« Media Alert | The RCP Blog Home Page | The Poodle Effect »

Proportionality Pecksniffs - Jed Babbin

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has yet another tiresome liberal take today on the "disproportionate" response by Israel to the Hizballah rocket attacks and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. As all the other libs, EUnuchs and UN types have before him, Robinson bemoans the fact that, "Proportionate military action might have enhanced Israel's security, but video footage of grandmothers weeping amid the rubble of their homes and bloodied children lying in hospital beds won't make Israel more secure." But Robinson never defines what "proportionate" means. What "proportional" military action is enough to make Israel more secure without leaving civilian homes in rubble?

Proportionate responses can only be defined by the attack. If you fire one rocket with a twenty-pound warhead at me, I can return fire only to equal destructive effect. By definition, that means I cannot - even if I have you and your truck-mounted launching system painted with my laser designator - drop one of those 250-pounders hanging on my right wing to create a smoking hole in the ground where you now stand. It means never doing more than your attacker did to you. It means giving you the right to shoot those rockets at my house as many times as it takes to kill me, because I can never use whatever force I have to end your ability to attack me. By definition, proportionality means perpetual war.

As Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in "The Wealth of Nations," the first duty of the sovereign is defense. No logic, international law or treaty binds a nation to defend itself only in proportion to an aggressor's attack. The duty of a national government is to defeat an enemy so its people can live in peace and security. And that requires the infliction of the maximum amount of damage on the enemy in the minimum amount of time. Let's not speak any more about proportionality. It's another liberal code word for accepting defeat.