General Richard Hawley was the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and was commander of the Allied Air Forces in Central Europe, at Ramstein Air Base, Germany.Meanwhile, Meryl (who has a number of great posts as usual today) notes a little about the first terrorist Hezbollah asked to be released.
When he was asked, "Does violence only lead to more violence?", this is what he had to say.
This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated, "not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea.
WARNING: Descriptions of intense violence. Important to read, because of it.
She also notes:
Samir Kuntar should have been put to death. Israel seriously needs to rethink its policy on the death penalty. Today’s terrorists are the new Nazis, and deserve as little mercy.I agree with that, but there's more to it than that. Again and again, we see terrorists try and use these terrorists as excuses to kill and kidnap soldiers, then demand a trade such as today's. Even those who normally argue that capital punishment doesn't reduce murders would agree that in this case it would.
The terrorists seek to equate the safety of a uniformed soldier to the freedom of a terrorist. Hence, their demands for a trade of captives/prisoners. Of course, a uniformed soldier is regarded with substantial protection in international law/custom. Not so for a terrorist. The very notion of a trade like this is a farce.
ReplyDeleteThank you - well put. Worse than that, they generally try to equate a soldier (or three) to thousands of terrorists.
ReplyDeleteThey then couch the term: "We want the women and children released." Meanwhile, the women are people who carried out terror attacks, and the children are 18-21 - the same age or older than the soldier who was captured. They, too, were carrying out attacks.
However, complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead.
ReplyDeleteWho, exactly, are "the other guys?" They can keep growing terrorists forever. Unless Israel is willing to commit total genocide -- and I believe and hope they aren't -- killing "them all" is not a viable solution. The quote simply plays on (understandable) emotions. The solution, if there is one, must be a bit less simplistic than that.
Much as I tend toward the liberal weltanschauung, I see no reason for Israel to hold back. Lebanon and Israel do not have a peace treaty, the state of war between them technically still exists.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know Hezbollah is not an arm of the Lebanese government - but they are represented in Lebanons parliament, and Lebanon has done zilch to curb them. So thinking in terms of a buffer zone of several miles (perhaps even paved over) in Southern Lebanon is fully justified.
The same goes, to a slightly lesser extent, in Gaza. After Israel withdrew they ceased having any responsibility to the population there. But Israel does have a responsibility to every Israeli within rocket distance of Gaza.
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the Arabs. But not much. They prompted these military strikes by their actions. And why should I have much concern for them? I do not want them to win - not in Europe, not anywhere.
Who, exactly, are "the other guys?" They can keep growing terrorists forever. Unless Israel is willing to commit total genocide -- and I believe and hope they aren't -- killing "them all" is not a viable solution. The quote simply plays on (understandable) emotions. The solution, if there is one, must be a bit less simplistic than that.
ReplyDeleteGranted. The point here is not "kill them all", but rather a "complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence". I understand that to be one that destroys the capabilities of those who would wish to carry out future attacks to the greatest extent possible, but with sechel [combo wisdom/brains for the Hebrew-challenged]. Of course they can grow terrorists forever - it is in everyone's best interests to convince them that such a path is unwise. That means eliminating all current threats, those that are deemed to be serious future threats, and keeping an eye on all the rest.
To put it more simply, the best way to curb future violence is not by letting the other side kill you - it's by eliminating the threat once and for all.
BOTH - Well put. Interesting that it's those who usually lean left, not right, who are commenting on this one...
ReplyDeletethat ivy league professor thing..
ReplyDeletelol
too funny - too true
The point here is not "kill them all", but rather a "complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence". I understand that to be one that destroys the capabilities of those who would wish to carry out future attacks to the greatest extent possible, but with sechel [combo wisdom/brains for the Hebrew-challenged].
ReplyDeleteThe question is if terrorism can even be defeated militarily. I'm all for sechel, and even "well-executed violence," when necessary. I just think that people rely far too often on the latter rather than the former. Ithink the general's quote is emblematic of that tendency -- people instinctively want to kill the other guy, but with terrorism, that's not necessarily the best course of action.
Of course, it's political suicide for a politician to say that sort of thing.
I've heard more than a few Ivy League presidents speak and I'm not sure any would say something as silly as all violence leads to more violence.
ReplyDeleteIgnoring that point, yes violence is undoubtely the appropriate response to the recent terrorism in Israel. Only time will tell us if it is fully thought-through, professional, and well-executed violence.
Actually, Dick Hawley never said that. But who's to argue with a good story?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/rumors/hawley.htm
JA - The question is if terrorism can even be defeated militarily.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, if you don't care about killing indiscriminately.
In all seriousness, it needs a combination of military might and proper rebuilding - and it takes years, if not decades. It's why people's expectations in Iraq are completely unrealistic, and it's why the constant pressure on Israel has allowed terrorism to grow stronger. I really liked the answer (even if it's not true - thanks Josh), simply because it notes those points perfectly.
Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence.
I think that if you changed the dead line slightly, nobody would have a problem with it (though it wouldn't be as catchy or humorous). Change "the other guys" to "those that are barriers to proper rebuilding" or something along those lines.
BSCI - True, but the question wasn't "all" violence - it was "Does violence". And, seeing as how it seems to be a fake story, throwing in the professor part just makes it funnier. :)
Amen on the rest.
Josh - Thanks.
Ezz..I cant seem to drag links into that little box that opens..any advice?
ReplyDelete'Much as I tend toward the liberal weltanschauung, I see no reason for Israel to hold back.'
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly.
'Interesting that it's those who usually lean left, not right, who are commenting on this one.'
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Part of what Gen. Hawley did say (from the snopes link):
ReplyDelete'Violence is not a strategy. It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat. But it is not a strategy. If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs. And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to. Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being. '
See, now that I can agree with.
ReplyDeleteCharlie - I'm glad to see that you, and the others here, do. Sadly, I've seen a few lately that are completely warped...
ReplyDeleteCH & JA - I think you'd agree with just about all he said. It's sad that our politicians can't give straight answers like that for fear of criticism. Very sad.
George Orwell said:
ReplyDeleteYou have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.
A variation on that Ivy League Professor comment.
David - Thanks, LOL
ReplyDelete