Unconditional Failure

In reference to this post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-us-conceivably-oppose-ceasefire.html

Why would any nation involved in a conflict decline a ceasefire? At a basic, emotional level this would seem to be a legitimate question. However, if you take a look back into history, think about present day facts, and consider possible alternative histories, you may come to realize that there are scenarios in which accepting the first ceasefire which presents itself would be a poor choice.

Many may be familiar with the phrase unconditional surrender. Made most famous by none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt (D). If you're not familiar with it, better study up. In the meantime, the Wikipedia reference (of moderate value) is available. Two things mentioned are salient here:

1. Announcing that only unconditional surrender is acceptable puts psychological pressure on a weaker adversary.


2. It has also been criticized for forcing an opponent into a position where he has nothing to gain by negotiation or diplomacy, and might as well fight to the bitter end

Placing psychological pressure on one's opponent has obvious advantages. In WWII I believe the policy also served a very important political purpose in that it helped solidify a difficult alliance which was crucial to victory.

The criticism of the policy is valid. To address it, we must examine the present day situation. We must consider, what would happen if Hezbollah declared a unilateral ceasefire and disarmed? Simple, the fighting would stop. Now, what would happen if Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire? What would happen if Israel disarmed? Would Hezbollah stop shooting? Disarm? Live on in peace? Or, would Hezbollah carry out its stated objective and annihilate the state of Israel? I think we all know the answer to that.

Imagine a combination of December 1944, CNN, and the Battle of the Bulge. Americans warm and cozy in their homes, celebrating the holidays when CNN bursts into their living rooms with breaking news of heavy fighting in Belgium. Reports of American soldiers cut off, with no blankets, no coats, some without boots (they didn't have body armor in 1944), low on ammunition, no air cover, and a rejuvinated Wermacht pounding them mercilessly. In the course of a couple of days, thousands are dead, thousands are missing (and feared dead), and thousands more are grievously wounded. Would you want our government to agree to a ceasefire? What if we did? How would the world be different today? How many more would have died if this had happened?

Now, I'm not suggesting that an Israeli policy of unconditional surrender is appropriate here. However, simply bombing for a while, blowing up some stuff, killing some bad guys (kicking the hornets nest as it were) will not do anyone any good. To do so would constitute an unconditional failure.

Israel lauched a military operation (with military objectives) to protect its population from attacks (kidnappings, then rockets) from an unlawful, irregular force on its border. It has every right to see the current operation through to completion. Once that operation is complete, Israel also has some obligations.