Hear! Hear!
Reader comment on item: [Lee Harris on Why the U.S. is] Discarding War's Rules

Submitted by Mark (Canada), Jul 22, 2003 at 13:14

Harris is right on the money!

Those who use violence to achieve their questionable goals understand little other than violence; to answer their actions with anything less than all the force one has available, is to invite further violence on one's self. I realize I am paraphrasing Harris here -- my apologies. It's just so refreshing to hear that one is not entirely alone in one's own longheld convictions!

A brief example where far less than an overwhelming response led to the perpetrators more or less successfully employing violence to get what they wanted: one American was killed and 39 held for 17 days in 1985, when Lebanese Shi'a gunmen diverted a TWA flight from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ended after Israel freed 31 mostly Shi'a Lebanese prisoners.

My gut reaction at the time (and I'm certain this will draw fire from many quarters, but please recognize this for the strictly visceral, hypothetical response it was eighteen years ago) was to simply blow up the plane with everyone on board. Ruthless, without question. Heartless, certainly. Worthy of worldwide vilification, yes. But only for a time. I suspect that had those with the power to order such a response done so, a large number of terrorists past and present might have diverted their energies to less violent pursuits -- installing indoor plumbing, for example, to borrow Anne Coulter's phrasing -- instead of pursuing their murderous agenda.

Such a response, on the surface as callous in its disregard for the lives of innocent people as that of all terrorists (and I don't believe I'm using too broad a brush by portraying terrorists as a single group), would have sent one or more unequivocal messages to terrorist organizations who have chosen to target Israel: that 1) Israel was led by homicidal madmen, 2) Israel refused to consider negotiations with terrorist groups even at the cost of innocent human lives, and/or 3) all future attempts to employ similar methods in dealing with Israel will be met with similar responses.

Instead, Israel allowed the release of Shi'a prisoners, some of whom most certainly have committed one or more terrorist attacks since their release, having not received the appropriate response to their actions. The result of this (in)action is as Harris describes: a legion of fanatics who live under the illusion that they have earned power as a direct result of their actions.

I am not implying that Harris would agree with such an extreme response as I suggested above, and I don't even know if I really still agree with it myself, but the ridiculous "cycle of violence" cliches trotted out with each Palestinian homicide bombing make me wonder if a lethal response in 1985 might have prevented the deaths of a far larger number of innocent (and not so innocent) individuals. "Violence only begets more violence" goes the argument. But only when the initial aggressor is left alive.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.