It’s a strange little war in the sense that neither side can win, and they both know it. Hizbollah can’t destroy Israel and Israel can’t destroy Hizbollah. And neither side can afford to give up. So in the meantime, since no one can win or lose, they settle for killing as many random civilians as possible because that’s one thing they can do. The thinking, I gather, is that killing random people and never winning is still better than doing nothing and looking weak.
I see this as part of a trend. The U.S. couldn’t kill Osama, so we whacked Saddam instead. Maybe all future wars will be fought by killing whoever does the worst job of hiding and also kind of sucks. That way you appear tough in the eyes of the world. And let’s face it – that’s the whole point. If you can’t defeat your actual enemy, at least kick the crap out of some a-hole that desperately deserves it. It’s better than doing nothing.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
The magnificient Adam Scott (Creator of the Comic-Character Dilbert) has again a marvelous column on the problems of the world and especially Israel-Lebanon :