I haven't posted in a while, Kossacks, because I've kind of been waiting for the Israel-Lebanon situation to die down.
Why? Because mine is a minority view here on this issue. I love this community, but I am flabbergasted at what has become the dKos reaction to this humanitarian crisis. I am not a Jew and I have never been to Israel or the Middle East, and I'm not terribly passionate about this issue; my focus tends to be more on domestic matters like Bush's inexorable march toward fascism, the destruction of the American middle class, and the way the GOP frames language to make sins virtues and virtues sins.
From my point of view, however, any small sovereign nation would have to insane to allow multiple, large militias on its borders, committed to that nation's utter destruction, to kidnap its soldiers, kill its civilians, and maintain an arsenal of 15,000 rockets, without making a very large and forceful military reprisal.
But that's just me. I know that others see it differently--which is why I want to pose this question to the community:
When is the use of military force acceptable? Are diplomacy, negotations, and peace talks really the only solutions in the minds of the community?
Israel has had a dark history over the last several decades, don't get me wrong; and they have in many ways brought this situation unto and upon themselves. But as many bright people here have said, it's not a question of who started it--it's a question of where we go from here. And I simply don't see anywhere to go from here but the destruction or disarmament of Hezbollah and Hamas.
There is only one piece of the Bush doctrine with which I am in agreement: if a nation intentionally harbors and cooperates with terrorist groups, then they must be considered a rogue state. (This does not apply to Iraq, by the way, which did not harbor terrorists and was never a threat in any way.)
This was certainly true in Afghanistan; and I wholeheartedly supported the post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, I supported taking out Bin Laden, Omar and the Taliban BEFORE 9/11. I was obsessed with Afghanistan in July of 2001, and my father and my friends thought I was nuts, and asked me why I cared so badly. I cared because I knew that a nation that harbored Bin Laden and behaved like the Taliban did was a major threat to us. And I was right. Mullah Omar was completely in cahoots with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban were essentially an extention of Al-Qaeda.
Of course, I do not support the way the invasion of Afghanistan was done--the insufficient troops, the torture at Bagram, the depleted uranium, the poppy fields flourishing, any of it. But I supported the IDEA of the invasion--if it were properly done.
What wasn't possible? Diplomacy with the Taliban. There was no such thing as a diplomatic solution--even if you did forget the fact that 9/11 was essentially an act of war by Bin Laden and Omar against the U.S. in no less a fashion than was Pearl Harbor.
----------------------
In Lebanon, the situation is somewhat different and far more complicated. It is less that the Lebanese government is in cahoots with Hezbollah than that they are powerless to stop them.
But the end result is the same: Hezbollah essentially dictates Lebanese foreign policy.
There is no peace treaty Israel can sign to appease Hezbollah. There is no Camp David table.
If Israel allows a Palestinian state (which it should) and withdraws to the 1967 borders (which is should), it will STILL be subject to Hezbollah attacks--because Hezbollah will stand for nothing less than Israel's destruction, and will see such moves as a sign of weakness. From my point of view, Israel MUST defend itself.
But then, that's just me.
----------------------------
To me, there is an unfortunate view held by many on the left that, metaphorically speaking, if we all tell our children that hitting is a "no-no", there won't be any more violence. That telling our bullied kid not to punch the bully in the mouth is somehow an act of virtue. We certainly don't act that way towards George Bush--and I fail to see why we should act that way towards Hezbollah.
So again I pose the question to all the anti-Israel Kossacks out there:
When is a military reaction acceptable in your minds?
I understand if ideological belief holds some of you to a strict pacifist line, but then I would hope that you not be involved in foreign policy, because it doesn't work.
But if you believe that military action IS sometimes justified, then please inform me what military action you would think appropriate for Israel in the face of Hezbollah?