Comments on: In Defense of Proportionality http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:45:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: tedschan http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4332 Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:12:20 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4332 When was the last time a "total victory" was achieved against a major non-state actor hiding within a state? When was the last time a “total victory” was achieved against a major non-state actor hiding within a state?

]]> by: Roach http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4327 Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:44:05 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4327 I believe in proportionality as well, as you know. But isn't there another principle that must come to bear here, namely, the ethics of rhetoric. Isn't it unseemly and somewhat morally obtuse to apply an exquisite standard of proportionality to the Israelis, while the Hezbollah rocket attacks upon Israel still continue. Aren't the realtive harms of proportionality and nihilistic terrorism highly imbalanced? Obviously, for those killed in the cross-fire, it's an unimaginable tragedy for them and their family, but the moral quality of the actions--the intention, the cause--matters a great deal here. As for "total victory," isn't that the right standard when the enemy is a nihilist terrorist organization, ostensibly dedicated to expelling Israel from Lebanon, that decided to stay in business and transform its mission into harassing Israel for no particular reason. This is not a question of deterring an ordinary nation-state, but defeating a group that was once classified in the lexicon of international law "enemies of the human race." So, while in disputes between nation-states proportionality is called for, and even here care must be taken to impose force chiefly upon Hezbollah, they deserve no quarter because they're non-state actors inflicting violence on states. The post Treaty of Westphalia international system is designed to stop exactly that. I believe in proportionality as well, as you know. But isn’t there another principle that must come to bear here, namely, the ethics of rhetoric. Isn’t it unseemly and somewhat morally obtuse to apply an exquisite standard of proportionality to the Israelis, while the Hezbollah rocket attacks upon Israel still continue. Aren’t the realtive harms of proportionality and nihilistic terrorism highly imbalanced? Obviously, for those killed in the cross-fire, it’s an unimaginable tragedy for them and their family, but the moral quality of the actions–the intention, the cause–matters a great deal here.

As for “total victory,” isn’t that the right standard when the enemy is a nihilist terrorist organization, ostensibly dedicated to expelling Israel from Lebanon, that decided to stay in business and transform its mission into harassing Israel for no particular reason. This is not a question of deterring an ordinary nation-state, but defeating a group that was once classified in the lexicon of international law “enemies of the human race.” So, while in disputes between nation-states proportionality is called for, and even here care must be taken to impose force chiefly upon Hezbollah, they deserve no quarter because they’re non-state actors inflicting violence on states. The post Treaty of Westphalia international system is designed to stop exactly that.

]]> by: Maximos http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4324 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:26:12 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4324 Obviously, he knew nothing, what with his ignorance of the self-evident truth that the fire of the passion from liberty, equality, human rights, capitalism, and god-knows-what-else burns within the breast of every human (grotesque generic intended) born into the world. His speculation, therefore, my be completely disregarded - and more than that, it is inherently suspect, because not in conformity with these eternal and immutable Laws. Obviously, he knew nothing, what with his ignorance of the self-evident truth that the fire of the passion from liberty, equality, human rights, capitalism, and god-knows-what-else burns within the breast of every human (grotesque generic intended) born into the world. His speculation, therefore, my be completely disregarded - and more than that, it is inherently suspect, because not in conformity with these eternal and immutable Laws.

]]> by: Jon Luker http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4322 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:03:56 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/07/25/in-defense-of-proportionality/#comment-4322 <blockquote>Of course, the entire notion of proportionality rests on such quaint notions as having a <em>causus belli</em> and obtainable objectives that, once met, bring an end to the need for war.</blockquote> Quaint, indeed. American neocons and their Israeli pals love "creative destruction." Disproportionality, sure. Pre-emption, works for us. Any traditional notion of "just war" is just the product of ruminations on the part of some obscure 5th century monk. What did he know?

Of course, the entire notion of proportionality rests on such quaint notions as having a causus belli and obtainable objectives that, once met, bring an end to the need for war.

Quaint, indeed. American neocons and their Israeli pals love “creative destruction.” Disproportionality, sure. Pre-emption, works for us. Any traditional notion of “just war” is just the product of ruminations on the part of some obscure 5th century monk. What did he know?

]]>