Time to change the "Rules of War".

The 11/28/06 speech in Memphis by Israel's Consul General of Israel to the Southeastern US, Ambassador Reda Mansour, was interesting in the sense that he was young, articulate, intelligent and entertaining - as are many of Israel's ambassadors. The core of Ambassador Mansour's presentation was to explain the difficulties that the Israeli army had in fighting the war with Hezbollah over the summer of 2006. The main explanation was the asymmetrical battle plan Israel implemented against an enemy that was trained at a higher level than expected, was better armed than expected, didn't wear uniforms, launched missiles from populated civilian areas, and then rushed to blend in with the local civilian population. Hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure everyone appreciated his candid explanation, however his commentary that a basic tenet of the Israeli military doctrine, as well as the nation itself – is that it holds itself to the highest "moral standards" in the way it conducts war, left a question unanswered; How can Israel, or the USA in Iraq for that matter - develop a successful tactical military strategy to fight this hybrid guerilla/army model when our tacticians are handcuffed by chains of "moral superiority" against an enemy who has no morals? How can we successfully win a war playing by the rules of the Geneva Conventions while our enemy exploits those very conventions to their tactical advantage?

I would suggest that as the first of many changes to military doctrine is that in light of the new tactics being used by Islamic extremists, the very definition of a civilian in a war zone be redefined. In the vast majority of cases (and especially in the recent war in Lebanon) the Lebanese civilians in the South were forewarned and had an option to depart. To suggest that they couldn't leave because Hezbollah blocked their exit should reflect negatively on Hezbollah, not on casualties that may result from an ensuing Israeli air strike. If civilians in a war zone refuse to vacate, then they should be considered enemy sympathizers/combatants. The "new rules of war" must clearly articulate the local government's responsibility in evacuating the young, crippled and elderly from a war zone.

A recent incident in the Palestinian Gaza strip clearly illustrates the absurdity of the abuse of the term "civilian", when armed terrorists were chased into a Mosque by the Israeli Defense Forces, and hundreds of Arab women and children surrounded them as human shields - knowing from past experience that the Israeli army would not harm them. Eventually, the terrorists donned head to toe burkas and fled the scene by blending into the departing crowd. This Rambo/Gandhi war tactic is only exceeded in it's absurdity by the fact that a government can allow war to be waged from it's territory, yet refuses to take responsibility for the safety of it's citizens in the path of war - and then claim their citizens are violated when caught in the crossfire.

Had the West been handcuffed with the chains of "moral superiority" during WW2, we would never have defeated the Nazis. The Allies bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble no higher than 2 feet tall. Not a building in Berlin escaped the wrath of our bombers and field artillery. There were, without a doubt, thousands of German victims of the Allied push to defeat the Nazis, but it was understood that their lives were not more important than our soldiers on the ground, and that the greater good of humanity had a priority over the plight of the individual in the path of war. We need to come to terms with the fact that the lives of our soldiers are more important than our enemies, and that the reason for waging war is worth what it takes to win.

Will surrendering Israel bring peace to the Mideast?

The "Spotlight: Islam analysis" supplied by the AP (CA Page A6 11/21/06) entitled "Regimes wary of Shiite power", brings into question whether the author (whomever it was) has made any effort to familiarize themselves with Mideast history before coming up with the faulted belief that peace in Iraq begins with Israeli peace (surrender?) with the Palestinians.

As the AP sees it, the enemies of Israel, the US, Britain and the entire Free World will suddenly become reliable friends of the West if only Israel is left at the tender mercy of the Arabs/Muslims – and in return, peace will reign over the Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence that is a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the absence of Israel would actually exacerbate tensions in the Mideast by encouraging Arab military adventurism that is currently held in check by Israel's overwhelming conventional military superiority.

Shiite Islam evolved into a religious formulation with the martyrdom of Husayn in 680. At this point, the division between the Shiite and what came to be known as the Sunni was set, and thousands of years of bloody conflict between the two feuding factions of Islam ensued – during the original biblical state of Israel, well before the modern state of Israel, and well before the US invasion of Iraq. Muslims may agree that they hate Jews/Israelis, but there is more than enough evidence that they hate each other even more.

Surrendering Israel to pacify Iran and Syria may allow the US and Britain to surrender Iraq with their heads held high, but it will do nothing to stop the Muslim sectarian violence. The only tangible outcome is that the global Jihadists will view the retreat as their greatest victory, and it will only serve to encourage them to continue assaulting the ever retreating boundaries of the democratic, non-Muslim West.