Suicide Anti-Terrorism

[jsamuel]

"Suicide Anti-Terrorism" - States getting involved in invasions and blowing each other up in order to stop terrorism.

By using this policy, countries just end up killing themselves and sparking more terrorism and create more terrorists. Also, they end up killing (however inadvertent - or as Tony Snow puts it, calateral damage) extreme numbers of civilians.

INVADING/BLOWING UP A COUNTRY DOES NOT STOP TERRORISM

While I can understand, on principle that Israel has a right to defend itself, the problem is that their METHODS are WRONG. Let me remind everyone of two little countries... Iraq and Afghanistan.

This false choice of either invading a country or taking the hits from terrorists has to stop in American and world politics. The simple fact is that by invading/blowing up a country, it does not defeat terrorism, instead it only makes it stronger. I think anyone only has to look as far as Iraq and even Afghanistan to see this truth laid bare.

So, by supporting invasions to stop terrorism, we are SUPPORTING TERRORISM by giving it the avenues for growth.

There are many voters known as "domestic Democrats" out there, but it seems to me that many voters are "foreign Republicans". I think we have only ourselves to blame for not proving this point on a national stage. Instead of trying to look strong on national security, lets be strong. No one can agree with you if you never make your argument.

In order to respond to those who say I offer no alternatives, I will suggest the following.

Why couldn't Israel work with their close friend Lebanon in routing out Hezbollah WHILE WORKING WITH Lebanon instead of invading it? Lebanon's army is weak, so that is where Israel could help out supplying support to the Lebanese government/military. Limited of course. They would overwhelm Hezbollah from the inside. The Lebanon government would be boosted with support from Israel and the international community. Lebanon would become more stable.

(I have heard people such as Tim Russert saying that Hezbollah has "significant" control of the Lebanese government. It is quite inaccurate to agrue that as they have a total of 2 seats in that government.)

[Marie26]

1. One problem

The Lebanese army is 30% Shiite. If the Lebanese army tried to take out Hizbollah, a significant percentage of the army might rebel & join Hizbollah, sparking another civil war. Why do you think Lebanon allowed Hiz. to take over s. Lebanon? They didn't really have a choice - the democracy was so fragile that taking out Hiz. might have destroyed it completely.

[Kagemusha]

2. Wish more people appreciated that.

That is, the blunt plain truth. Israel's in fantasy land if it thinks the Lebanese Army is the force that'll bring Hezbollah down and not the IDF. Hugely over-appraising its capabilities...

[jsamuel]

3. my point is solid

Invading/blowing up a country does not stop terrorism.


In fact, it now appears that if Israel invades, Syria may get in the mix. This policy needs to stop.


Anyway, my alternative said that Israel would help the army/government of Lebanon, which would overwhelm Hezbollah from the inside, not that Lebanon would do it by itself.

[Marie26]

4. Not really

Invasions might not stop terrorism - but doing nothing won't stop terrorism either. Syia won't get in the mix. It doesn't want to be in the mix. They'll let Hizbollah ship weapons through Syria, but they don't want to confront Israel directly - they'll lose. Israel doesn't want to confront Syria directly either - cause a dictator is better than anarchy, as Iraq has shown.

As for Lebanon, my point is that they can't attack Hizbollah, even w/help from Israeli arms. The democracy there is only 1 year old & is incredibly fragile. Lebanon endured a 14-year civil war w/various different militias fighting - including Hizbollah. Those militias were organized along relious & ethnic lines - HIzbollah was a Shiite milita based in the Muslim south of the country. All those other militias agreed to disarm & join the new Lebanese government. Hizbollah did not. But Lebanon couldn't do anything about it at the time that the democracy was forming, so they let it go. Hizbollah continued gaining strength & support in s. Lebanon among the Shiites. So, if the Lebanese army, w/30% Shiite soldiers, was ordered to attack Hizbollah, what would happen? The Lebanese country is so weak at this point that it still isn't certain if people will be loyal to the central gov., or to their ethnic militia. It's possible that the Shiite Lebanese soldiers could rebel, refuse to follow the order, & join Hizbollah instead. Lebanese army would begin to fight among itself & splinter along ethnic lines, & the country spirals downward into another 14 years of civil war. Lebanon didn't let Hizbollah operate cause the government likes Hizbollah; it let them operate cause it fears Hizbollah, and knows the danger it poses to their government.

[jsamuel]

5. I did not advocate doing nothing. You are arguing with someone else.

invade or do nothing is a false choice

Syria has stated that they WILL if Israel invades, so you are wrong on that point too.

The Lebanese government would be stronger with the support of Israel and the international community and would not fail under those circumstances.

[Marie26]

6. Completely missing my point.

My point was that ISREAL WON'T INVADE Syria, because neither side wants that war. I fail to see why Israel's support would somehow strengthen the Lebanese command of the army. Israel is HATED, especially by Muslims. If anything, Israeli collusion might make it more likely that Shiites would turn on the army. You're not really addressing my points here. Hizbollah has to be addressed - and Lebanon can't do it, and the UN couldn't invade Lebanon & do it, & the US doesn't have the forces to do it. Israel had to do it.

[jsamuel]

7. Syria will enter if Israel invades LEBANON

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2408147&mesg_id=2408147

I do not agree that "Israel had to do it." For all the reasons in the OP.

[Marie26]

8. Syria & Israel don't want a war.

Syria says that they will join if Isreal comes to the Syrian border. ("If Israel invades Lebanon over ground and comes near to us, Syria will not sit tight. She will join the conflict," he told newspaper ABC.) Israeal can conduct ground incursions into Lebanon OK, as long as it doesn't approach Syria. Syria isn't pledging alliance to Lebanon there, just threatening Israel to keep Israeli troops away from Syria's borders. And IMHO, Isreal won't try to invade & approach Syria - because they don't want to create a war w/another country. So far, Israel has bombed lots of roads on Syria's border w/o Syria doing much of anything. When there were reports that one bomb hit the Syrian side, both Syria & Isreal were very quick to rush out & assure the media that it hadn't happened. Neither one wants to go to war here.

[jsamuel]

9. ok, your saying that Israel WILL NOT come close to the Syrian border

I hope not........

a lot

[Marie26]

10. Me too! nt

[jsamuel]

11. anyone else want to comment?

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. Umm, There Was No Palestinian Suicide Attacks In 1999 & 2000

That's a fact that ask-no-questions Israeli supporters would like us to forget (note 12). Now what were the conditions like back then? Were there collective punishments, bombing of civilian infrastructures and building of more settlements?

Or were the Israelis actually cooperating with the PA, including Arafat the Superterrorist, in detaining terrorists, actively engaging with the PA in a peace process which included prisoner release and disengagement, and left the PA civilian infrastructure intact?

What's even more sad is the fact that when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, they were actually WELCOMED by the southern Shia population as their savior from the PLO. Once they got a taste of what it feels like to be under Israeli occupation, however, they've resorted to violent militancy of which we now enjoy today.

[jsamuel]

13. I would like to keep this kicked because I think it should be a good area

of discussion.

My proposal doesn't seem to offend either side, unlike most proposals do. However, I think it is the right idea. At least the main point.

[jsamuel]

14. another day

new readers?

[oberliner]

15. Your Suggestion Already Happened and Led to Disaster

You propose:

"Why couldn't Israel work with their close friend Lebanon in routing out Hezbollah WHILE WORKING WITH Lebanon instead of invading it? Lebanon's army is weak, so that is where Israel could help out supplying support to the Lebanese government/military. Limited of course. They would overwhelm Hezbollah from the inside. The Lebanon government would be boosted with support from Israel and the international community. Lebanon would become more stable."

This is very similar to what happened in 1982 against the PLO when they were launching attacks on Israel from Lebanon.
The Israelis teamed up with President-Elect of Lebanon Bachir Gemayel and the South Lebanon Army in attempt to drive the PLO from southern Lebanon.

Of course, we all know where that led.

[jsamuel]

16. My main point is still solid. And it is not 1982.

Plus the Lebanese government and the whole world is in a much different place, especially regarding terrorism, than it was then.

Also, what happened in 1982 was not what I had proposed anyway. Israel was occupying Lebanon during that time period, which I would fully oppose now.

[bigtree]

17. It's nice to see someone offering solutions

but I think your analysis is also important.

If this is a strategy being employed by these leaders, then it's been proven to be a counterproductive one. If this is all just tit-for-tat revenge then it is reprehensible and dangerous.

Lebanon's elected leaders have to be part of any solution for it to have any lasting effect.

[jsamuel]

18. thanks, I actually saw that an Israeli leader said something similar

while not quite what I said, but still, it is nice to see the logic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1739761