Logical Inadequacies in NRO Support for Continued War on Hezbollah in Lebanon
What the National Review Online or NRO is saying (once you boil down the excess and disordered verbiage a few times) at
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzUyNGNiMzIxOGMzZmJiMmFlODIwNTcxNmFjNTViZDM=
in their article "No Winning Strategy" signed by "The Editors" is:
"We cannot agree to a simple cease-fire with Hezbollah. We will be defeated if we dont attack Hezbollah. Attacking Hezbollah weakens Hezbollah and Hezbollah's sponsors, and puts pressure on Hezbollah and Hezbollah's sponsors to surrender".
The problem with their argument is that in war, any conceivable attack on the enemy will weaken the enemy and increase the pressure on them to surrender. Since this is always true, it is nonsense to say, that an enemy should be attacked in a given way because such an attack will increase the pressure on the enemy to surrender and weaken him.
The dummest generals know that the mere fact an attack on the enemy will weaken the enemy and increase the pressure on him to surrender, does not indicate that such an attack is a good idea.
The questions are: is the given attack on the enemy going to produce a greater benefit-cost outcome than other possible military moves? Does the damage the attack will cause to the enemy outweigh the damage the attack will cause to the attacker?
For the USA, Israel is like an extended outpost whose existence stirs up trouble with foreign nations. The National Review Online article for all its verbosity does not explain why the USA should go to such lengths maintaining beleaguered extended far-off outposts such as its Green Zone in Baghdad or Israel.
Often-times in the history of war, militaries have erred by establishing outposts that are too far away from home ("A Bridge Too Far") or by fighting too hard to defend such outposts. Even the dummest generals, are aware of how retreats and surrenders can produce strategic advantage. Once an outpost is surrendered, there is no longer any need to pour resources into it. Throughout history, militaries have gained advantage by surrendering or retreating from distant outposts. It is irrational to say that the proper response is of course to always pour resources into defending the outpost.
In their argument the NRO editors do not bother with explaining why the USA should maintain outposts in Israel and in the Green Zone in Baghdad. A nation's physical and economic security is not necessarily enhanced by expensive attempts to invade and institute docile governments in far-off lands. Throughout history, nations have strenghened themselves by doing things other than invading and attempting to emasculate far-off lands. Throughout history, nations have damaged their own physical and economic security by attempting to invade and emasculate far-off lands.
The NRO editors do not explain how the physical and economic security of he USA is enhanced by attempts to invade foreign nations to conquer resources which from the USA's indivudal perspective are obsolete and unnecessary. Throughout history, nations have enhanced their own security by doing things other than attempting to conquer resources in other nations. Throughout history nations have damaged their own security by attempting to conquer resources from other nations. If nations have damaged themselves by attempting to conquer resources that are not obsolete, how much more foolish are attempts to steal resources which from the would-be conqueror's perspective are obsolete and unnecessary?
The NRO editors do not explain, why the USA would be better off engaging in expensive wars to attempt to conquer foreign resources, when as an alternative slightly more expensive substitute domestic resources are available. The greater expense of the domestic resources is compensated for by: the lower transportation to point of consumption cost of the resource; the spinoff effects generated as domestic producers spend the money they obtain from the sale of the resources,and those receiving this spending in turn spend it on others etc etc; the much less extended and vulnerable line of supply for the resource; the huge savings on the cost of attempts to invade and conquer far-off lands.
The NRO editors do not explain, why the USA should turn nations that could once have been friendly rivals, into bitter enemies, by using far-off outposts to invade them and attempt to conquer their resources and bully them into docility. If the best that can be hoped for with a group of foreign nations is a friendly rivalry, then the best course of action to contain the friendly rivals is usually not to squander precious resources invading these friendly rivals and turning them into bitter rivals; it is more expensive to invade a far off nation than it is to defend against an invasion from a far-off nation. Rather the best course of action is to build up third parties other than home nation or the rival group of nations, build up the home nation's presence in the third party nations, so as to inhibit the possibility that the rivals will be able to become overwhelmingly strong by conquering the third party nations.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzUyNGNiMzIxOGMzZmJiMmFlODIwNTcxNmFjNTViZDM=
in their article "No Winning Strategy" signed by "The Editors" is:
"We cannot agree to a simple cease-fire with Hezbollah. We will be defeated if we dont attack Hezbollah. Attacking Hezbollah weakens Hezbollah and Hezbollah's sponsors, and puts pressure on Hezbollah and Hezbollah's sponsors to surrender".
The problem with their argument is that in war, any conceivable attack on the enemy will weaken the enemy and increase the pressure on them to surrender. Since this is always true, it is nonsense to say, that an enemy should be attacked in a given way because such an attack will increase the pressure on the enemy to surrender and weaken him.
The dummest generals know that the mere fact an attack on the enemy will weaken the enemy and increase the pressure on him to surrender, does not indicate that such an attack is a good idea.
The questions are: is the given attack on the enemy going to produce a greater benefit-cost outcome than other possible military moves? Does the damage the attack will cause to the enemy outweigh the damage the attack will cause to the attacker?
For the USA, Israel is like an extended outpost whose existence stirs up trouble with foreign nations. The National Review Online article for all its verbosity does not explain why the USA should go to such lengths maintaining beleaguered extended far-off outposts such as its Green Zone in Baghdad or Israel.
Often-times in the history of war, militaries have erred by establishing outposts that are too far away from home ("A Bridge Too Far") or by fighting too hard to defend such outposts. Even the dummest generals, are aware of how retreats and surrenders can produce strategic advantage. Once an outpost is surrendered, there is no longer any need to pour resources into it. Throughout history, militaries have gained advantage by surrendering or retreating from distant outposts. It is irrational to say that the proper response is of course to always pour resources into defending the outpost.
In their argument the NRO editors do not bother with explaining why the USA should maintain outposts in Israel and in the Green Zone in Baghdad. A nation's physical and economic security is not necessarily enhanced by expensive attempts to invade and institute docile governments in far-off lands. Throughout history, nations have strenghened themselves by doing things other than invading and attempting to emasculate far-off lands. Throughout history, nations have damaged their own physical and economic security by attempting to invade and emasculate far-off lands.
The NRO editors do not explain how the physical and economic security of he USA is enhanced by attempts to invade foreign nations to conquer resources which from the USA's indivudal perspective are obsolete and unnecessary. Throughout history, nations have enhanced their own security by doing things other than attempting to conquer resources in other nations. Throughout history nations have damaged their own security by attempting to conquer resources from other nations. If nations have damaged themselves by attempting to conquer resources that are not obsolete, how much more foolish are attempts to steal resources which from the would-be conqueror's perspective are obsolete and unnecessary?
The NRO editors do not explain, why the USA would be better off engaging in expensive wars to attempt to conquer foreign resources, when as an alternative slightly more expensive substitute domestic resources are available. The greater expense of the domestic resources is compensated for by: the lower transportation to point of consumption cost of the resource; the spinoff effects generated as domestic producers spend the money they obtain from the sale of the resources,and those receiving this spending in turn spend it on others etc etc; the much less extended and vulnerable line of supply for the resource; the huge savings on the cost of attempts to invade and conquer far-off lands.
The NRO editors do not explain, why the USA should turn nations that could once have been friendly rivals, into bitter enemies, by using far-off outposts to invade them and attempt to conquer their resources and bully them into docility. If the best that can be hoped for with a group of foreign nations is a friendly rivalry, then the best course of action to contain the friendly rivals is usually not to squander precious resources invading these friendly rivals and turning them into bitter rivals; it is more expensive to invade a far off nation than it is to defend against an invasion from a far-off nation. Rather the best course of action is to build up third parties other than home nation or the rival group of nations, build up the home nation's presence in the third party nations, so as to inhibit the possibility that the rivals will be able to become overwhelmingly strong by conquering the third party nations.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 4:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home