It’s war in the middle east. . .

and there’s not much doubt whose side the Europeans are on. Led by the despicable Jacques Chirac, they express their favoritism for those attacking Israel by claiming that the Israeli response to the attack is “disproportionate.” Call me naive, but I had always thought that the object in a military action was to employ disproportionate (i.e., more) force than the enemy. Chirac, Saddam Hussein’s old buddy, sniffs that “One could ask if today there is not a sort of will to destroy Lebanon, its equipment, its roads, its communication.” One could answer that there is a sort of will to destroy Lebanon’s capacity to be the staging ground for attacks against Israel.

In an important respect, however, Israel’s response is less than what a sense of proportion would demand. The attack on Israel has its source in Syria and Iran. A proportionate response would include strikes against both nations.

JOHN adds: One could also add that there is indisputably a “sort of will to destroy” Israel.

Beyond that, the “disproportionate force” point is an excellent one. My favorite historical figure, Ulysses Grant, was one of the great proponents of disproportionate response. Robert E. Lee–who, of course, deployed maximum power whenever he had the opportunity–once deprecated Grant by saying something to the effect that “Grant’s entire strategy and tactics consist of assembling and deploying overwhelming numbers.” That’s not really accurate, but I’m sure Grant would have settled for it as an epitaph. Until very recently, politicians as well as military commanders thought it was a good idea to fight with both hands.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line