Come to think of it, if I were Canadian, I would be pretty ticked off at the US sending all their Hollywood trash up North.

Let’s be specific. If Hamas plays by the rules, follows Western standards, that means no rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and no suicide bombers against Israeli civilians.

What else do we/Israel want from them? Nothing! If Hamas did those things, then they sit in Gaza forever, proud of their “competent authority.” I guess they could deliver speeches in the UN and write angry editorials in Le Monde.

Please, Grim, this is getting tiresome. Please tell me, as an ordinary thinking, rational, person that you can kinda sorta see how this might be a non-starter for Hamas. They give us everything we want up front, and wait for us to maybe give them something because we need them to run the Gaza Post Office? In fact we don’t; neither we nor the Israelis give a hoot if the mail in Gaza is delivered. When the Gazans freeze or starve and it makes headlines in the world press .. .then we care … Oops, back to that old “we only care when someone has leverage.” Damn, that’s inconvenient.

Please don’t go off on a riff about Joan of Arc and the Battle of the Herrings and the evolving nature of rules vis-a-vis civilians in combat zones.

If Hamas followed your rules, we/Israel have a complete 100% victory over them, and no reason to give them any concession at all.

I did answer that question.

But even if you believe we will listen only under duress, here is the duress: we need the SOIs, both to protect the Sunnis and to placate the Sunnis. If Iraq becomes stable, it will be because we reach a settlement between the GOI and JAM.

There’s duress enough in this equation. The threshhold doesn’t prevent you from having leverage. It merely insists on a moral standard.

We have to negotiate with the SOI, or Hamas, or JAM, in that circumstance because we will still need a competent authority in their region. They still have the power to revert to worse things, and thereby to render a region ungovernable — or governable, at a high cost. So, even if they move to soldierly behavior, there is still incentive for us to deal with them.

But if we have thereby moved them from terrorists to soldiers, we will have won a great victory for civilization — whatever concessions are conceeded.

EL:

…it was my understanding that in the early stages of the war our soldiers knew when they were about to be ambushed because the streets would be mysteriously deserted, meaning the insurgents had warned the public of the ambush and told them to stay off the streets. That, to me, suggests they had significant public support.

There were non-terrorist Sunni guerrilla groups that enjoyed the support you suggest — many of these are now SOIs. They were at one point enemies, but they were never terrorists, because they did not target noncombatants. I would have been glad to negotiate with them at any point. The wearing of uniforms is not the threshhold — the threshhold is not targeting civilians as a basic strategy. Wearing uniforms — no more than a badge or other identifier is required — is the very next step, so as to ensure that civilians are easy to identify.

JAM is a group like this as well. I spoke with our Provincial Reconstruction Team leader for economics in Wasit province not long ago. He tells me that there have been no reports of attacks on civilian shipping in Wasit, though trade is a major source of their income (about 30%). Yet Coalition convoys on the roads are in danger of EFP attacks.

That is legitimate warfighting activity. I don’t hold it against JAM that they use EFPs against us (although I do hold it against Iran that they use JAM as a proxy, insofar as they are using it as a method of waging war against us without having to suffer the consequences of being openly at war — presumably if Iran declared war on us, you wouldn’t mind our striking back; but because they are killing our troops with proxies, we are artificially restrained from any reply).

The problem with Hezbollah particularly, and Hamas to a lesser degree, is that they still target civilians as their main mode of warfighting. This is a war crime, as you say. If they will leave off of it, I don’t mind to waive prosecutions of previous offenses: but before we enter any negotiations on their side — as for example advocating that Israel surrender part or all of Jerusalem to them — I would have them at least plausibly pretend that they will not use murder as their chief strategy. If they would do just that, it is all I ask.

If they will not, why should anyone take them as legitimate? What nation state would you accept as legitimate if it claimed the right to kill noncombatants in order to make a point? Well, if you will not take it from a nation-state, why will you accept it from someone who wishes to become a nation-state? If this is not the threshhold, what is?

I will also note that you wouldn’t think of applying those principles in reverse, to America or Western armies:

1) The West has the right to ignore any moral rules that hamper its ability to fight effectively.

2) The West has the power of deployable armies and nuclear weapons, and “power creates legitimacy.”

Those are the same principles you are putting forward to defend insurgents, as they apply to Western armies.

Quite the contrary. I am arguing that we are using our strength (i.e., our overwhelming advantage in firepower) to create the rules of what is and is not legitimate. Power creates legitimacy, indeed! I am also arguing that these rules, for instance rules that forbid fighting out of uniform but condone collateral damage from heavy firepower, are stacked in favor of the side with the greatest firepower and may seem unfair to weaker parties that had no role in making them. Since we have the power to set the rules of legitimate warfare, and have set rules that just happen to favor us, I do not think it is asking too much to expect us to abide by our own rules.

As for your claim that I am not holding our enemies to any principles at all, I don’t see how that follows. Of course I absolutely and unequivocally condemn many things our enemies do and would like to see them punished as war criminals. Setting off bombs in public squares to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible, murdering and expelling civilians for belonging to the wrong religion and torture such as power drills are prime examples. If I don’t devote much space to condemning these things, it is because I just assume that everyone shares these opinions and some things can be taken for granted. But I don’t see fighting out of uniform as unequivocally wrong in the same way.

My measure there would be closer to Mao’s addage about the people are like water and the army is like fish. When a group like the Fedayeen Saddam uses civilians as shields with no basis of support in the general public, I agree that is a war crime and should be treated as such. But insurgents with serious support of a majority, or even a significant minority of the public are a different matter. I will defer to you on this because you have fought in Iraq and I haven’t, but it was my understanding that in the early stages of the war our soldiers knew when they were about to be ambushed because the streets would be mysteriously deserted, meaning the insurgents had warned the public of the ambush and told them to stay off the streets. That, to me, suggests they had significant public support. That is the sort of power I have in mind as creating its own legitimacy. And it is perfectly compatible with being massively outgunned and therefore unable to fight openly and and in uniform.

You’ve never answered my question.

So, as long as Hamas played by rules that doom them to failure, given the weapons disparity, we might then negotiate with them. [in your concept]

If they played by such rules, we and Israel would be absolutely guaranteed of military success … forever. You’re kinda big on “incentives,” Grim. Tell me, what incentive would we then have to negotiate with them?

“we will let Isreal do their worst with our overt diplomatic support.”

Israel strikes Hamas targets whenever and wherever it wants. They blow up cars whenever they want. They cut off fuel, etc. What’s the next escalation? Genocide? I’m not being melodramatic. I just don’t see a lot of room for escalation, for “letting Israel do its worst” beyond its current actions, short of genocide.

Just nuke ‘em all?

If you disagree, please be specific. Say “Israel could do XYZ.”

Ok, then … our enemies are implacable Hitler clones.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying we can, and have, moved some of them away from murder as an instrument. If we focus on it, that much we can do.

Think hard on it. You don’t have to decide today. But think on why you are so ready to accept that our enemies must do whatever power lets them, and whatever power they thereby gain makes them legitimate. That is no moral standard you would accept for yourself, nor for us.

Why will you take it from them? Fear? No one has asked you to be the one to fight.

Hamas and Iran really have no reason to fear a U.S. ruled by the Left and at this point they are not too afraid of “W” either.

Stephen, You must have missed the above when you wrote this;

Our adversaries are quaking in their boots … yep … having taken care of business in Iraq .. our army all rested and ready ..lotsa fresh equipment .. domesstic support for more wars at an alltime high. … enthusiastic global support … a mountain of destroyed WMDs as evidence of our veracity …

Yeah, we got ‘em just where we want ‘em.

Perhaps, I could be more explicit. I don’t think it is a good idea to compound the current administration’s squandering of power through misapplication by switching to a hugs for thugs approach. Maybe it might not be a bad idea not to go from one rectless extreme to a naive extreme.
Why not use our heads? You know consider all options while being realistic about the world, our enemies, our friends and the scope of our power both diplomatic and military.

I think the Canuckistani got my meaning.

You are correct, diplomacy is only possible when both sides have a lever they can use on the other. No sane person would expect the US to disarm or to eschew the use of force when its vital interests are threatened, and likewise, no one should be surprised if relatively powerless groups turn to irregular warfare or even terrorism if that is they only lever they can grasp*.

To some it up my worry is that we’re replacing a frat boy with a cupcake. Now, I know you don’t share my fear about Obama.

As for “your advesaries have to fear you a bit before they will make concessions.” I agree. So does Hamas. it’s kind of a truism. *shrug* So if we insist on anyone we might talk to renouncing all their leverage in advance, it’s not very likely.

Your missing a big part. We have to put a reason before them. Say, for example: Either you, Hamas, play nice and negotiate for real or we will let Isreal do their worst with our overt diplomatic support. But here is the key they have to believe we mean it. Which means we have to be ready to make good if push comes to shove. I don’t think Obama has got that kind of steel and don’t think Bush has had the smarts to apply force where, when and against who it will have maximum effect. Maybe McCain does, and I do mean maybe.

For those who want to talk to Hamas, I have one question: why? What good do you think it is going to do? What evidence do we have that Hamas is even the slightest bit interested in a peaceful solution, rather than just securing some advantage that they think will help them in their quest to destroy Israel?

I’m hoping it’s because we consider peace without genocide in the Middle East to be a desirable goal.
I believe that the Palestinian people are, on the whole, at this point willing to concede Israel’s right to exist. But they are not happy with the status quo wrt land, and the encroachment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. If peace is to be achieved in the Middle East, some kind of accommodation will need to be reached with the Palestinian people. We can either deal with Hamas, their elected officials, or we can dangle the carrot of a fair settlement in front of them and see if electoral pressure from the people will either change Hamas’ view or change the government. If Israel can manage to come to terms with Egypt, Jordan and maybe even Syria, I think peace with the Palestinians is a real possibility.

Other possibilities: the status quo, or making things worse and waiting for Jesus.

JTM-
You are correct, diplomacy is only possible when both sides have a lever they can use on the other. No sane person would expect the US to disarm or to eschew the use of force when its vital interests are threatened, and likewise, no one should be surprised if relatively powerless groups turn to irregular warfare or even terrorism if that is they only lever they can grasp*. As I mentioned earlier, the number of modern states with roots in irregular warfare (or even terrorism) is a long and distinguished one.

*I don’t approve, of course, but we’re talking realpolitik here.