Chief Sitting Bull and Hamas, or The Limits of Self Defense

[chris_gerrib]

On June 25, 1876, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, leading 700 men, attacked an Indian encampment led by Chief Sitting Bull on the banks of the Little Bighorn River in modern-day Montana. By the next morning, Custer and 267 of his men would be dead. It was the single worst defeat suffered by the US Army in the entire Plains Indian wars, which ran from 1860 to 1890.

President US Grant reportedly did not react well to the defeat. However, 12 years prior, at Cold Harbor, then General Grant had suffered 7,000 casualties, 10 times Custer’s entire command, in less than an hour of fighting in a single day.

In short, although Sitting Bull had scored a serious victory, there was no concern that Sitting Bull could in any way overthrow the United States government. Everybody on both sides was quite aware of that fact, and based their actions accordingly.

I mention this because I have been following the debate over the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Now, I don’t want to get bogged down in the legalities of blockade and boarding. I want to focus on a bigger picture – the idea that Israel is “fighting for its life” and has therefor unlimited rights of self-defense. Related to this is the idea that Hamas has vowed to never tolerate Israel.

First, no nation, Israel included, should have to tolerate rocket attacks over its borders. So Israel does in fact have a right to self defense. It is certainly justified, when dealing with a life-or-death situation, to do whatever is needed to survive. For most of Israel’s history, it was in a life-or-death struggle.

But Israel is not, in fact, “fighting for its life.” Hamas or Hezbollah or both can no more destroy Israel then Sitting Bull could destroy Washington. It doesn’t matter what Hamas wants or says – they can’t get even close to accomplishing it. Nor can they get this capability. Iran, their chief sponsor, doesn’t have the capability, either with conventional means or its not-yet-existent nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had the capability, they neither can nor would it give that capability to Hamas. Israel is too valuable to Iran’s domestic policy as a threat in being, the logistics for conventional weapons are too daunting, (try smuggling in a hundred tanks!) plus there’s that little issue of thermonuclear retaliation.

Arguing, therefore, that anything Israel does is justified by self-defense is like arguing that anything done to the American Indians was completely justified. Putting the conflict in that context makes the argument clear. Don't get me wrong - the farther away one is from the fighting the easier it is to put it in perspective, so this is not intended as a moral judgment on Israel or Israelis. But, putting things in context is what a friend does - be that friend a nation or a person.

Putting Hamas in the context of the Indian Wars provides a much more useful framework to dealing with the problem. Although the modern term “counterinsurgency” hadn’t been invented then, use of counterinsurgency tactics were what eventually prevailed. These tactics include things like economic development, using “natives” for security forces, having at least marginal cultural awareness, and yes, proportional response to provocations.

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Now, there might not have been a "World War II" had the Allies handled diplomacy better from 1918 through 1939, but that's another story.

No, that's not another story, that's actually the story.

And WRT the "victory" in WW2 - giving whole European nations to the Russians doesn't exactly look like it was a clever move either.

In fact, if you look through history at many "victories" they're really often not all that cut and dried but often just lead to another pile of messes further along.

In fact, can we say Palestine, Iraq and a few other classic examples of British inept geopolitical maneuvering.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Now, there might not have been a "World War II" had the Allies handled diplomacy better from 1918 through 1939, but that's another story.

No, that's not another story, that's actually the story.

The Allies could have handled the postwar diplomacy better. There was nothing about winning the Great War which forced them to neither crush nor caress Weimar Germany, or to appease Hitler when their policy led to his emergence. There was nothing about it which forced them to on the one hand provoke Italy by denying her Trieste and opposing her over Ethiopia, but on the other hand do nothing in practice to stop her expansion until it was too late. America need not have insulted Japan, or supported China, or accepted the Treaty of Washington.

None of this was inevitable. Things could have of course have gone worse, but they also could have gone better.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

There was the small matter of people behaving as decent human beings. Something which seems to confuse a lot of people.

And, just because somebody doesn't treat you as one, it doesn't give you carte blanch to return the favour in kind.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm confused -- how was World War II caused by the Allies "behaving as decent human beings?" Or, for that matter, failing to behave as decent human beings?

In any case, while the causes of World War II were born in World War I, the second war was not made inevitable by the first one, only by the combination of the first one and the way the Allies handled diplomacy between the wars.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

You want to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was a decent document that did something other than impose punitive damages against Germany?

Caress or Destroy Your Potential Foes

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You want to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was a decent document that did something other than impose punitive damages against Germany?

No, not really. The Treaty of Versailles, and the manner in which it was first enforced and then not enforced, was one of the major causative agents of World War II in Europe -- it was a large portion of what I meant by bungled interwar diplomacy. (Remember that World War I was first ended by truce in 1918, and then later by treaty in 1919).

The basic flaw in the whole Allied policy toward Germany from 1918-39 was the violation of Machiavelli's dictum "Either caress a man or utterly destroy him," which means that you should take no half-measures in dealing with a potential enemy -- either one should turn him into a friend through very good treatment, or destroy his ability to effectively oppose you.

The Allies could have "caressed" Germany with a favorable peace settlement that allowed Germany a return to status quo ante bellum, with perhaps the cession of Alsace-Lorraine and/or Poland. This would have left the Germans with some revanchiste sentiment, but with many obvious ways to restore themselves as a Great Power short of breaching the treaty terms. This is, essentially, what the Western Allies did to West Germany after World War II.

Alternatively, the Allies could have "destroyed" Germany by breaking it up into many small principalities, none of which were powerful enough to threaten a war of aggression for generations, and imposed many other disabilities upon them, which they then enforced. This is, essentially, what the Soviets did to East Germany after World War II, and what Morgenthau wanted to do to West Germany after the same conflict.

Either would have worked. What was least likely to work was what was actually done, which was to partially break up Germany (leaving lots of revanchiste sentiment) and formally impose all sorts of disabilities upon the Germans (while quailing at the Treaty's actual enforcement). That pissed off the Germans while leaving them strong enough to seek revenge.

The result, of course, was World War II in Europe.

Re: Caress or Destroy Your Potential Foes

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Or more simply, not be such dicks to Germany.

This is not particularly relevant to the current debate, since Hamas, much like an insurgent movement, does not have full control over its territory.

Re: Caress or Destroy Your Potential Foes

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Hamas has full control over the Gaza, including totalitarian control over the lives of the Gaza Palestinians (they put dissidents summarily to death, often by torture). The Gaza is currently blockaded, but the Israelis would be fools to drop the blockade before negotiating. The blockade means that the Israelis are negotiating from the position of strength.