbollah did not have much support prior to the pounding. ”
I am not implying any such thing I am just saying that terrorists are best dealt with by removing their popular support. Reinforcing the perceived common enemy of both Hezbollah and some elements of the Lebanese people by bombing common infrastructure is very unlikely to diminish Hezbollah’s popular support. The only thing that usually stops 2 factions fighting is give them a common enemy that they both hate more.
You still like nuclear power???
Chris C,
The Shebaa farms are just a pretext. If Israel gave a slice of Syria (which the farms are) to Lebanon, Hezbollah would not then simply fade away. Israel’s existence as a free, democratic state is a threat to all despots in the area.
The fact that Israel is on land that was stolen from the Palestinians without compensation provides all the excuses that Hezbollah and the other dictatorial regimes in the area need to continue to attack and to continue to repress their own people.
Israel withdrawing from Lebanon will not solve the problem. Coming to an agreement with the Palestinians, after some time, would. Unfortunately, an Israel at peace with the Palestinans, free and democratic, will not suit their neighbours and the others funding the Palestinian cause. The Israeli hawks and the settlers will also be working against a permanent deal with the Palestinians.
No peace is likely for a while yet.
Andrew,
I never said Hezbollah would fade away, or that peace was likely soon – merely predicted that Israel would soon withdraw from Sheba and it would provide a propaganda coup for Hezbollah.
Also agree entirely that Israel would have to withdraw from all occupied land (Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian) for there to be peace – mreley withdrawing from Lebanon would not be enough.
However, I disagree with you in one respect – I do believe that if Israel DID withdraw from all occupied Arab land and a saisfactory settlement could be found with Jerusalem, the neighbouring Arab states would be satisfied with this.
The problem is the West is backing all the wrong players in this region – it stands behind Israel and the Arab despots. It should withdraw support both for Israel and the Arab dictators, which ironically would resultin a better outcome for the Jewish and Arab people.
Chris,
You cannot expect the despots to say “that’s fine – we accept a free Israel”. All of the neighbouring countries (including those formally at peace) demonise Israel constantly in their press. If Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders (with a Jerusalem deal – and this looks unlikely) there would be tension still for quite some time – which is why I added in the “some time” bit above.
The current despots would also have to go, a process that will take a long time. Short of accepting a massacre of the Jewish people, I do not think we have any real alternative but to support them.
Andrew,
I didnt say the Arab despots would LIKE an extant Israel, but they would be satisfied with this outcome – mainly because there would be nothing they could militarily do about it.
The problem is that it is always assumed that everything else has to be dealt with before the liberation of Palestine, egs:
1) Iraq invading Kuwait;
2) Iraq invading Iran;
3) Iranian nuclear program;
4) Cleanup of corruption in the PA;
5) Democratisation of the PA;
6) Smashing of Hizbullah;
7) Removal of the Taliban;
8) Smashing of Al-Qaeda.
Imagine the American response if King George had responded to the Boston Tea Party by saying the colonists could govern themselves only when they reformed their society to emulate the British model!
This ongoing deferral of the Palestinian question (combined with complete bias towards Israel) is the root cause of Muslim anger at America and Israel (and by extension, Australia).
Indeed, the Israeli citing of UN resolutions to justify its Lebanese atrocities is hilarious when juxtaposed with the resolutions it remains long in breach of.
So frankly, the demonisation of Israel in the Arab press is a justifiable and correct response to this.
Andrew,
Am I also to understand that you are in favour of the West’s ongoing support of Arab despots (except in Iraq)?
“the simplest way of judging war is to look at its consequences.”
Would this be true of any war? Say, either WWI or WWII?
Hezbollah’s actions have nothing at all to do with the Palestinians. In fact, one of the most enduring dysfunctions surrounding the ME is the sad fact that no one, including no muslim nations in the ME, cares a thing about the Palestinians.
If militias in PNG were pointing 8,000 missiles at Aus,
you might be a little concerned as well, right?
and for job openings in the Lebanon (satire) click here:
http://indcoup.blogspot.com/2006/08/immediate-job-openings-in-lebanon.html