Robert,

Excellent contrast.
However, the liberal mindset is too squimish to do what it takes to win.

Look at the current controversy regarding the NSA wiretaps. The liberal community is outraged....how dare the the government try to be proactive and defend our country. Instead, the MSM, ACLU and others are trying to free these people so they can have a free shot at another 9/11.

If only we could learn from history.
We need another Sherman.

Lance:

Not only are liberals too squeamish, they don't even know who the enemy is.

Robert, you are so correct! I am so angry today about the information being trumpeted on the front page of the NYT. The only good news is, today, two different editorial pages blasted the NYT times while accusing it of "toying" with treason. So, while they continue to consider our President the enemy, they aide and abet the terrorists! Unconscionable!

The liberals think the enemy is George Bush...instead of the islamofascists who are plotting daily to kill as many Americans as they can.

Suz:

The NYT are not just morally confused, but they have slid into sedition. I fear their reporters almost as much as the Jihadists.

Robert, I don't think you need to go as far back as 1864 for an idea of what the decent people of the world are facing now. Try 1970, the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt. Israel thought it could hold the Egyptians off with a well-armed and prepared border guard. It didn't work, and the Yom Kippur War three years later was all the more costly to Israel because it tried to do war piecemeal and on the cheap.

That's what we're doing now in the Arab world. I agree with President Bush that after 9/11, we needed to get more "hands on" with our avowed enemies. My only trouble with that was, we didn't.

Just like Israel can't hope for peace by asking for international help or hoping the minority Palestinian moderates will win out, the U.S. can't hope to cow suicidal killers by toppling a couple of dictatorships with not enough troops and not cutting off the cash flow from Saudi Arabia, etc.

It's too bad the whole conflict is being painted as Bush vs. the liberals, because both of their philosophies are way off the mark. I'm actually a pretty big dove, but war has been declared against us already. It's true the liberals are crazy to think we can make some kind of deal, but it's also crazy for the Bush people to think what we're doing now is nearly enough. I think the American people after 9/11 were ready to sacrifice a lot more and were ready to confront our enemies head-on and all-out. Instead the White House told us to go shopping and wait for a tax break and the liberals told us it may have been our fault. What a great choice! Now, after the whole WMD debacle, Americans are more suspicious and reluctant to do what's necessary, but I still think we'd rally behind a better leader. Too bad there's not one elected politician I know right now who fits that bill.

Jake:

Thanks so much for your comment. I'm not sure that more troops are the answer. In fact, a good argument can be made that the way to go is troop reduction!

Please read 'Imperial Grunts" by Robert D. Kaplan.

This is the most important book I've read in... well, a very long time.

Kaplan's take on small troop effectiveness is a real eye-opener.

I'd be very interested to hear what you think of this book.

Oh, and you should definitely book Kaplan for your Mr. Cafferty!

Anywhoooo! I'm afraid that you and others might suffer from an American illness that has been diagnosed as: Bigger is Better-itis.

The cure? Special Forces.

I will look at the book, thanks for the suggestion. It's not so much the size as the scope. I mean let's face these guys in every country they're in... and the sooner the better.

Jake:

At the moment we have Special Forces in about 70 countries. So, the administration and the pentagon are not exactly asleep at the wheel. It's just that we're doing it quietly, covert operations, y'know. It's the old hearts and minds operations. But this time it's working becasue we've been invited by pretty decent governments and the civilians are desperate to have the Americans oppose the Jihadists.

Though we do have to watch The NY Times and other fading mainstream media. For sooner or later they will blow the covers of true covert agents and get some people killed. All in the name of freedom of the press, Which is code for: Help our circulation is down, we have no advertisers, and so we'll do anything to boost sales!

Oh, and anything to make the President look bad. Anything.

The Sherman's march analogy is very appropriate. I believe Israel must make life unbearable for Palestinian society so that the threat of an Israeli response is greater than the cost of being labeled a "collaborator". Publish a list of villages and towns and say they'll be hammered, in order and one at a time, after terrorist attacks. Then do it. And repeat. You don't want your village destroyed? Then turn in the terrorists. It's that simple.

Nekama:

Or, each time a Jew is murdered or a rocket is fired or an attempt is made to kill an Israeli the Arabs lose more land.

No doubt some will protest that this is collective punishment.

As it should be.

For Arab society has collectively celebrated and approved of homicide bombers. Collectively urged and collaborated in allowing terrorists free rein to launch rockets whenever and wherever they wish.

Either a society takes responsibility for the actions of their members or not.

It's not terribly complicated.

At least for mature and responsible adults who have some sense of moral responsibility.

I agree completely Karen. Right now Pali society has more to fear from their own masked thugs than they do from the Israeli response which is inevitably lame. I truly believe that if they knew that the terrorists within their midst would only succeed in bringing a hellacious indiscriminate response that they would turn them in or stop them, if only out of self interest. I don't harbor any illusions that they will learn to love Israelis as a result. Perhaps they'd even hate them more. But they would fear them enough to stop provoking them. And to hell with the international outcry. Survival trumps all.

Nekama:

The Arabs could not hate Israel any more than they already do. Really, who the hell cares?

Unfortunately the Jewish left cares.

First Victory, Then Mercy.

I read Dershowitz's "A Case for Israel" a few years ago and was pleasantly surprised with it. But from what you have related here, he has definitely missed the mark with this new book.

Stacey:

He's a good man, but ultimately naive. Unfortunately peace will come only after a major war has been fought and the Arabs have been utterly defeated. Anything else is pure fanatsy.

Dershowitz is a lawyer. Like many lawyers, he believes that that treaties and laws and legal judgements and speeches have force in themselves, rather than realising that it is the intentions behind them and the respect people have for them (and ultimately the ability to use force to enforce them) that is what matters. And he would genuinely like to believe that both sides could sit down like civilised people, come to a deal and then build two states in peace.

I would like to believe that too, but sadly things are not like that. Historically Israel has taken what was on offer and has built a functioning state with it. The Palestinians have refused everything on offer (and plenty has been on offer if they were willing to accept it with good faith), have spent their time ranting about how Israel must be pushed into the sea, and have turned their society into a pathological death cult with immense corruption and violence taking the place of functioning institutions. There isn't much to negotiate with.

Michael:

Your "lawyerly" take is correct. I have little to add except to say that Dershowitz does spend a huge amount of time in the book, and in public appearances on campuses debating the vile anti-Semitic positions that masquerade as anti-Zionism.

As always Michael, it's refreshing to hear from you.

"Unfortunately the Jewish left cares."

I'm intrigued to learn that the Jewish Left is still around. I thought the Jews abandoned the Left when the negros proved to be ungrateful for all the civil rights they gave them (and then crawled in bed with the Right in thanks for all the rockets and helicopters for Israel.)

The left is fine. It's you people who are the problem. Your attitude is all wrong, and especially as someone who claims to be Orthodox, I find it incongruous.

First of all, I hate labeling, and I hate when you do it here. We are all human beings, and should be able to decide on a particular issue, what our stand is. (not that it matters anyway), w/out being pointed to, ooh a squeemish liberal.

It especially is annoying to see all the warmongering amonst frum people, when it is not their kids who are doing the fighting. It is sickening really. Let other American parents sacrifice their sons, and daughers. Our kids, will go to college and come home for the kiddush.

What is your Judasim? Are you aware of the poverty in America, amongst frum people? This is what interests me and here is where I help others. Not supporting a war, that is wrong. Just because you don't like this or that dictator, you make a war. Fine, that is your right, (as in might makes right). But don't expect the whole world, and other Americans to be in lock step, w/ your world view.

Give respect to people who have opposing opinions. That is all I ask.

Scotto:

Labels are necessary in order to separate opinions and movements. Without them there would be chaos. That's why Ha-Shem named things after he created them. Just to say that we are all "human" is no argument at all.

As for war mongering: I see the world as it is, not as idealists want it to be. Most Orthodox support the war in Iraq and want stronger measures against terrorists because we know from learning Torah that force must be met with even greater force.

As for giving respect to the other point of view, well you have to earn it to get it.

Publish a list of villages and towns and say they'll be hammered, in order and one at a time, after terrorist attacks. Then do it.

I remember reading this once before, many years ago. Who wrote it?

Ah yes, Alan Dershowitz.

I like the Corleone analogy. I've used it myself.