It's far easier to imagine a population subjected to this treatment becoming increasingly radicalized and belligerent rather than submissive and compliant, as Friedman intends.

This is why I constantly challenge Israel supporters to explain to me the aims of this war. The moral argument always draws head-shaking responses about "ivory-tower" liberals. But what about the practicality argument? Is there any population in the world who, having been blockaded and bombed and invaded, would just meekly accept occupation - at least for longer than it takes for the bombs to stop falling? Is there a single Israeli military theorist that thinks Gaza will be less restive when this action eventually ends?

So what the hell are we left with? An extended revenge-gasm? Military inventory clearance?

Trying to understand the motivation of human beings never ceases to confound me.

This is why I find it strange that there is such a sigh of relief at the departure of G Bush jnr. The entire right wing machine is still intact, spewing forth the same twisted, hateful solutions that have brought the US to its knees in so many ways, with about half the population swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Can’t you see it?

This is why I constantly challenge Israel supporters to explain to me the aims of this war. The moral argument always draws head-shaking responses about "ivory-tower" liberals. But what about the practicality argument?

You're right. They rarely answer. That suggests to me that, for many of them, the war aim is nothing more than attacking people they believe deserve it. It's way more retributive than it is intended to achieve some positive outcome.

That said, I think many of them think that it's possible simply to kill all or most of the Hamas militants, which means there won't be anyone left who can or will shoot rockets at Israel because they'll all be dead.

It's nothing more than: There are bad guys attacking us and so we have to kill them all so the attacks will stop.

No. No, No, NO ... a thousand times, NO!

The problem is not that "it doesn't work" - the problem is that IT IS WRONG!

Yes, it is true that it doesn't work, if you think that the objective is to make peace, or to have peace, or for peace to somehow supernaturally sprout like a pristine white rose from the blood and guts of the slain.

but if your objective is to have a never-ending supply of putative enemies on which you can practice the art of "national defense" on the other side of the world, or in the country next door, or in the occupied territory just across the barricade, then it "works" for the merchants of death.

IT IS STILL WRONG!

Get it?

The problem with invading and destroying and occupying Iraq is not that "it hasn't eliminated AQ", and it is not that "the strategy was incomplete" and it is not that "there was no plan for after the invasion" and it is not that "there is no plan for exit with honour" (whatever that adolescent tripe may mean), and it isn't any of the other pusillanimous plattitudes commonly bandied about in this respect ... No, the problem with it is that it is just WRONG to kill tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people, destroy a country, and destroy the livelihoods of millions, out of pique, or vengeance, or even in the name of justice against an enemy composing at most several hundred people.

IT IS JUST WRONG.

FFS!

In case you haven't noticed, Glenn, that has to be Electro. Just FYI.

well, when you put it that way....

seriously, thanks for the clarification. you're right in that this is a dispute of terms. i'm not willing to concede the point entirely, but your take is astute and certainly a clear-eyed assessment of how the business is run these days.

If you read my post you would see I stated several times my concerns were in addition to the more important moral concerns.

I don't know how else to say it. But it ALSO bugs me that some people, like Friedman, choose to buy into the meme that Israel somehow won the war in Lebanon. They did not. In any sense. Just IMHO, but it is important to point out to proponents of this war and the 2006 Lebanon War that they LOST the war (otherwise they would then use the never-ending justification of having won).

Telling someone they are morally wrong can and should have an effect. Pointing out that they lost also has an effect.

I'm so glad Glenn posted that link to the Kos diary in Update I. There is something truly bizarre about the rhetoric warmongering propagandists like Thomas Friedman and Jeffrey Goldberg use to justify our and Israel's recent military adventures.

There seems to be a great desire on the part of Friedman and Goldberg (and of course many, many more) to humiliate the Arab other, to 'teach him a lesson that won't soon be forgotten' and thereby obtain a vaguely defined kind of "respect."

Anyone with a couple of analytical brain cells to rub together and a modicum of human decency can see the tragic dynamic at work here. This is the primitive, emotion-driven thinking of the picked-on schoolyard wimp who has become the bully. This type of rhetoric is, needless to say, cringe-inducing, and it would be pitiable if it wasn't being mouthed by grown men with positions of prominence in our media.

I have never understood why so many on the left adopt the fatilistic death-cult-like economic idea of resource scarcity as an unstoppable reason for aggressive war. There is, rationally speaking, no such thing as a resource in its own right.

Well, unfortunately we say so because it is true. While it is true that there is no such thing as a resource absent human need, that doesn't change the fact that you will die of thirst if denied water for a week. Human life, ALL life, depends on access to resources.

A further tragedy is that some who should be vehemently opposing this murderous megalomania, will excuse it by appealing to "resource scarcity" as if it were some irresistable force in human affairs.

I'm not excusing it - I agree it is a tragedy. But you can't solve a problem unless you understand the root causes. Resource scarcity is at the core of this conflict. You can't solve it without addressing this issue. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition to ending the fighting. Ignoring that reality ensures the continuation of the conflict.