Free Kareem Amer

Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer has been sentenced to four years in prison for expressing his opinions on Islam and the Egyptian government. Support the campaign to free him here.

HT: pubphilosopher

No utopia in Iraq

In his last Telegraph column, Boris Johnson is reflecting on the unfolding quagmire in Iraq:

“We destroyed the Baathist state, without realising that nothing would supplant it.”

(Source)

Ironically, this may be too optimistic a verdict. In its critique of utopian social engineering, Karl Popper predicted that any attempt to engineer a new society synthetically from a blank canvass will always lead to a totalitarian regime, since such total power will be required to implement the pre-conceived master plan. Hayek had similar things to say about the rationally constructivist approach to social reform. Even though the aim in Iraq was to introduce a liberal democracy, it still required the imposition of pre-ordained principles of government on a populace unfamiliar with them and unprepared for them.

The latter point has been made by Oriana Fallaci when she argued against the war. Having said all this, the Popperian prediction of totalitarianism may yet turn out to be mistaken for all the wrong reasons. The occupying US-led coalition is unlikely to have either the motivation or the resources to impose and maintain such a regime. If the terrorists can’t be defeated swiftly, and it looks just like that, defeat and withdrawal may simply be the preferred option. Instead of bringing democracy, the west may then have inadvertently opened up a new playground for jihadists, where previously there was none. Instead of ‘nothing’ we may be getting a new al-Qaeda base.

Appeasement Doesn’t Work

Another terrorist assault has failed -this time in Germany. It wasn’t foiled by the police though: the failure merely resulted from the incompetence of the terrorists. As in Madrid, the bombs were apparently planned to detonate on trains. If anyone needed proof that not going to war in Iraq does not safe a country from terrorism, here it is.

Broder on Israel’s war

Henryk M. Broder has a piece on Israel’s war just out in English. In a way, Broder is Germany’s answer to Mark Steyn, although much of the sarcasm is lost in translation.

Sense of Proportion

William Hague is apparently in trouble for suggesting that Israel’s response has been somewhat disproportionate. I am having trouble understanding the notion of proportionality in this context.

There are things which Israel is clearly entitled to do: kicking Hezbollah’s ass, wrecking their rockets and obliterating their offices for example. Then there are things it clearly shouldn’t do: Bombing civilian targets of no strategic value and with no connection to Hezbollah, blowing up houses full of kids or UN observations posts for example. In between there are those options where decisions are harder to take such as bombing ports, airports or civilian areas from which Hezbollah operates. Now, it should be clear that Israel has hit a number of those targets it shouldn’t have. Clearly, it deserves to be criticised for this –by its allies as much as anyone else.

Where does all this leave proportionality? Saying that Israel’s response was disproportionate would –if taken literally- suggest that there is some proportion of illegitimate targets one should aim to hit anyway. There isn’t.

In a metaphorical sense, it would suggest that Israel’s response should somehow be commensurate with the severity of Hezbollah’s attack. Arguing this case would simply misunderstand the objective of this war. The IDF is not a domestic police force confronting a criminal. Israel is not out to tell Hezbollah to mend its ways or show more restraint. It went on the attack not to contain a given assault but to destroy Hezbollah as a military force. Such an objective rules out any sense of proportionality: there is no such thing as partial annihilation.

On Israel Getting it Wrong

There is an interesting piece on the war in Lebanon by Eric Margolis on lewrockwell.com. This is not the dogmatic Mises-Rothbard regurgitation one might expect on this site, well worth a read.

Overreaction or not - does it work?

In the current war in Lebanon, attacks on civilian infrastructure and residential areas have been justified as strategic necessities in an attempt to destroy Hezbollah. The question –aside from the intractable legitimacy issue- which now arises is whether this works. Ze’ev Schiff in Haaretz and Matthias Küntzel in ‘der Spiegel’ have made the point that Israel has no alternative to defeating Hezbollah. Neither Israel nor the West in general can afford to settle for a solution that allows Hezbollah to re-remerge strengthened from this conflict in the long term.

In the view of recent news about casualties, and according to this report as well as this one it looks as if such a long term problem could be a likely outcome. Hezbollah could be let off lightly in a ceasefire deal or could simply involve Israel in a drawn out guerrilla war. Either seems possible, and either looks almost equally damaging. A ceasefire which credibly demands Hezbollah’s disarmament and which is enforced by a credible contingent of UN backed military could offer a way out if for some reason an international force was better placed to disarm hezbollah.

Küntzel argued that a multinational force would not stand up to Hezbollah. That depends on the nations involved. I can see the US having the stamina for it. When the US withdrew from Lebanon in the1980s they were serving abstract strategic interests in a remote place. Now they are in the front line in the war against islamo-fascism and have been directly attacked by it, that should make a difference.

The problem should not so much lie in the US’ commitment but elsewhere: in Iraq. That’s where not only the USA’s but much of the West’s firepower is currently tied up. It is worth remembering that this wouldn’t be so without the avoidable war on Iraq and it is worth noting that one need not be a radical pacifist or Muslim to have opposed Iraq’s invasion. An effective threat of overwhelming force could have a stabilising influence in a situation like this. Clearly visible evidence of being overstretched might do the opposite.

Sovereignty Paradox

Hezbollah’s Führer Nasrallah is up in arms about possible threats to Lebanon’s sovereignty in a ceasefire deal:

“Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Hezbollah would reject any deal that compromised Lebanon’s sovereignty.

We cannot accept any condition humiliating to our country, our people or our resistance, …”

(Source)

So Nasrallah, whose terrorist gang has successfully challenged the de facto sovereignty of Lebanon’s elected government is concerned about Lebanon’s sovereignty. The Irony of this seems to be lost on Al Jazeera.

Anyway, to prove his diplomatic skill and leave his humanitarian idealism in no doubt, the dear leader made some further promises:

“In the new period, our bombardment will not be limited to Haifa,” Nasrallah said. “If matters develop, we will choose the time when we will move beyond, beyond Haifa.”

(…)

“We do not hide our martyrs. If any of our leaders or ranks were killed, we announce that and take pride in that,” he said.

(Source)

The latter statement is of particular interest. It is also consistent with the allegation that Hezbollah has a habit of hiding among civilians: If they are Muslims and will be killed as a consequence they merely become martyrs. As we can read above, to Nasrallah this is an end worth pursuing in itself.