The Problem In The Middle East Is Not A Lack Of Diplomacy But A Lack Of Retaliation
Michael Rubin nails a point I’ve been making for a while now:
The problem with the West’s policy in the Middle East is not lack of diplomacy, but rather failure to allow retaliatory violence and impose accountability. During the Clinton years, terrorists believed they could strike U.S. interests with near impunity. In 1996, Clinton failed to respond to Iranian planning, training, and supply for the terrorists which struck the Khobar towers, in 1998, U.S. retaliation in response to al Qaeda’s East Africa embassy bombings was weakwristed, and in 2000, the response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing was nonexistent. Israel too suffered from and erosion of its deterrence.
Not only is vengeance against terrorism sometimes necessary, but it is more likely to bring peace if it is disproportionate. The Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was not to bring down a couple buildings in Kabul or Qandahar, nor shoot missiles at empty buildings or training camps, but rather to launch war on al Qaeda and bring the Taliban government to its knees.
He goes on to say this about the current Israel/Lebanon situation:
there will never be peace if Syria and Iran are allowed to use Lebanon as a proxy battlefield safe and secure in the knowledge that they will not pay directly. If the peace is the aim, it is imperative to punish the Syrian and Iranian leadership.
Meanwhile, international leadership is already trending toward getting Israel to scale back its assult on Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, as though protecting Hezbollah from retribution is going to solve anything.
The only way Israel easing up in Lebanon is a good idea is if they turn around and begin vicious assault on Syria. That country (along with Iran) has been allowed to sponsor terrorism against Israel and other western targets for far too long without reprisal.
There is no time like the present for settling accounts.



