Hezbollah is more than a proxy of Iran.
There are branches of Hezbollah in 20 countries.
But it’s the 24-year old Lebanese branch of Hezbollah that
constitutes the spearhead of Iran’s ambition to be
a superpower and dominate the Middle East.
Israel stands in the
way of that ambition; hence Israel
must be destroyed.
Last week Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said “we shall
soon witness the elimination of the Zionist stain of shame.”
is at war today because Israeli prime ministers not only lacked the
ambition to make
Israel a superpower,
but they have pursued a policy of peace which has truncated
undoing the miracle of the Six Day War.
They failed to translate that miracle into public policy—which
would have made
superpower—the only way
Israel can survive in
Here one can blame Israeli universities,
which do not produce statesmen—men with grandiose ambitions who see
history as the story of
Israel—or Judea—as a
superpower; today historians regard
merely as an object of study.
Let’s examine historian Michael Oren’s
book Six Days of War.
He notes that on Day One, in little more than half an hour, the
Israel Air Force destroyed 204 planes—half of Egypt’s air force while
destroying six Egyptian air fields, four in Sinai and two in Egypt.
Oren writes: “The Israelis were stunned.
No one ever imagined that a single squadron could neutralize an
entire air base.”
Oren turns to Day Two and quotes Col.
Avraham Adan, who, while watching the rout of the Egyptian army, was
“You ride past burnt-out vehicles,” says Adan, “and suddenly you
see this immense army, too numerous to count, spread out of a vast area
as far as your eyes can see ¡ It was not a pleasant feeling, seeing
that gigantic enemy and realizing that you’re only a single battalion of
who was no less “puzzled”: “Though
Israel had gained
command of the skies,
cities were not bombed, and the Egyptian armored units at the front
could have fought even without air support.”
Oren then quotes Gen.
Avraham Yoffe: “There was no planning before the war
about what the army would do beyond the al-¡®Arish-Jabal Libni axis, not
even a discussion.
Nobody believed that we could have accomplished more or that the
[Egyptian] collapse would be so swift.”
So Oren sees that generals were “stunned,” “stupefied,” had an
“unpleasant feeling” about the magnitude of their victory, and saw what
was happening as
Surely Oren could have remarked that religious people would regard all
this as a miracle.
He says nothing.
Far be it for this historian to quote Leviticus 26:8: “Five
of you shall chase away a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten
thousand to flight ¡” History for Oren has no metaphysical
Nor does it have for Israeli prime ministers.
Serious belief in God’s providence in the Six-Day War would have
government—it was a national unity government—to declare Jewish
sovereignty over Judea,
Golan Heights and the Sinai.
To fully appreciate this miracle, a brief survey of contemporary
events—ignored by Oren—will show that
government could have created a “Greater Israel,” indeed, a superpower.
June 1967 the
United States was
bogged down in
Vietnam and was very
much concerned about Soviet expansion in the Middle East, especially
Soviet penetration of the oil-rich
Persian Gulf on which the entire
economy of the West depends.
Libya were then
Soviet clients, and that
Egypt had sought to
gain control of strategically situated
Recall, too, that
French planes and weaponry in its stunning victory over
That victory awakened
value, for it resulted in the closing of the
Suez Canal to the Soviet Black Sea
This important arm of the Soviet navy was then compelled to sail through
the Straits of Gibraltar and around the Cape of Good Hope in order to
project Soviet power along the east African littoral and in the Indian
Ocean, the sea-lanes of oil tankers from the
Israel’s superb air
force could also help protect NATO’s southern flank in the eastern
needed a strong and stable ally in the volatile region of the
confined to its precarious 1949 armistice lines, could hardly serve this
In a memorandum dated June 27, 1967, the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that Israel retain control of the
Judean and Samarian mountain ridges overlooking its vulnerable
population centers on the coastal plain, as well as control of Gaza, the
Golan Heights, and a portion of the southern Sinai to secure Israel’s
access to the Red Sea through the Strait of Tiran.
Viewed in this light, only a feckless and faithless government—it
consisted of both secular and religious Jews—would trivialize the
historical significance of
victory in the Six-Day War by not declaring Jewish sovereignty over the
land conquered by the IDF.
Instead, ten days after the war, the Government transmitted a
Damascus offering to return
to the prewar borders for a peace agreement!
wonder so many people throughout the world are oblivious of the fact
has valid legal claims to this land, apart from its having been regained
in a war of self-defense.
of Judea and
Samaria in 1950 was never recognized by
any state except
Egypt had no claim to
Gaza (and its claim to the
Sinai was dubious).
invested nothing in these desolate territories, which were occupied by
diverse Arab clans—they’re now called “Palestinians”—which had
no indigenous culture linked to this
The presence of those Arabs would not have deterred statesmen who
believed in God and possessed the courage of their convictions to extend
Jewish law over Judea,
Having failed to translate the miracle of the Six-Day War into
policy and thereby sanctify God’s Name, it was inevitable that
subsequent Israeli governments would undo that miracle.
Israel can hardly be
a superpower under the Oslo Agreement, which entails the surrender of
Gaza as well as Judea and
Samaria including eastern
Jerusalem and the
This defeatist policy—this betrayal by the nation of God has
Iran to conquer
via Hezbollah, the Party of God.
let’s consider the character of the prime ministers that advocated this
perfidious policy: (1) Yitzhak
Rabin shook the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat.
(2) Ehud Barak virtually licked Arafat’s boots.
(3) Ariel Sharon embraced Arafat’s comrade and
successor, Abu Mazen.
military trained prime ministers have been the world’s leading patrons
It seems that all of them felt no abhorrence of evil.
They and their educators are very much to blame for
Perhaps a Commission of National Inquiry should examine the curriculum
Israel’s Command and
The late Professor Y.
Harkabi—the mentor of Shimon Peres—was once the head of this school.
He was not only a moral relativist who advocated a Palestinian
state, but he sanctioned havlaga—self¨Crestraint—as
a guiding military principle.
The principle of self-restraint was employed by Rabin, Barak, and
Sharon against Arab terrorists, and all of these generals-cum-prime
ministers advocated a Palestinian state!
What is more, the principle of self-restraint underlies the failure of
Israeli governments to declare Jewish sovereignty over the land
conquered by the IDF in the Six-Day War.
Properly understood, self-restraint—a euphemism for the cowardice
or paltriness of Israeli prime ministers—has brought Israel into a proxy
war with Iran—a war for which Iran has been preparing for many years
while Israeli prime ministers were burning incense to the peace process.
Destroy the Enemy to Obtain One Hundred Years of Peace:
Those who wish to
enjoy peace must be ready for war.
eferring to the democratic
reformer Epaminondas, the
warrior-philosopher whose Theban army defeated
Sparta (370-369), military
historian Victor Davis Hanson offers insights which Israeli generals and
citizens as well as universities should take most seriously.
The excerpts below are taken from Hanson’s
The Soul of
Battle: From Ancient Times to
the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
think it is almost axiomatic that if a
general of a great democratic
march is not hated, is not sacked, tried, or relieved of command by his
auditors after his tenure is over, or if he has not been killed [as was
Epaminondas] or wounded at the van, he has
not utilized the full potential of his men, has not accomplished his
strategic goals—in short, he is too representative of the very culture
that produced him, too democratic to lead a democratic army.
Finally, we of the academic class are sometimes reluctant to equate
mastery of military command with sheer intellectual brilliance.
But to lead an army of thousands into enemy territory requires
mental skills far beyond that of the professor, historian, or
journalist—far beyond too the accounting and managerial skill of the
deskbound and peacetime officer corps.
“From Epaminondas’s philosophical training
[he was a Pythagorean], the corpus of his adages and sayings that have
survived, and his singular idea to take 70,000 men into
Messinia, it is clear that, like both
[William Tecumseh] Sherman and [George S.]
Patton, he had a first-class mind and was adept in public speaking and
knowledge of human behavior.
Perhaps with the exception of Pericles
and Scipio, it is hard to find any military leader in some twelve
centuries of Gaeco-Roman antiquity who had
the natural intelligence, philosophical training, broad knowledge, and
recognition of the critical tension between military morale and national
ethics as Epaminondas the Theban.
In his range of political and strategic thought, he towered over
his Greek contemporaries ¡ in precisely the way
Sherman did over all the
generals of the Civil War,
precisely as Patton dwarfed his British and American superiors.
short, Epaminondas, the philosopher, may
have been the best educated man of the ancient world—an education that
stressed logic, mathematics, rhetoric, memorization, philosophy, and
literature, an education far more valuable to the leadership of great
democratic armies than what is offered in most universities today.
“There was one key ingredient to Epaminondas’s
military career that perhaps stands as an exemplar of democratic
Such generals must not be timid or afraid, must not lead their
army in the very manner in which they themselves are audited and held
accountable by a democratic consensus.
Emaminondas by all accounts was a
zealot and fanatic—Sherman and Patton [discussed the in sequel] perhaps
even more so.
The worst generals in the ancient and modern worlds were those
with a constant feel for the pulse of the assembly or board of overseers
“Armies are not assemblies.
The conduct of war is not a discussion over taxes of public
expenditures. The very
qualities that make a poor democratic statesman in peacetime—audacity,
fatalism, truthfulness, fearlessness, initiative, hatred of compromise,
fanaticism, even recklessness—are critical for command of a great
egalitarian army, just as the strengths of a politician—affability,
consensus-building, retrospection, manners, inactivity even—can prove
lethal to a campaign.”
“Would that the American
generals Schwarzkopf or
Powell had risked resigning for insisting that American troops march
into Baghdad to liquidate the [Saddam] Hussein regime [in 1991].”
what shall we say of various Israeli generals who adhered to the
feckless policy of self-restraint vis-¨¤-vis
implacable but Lilliputian enemy, the PLO-Palestinian Authority?
Destroy the Enemy to Obtain One Hundred Years of Peace:
II: William Tecumseh
n this essay,
virtually every a passage has been extracted from military historian
Victor Davis Hanson, The Soul of
Battle” (1999), I have selected these excerpts to illuminate
dilemmas involved in
Israel’s current war
But I alone am responsible for the import of this article.
William Tecumseh Sherman of Civil War fame was
professor and college president teaching history six months before the
Battle of Bull Run.
Sherman was considered a
cruel general, “cruelty was necessary to destroy the evil of slavery.”
“Men go to war to kill,” said
Sherman, “and should expect
As he said of the Confederacy: “Thousands of people may perish,
but they now realize that war means something else than vain glory and
“Marching through an enemy country and destroying its economic
infrastructure and social strata—while losing less than 1% of an
army—can instill confidence in soldiers in a way that camp life,
entrenchment, and even ferocious set battles cannot.”
solders “realized that the quickest way to return ¡ to their families
as to follow their mad genius into the heart of the Confederacy and very
quickly to wreck its economic and spiritual core.”
As George Patton understood (who was also deemed
mad): “The directing mind must be at the head of the army—must be seen
there, and the effect of his mind and personal energy must be felt by
every officer and men present with it, to secure the best results.
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and
[Viewed in this light, Ariel Sharon’s appointment of Air Force head Lt.
Halutz as Chief of General Staff was misguided.
Perhaps it is no accident that this pilot opposed a ground
But surely he knows that “victory through air power” is a myth, as we
saw so recently in
Iraq, where only the
2003 ground invasion by the
accomplished in a few days what thousands of bombs could not accomplish
during months in 1991.
But let us return to Hanson’s study of
soldiers loved and admired their “Uncle Billy," who could confess of
his troops, "not a waiver, doubt, or hesitation when I order, and men
march to certain death without a murmur if I call on them, because they
know I value their lives as much as my own.”
“’Don’t ride too fast, General,’ they would warn him of muddy roads,
"Pretty slippery going, Uncle Billy.”
nearly illiterate soldier wrote home:
“It is an honor to
enney man to have ben
on the last campaign with Sherman, you se him a riding a long you would
think he was somb plow jogger his head bent
a little to one side with an oald stub of a
sigar in his mouth.”
for the quality of Sherman’s army: “When General
Peter Osterhaus’s 15th Corp
marched past the Washington reviewing stand—they had occupied the
southern wing during Sherman’s march to the Sea—the German ambassador
remarked, "An army like that could whip all Europe.”
Hanson contrasts Sherman and Ulysses S.
men had marched, moved hundreds of miles, and survived, whereas too many
of Grant’s were fixed and had died.
The former had sliced through hostile territory and freed slaves,
destroyed property, and brought fire and ruin to the enemy; the latter
fought not far from home, pitted against like military kind,
and had rarely touched the economy
that fueled the enemy [italics added].
The South would hate Sherman, whose troops had killed relatively
few Confederates, for a century to come, but came to forgive Grant their
future president, whose army butchered its best soldiers—a propensity to
value property over life [as Machiavelli teaches in
at relatively little human expenditure defeated the very soul of the
Confederate citizenry with a force that was mobile, patently
ideological, and without experience of defeat”—ideological—for
as Hanson discerns, “the act of emancipation [served] as moral
counterweight against the necessary brutality of fire and ruin
Union General liberated more slaves than
“As blacks themselves acknowledged,
Sherman did more to ¡®cut
them loose’ than any abolitionist.”
This last remark reminds me of a Lebanese journalist who admitted that
did not breathe the air of freedom until the Israelis expelled the PLO
from his country in 1982.
With that freedom, he added, the Lebanese experienced the
extraordinary humanity of the Jewish state.
Destroy the Enemy to Obtain One Hundred Years of Peace:
srael’s General Staff
would do well to emulate George S. Patton, the general most feared by
the eve of battle, Patton would admonish his soldiers: “The
object of war is not to die for your country.
It is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.”
This requires confronting and killing the enemy
on the battlefield.
“Never let the enemy rest.” No
cease fires or
proclaimed war aim!
“We want the enemy to KNOW that they are fighting the toughest fighting
men in the world!”
This precludes benevolence (which Arabs
despise). Just as Hezbollah warriors would show no
mercy to you, so you should show no mercy to them.
These warriors must be killed even if this results in civilian
“Forget about army regulations [which] are written by those who have
never been in
battle. Our only
mission in combat Lessons From A Master
of War is to win.”
Hence general officers may sometimes have to disobey orders of the
Patten’s famous admonition, “Grab
the Enemy by the nose and kick him in the pants” is
in the war between Jews and Arabs.
devastate the Arabs or Muslims from top to bottom to erase the Islamic
arrogance that prompts them to wage war against “infidels.”
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister
Amir Peretz shy from these war
principles, which would have required them to prepare the IDF at the
outset to confront the enemy primarily on the battlefield.
Bombing the enemy’s infrastructure should not obscure the
importance of destroying the enemy’s ground forces.
The defeat of these Iranian-led Muslims must be so thorough that it will
their desire to wage war for a hundred years—the policy
of the Allied powers that made militant
Japan lovers of
government should not refrain from this policy from fear of world
opinion. Such fear cannot but undermine the General
Staff and the fighting spirit of Israeli soldiers.
is of capital importance that
elites pursue the war in
Lebanon and in
Gaza as a war between good
and evil. They must shun the moral relativism that
tainted Ariel Sharon who said, while Jews were being reduced to body
parts, that he does not think in terms of “black and white.”
This relativism modulated
Sharon’s policy of
self-restraint toward Arab warriors—a policy that resulted in more than
6,000 Jewish casualties under his premiership.
Sharon did not think in terms of “black
and white” indicates that he was unfit to be
minister, in a war where the enemy consists of Muslims whose leaders
emphatically think in terms of “black and white,” and who therefore
imbue their soldiers (as well as civilians) with the most ferocious
This hatred steels Islamic warriors. Hence
the IDF will have to become a virtual killing machine to stop the
killing once and for all!
victory in this war will ultimately depend on whether its General Staff
is animated by the profound sense of good and evil
greatest generals—suffice to mention, along with Patten, William
Tecumseh Sherman of Civil War fame.
Both generals inspired their armies with
complete confidence in the justice of their cause.
Yet both pursued a war strategy that actually minimized
casualties on all sides.
They imbued their soldiers with the will to win and
in the shortest possible time.
This requires the use of overwhelming
force and the
general who believes in the justice of his country’s cause will not shy
from cruelty against Hezbollah because it is by means of cruelty that he
can shorten the war and thus minimize bloodshed.
Thus, in this war between good and evil, those Israeli generals who
implement the principles of war will be our greatest humanists!
The Middle East War: The Need for Plain Talk
can win a protracted war unless its military commanders and soldiers
have an ethical mission.
A nation whose commanders and soldiers are tainted by the
university-bred doctrine of moral relativism is doomed to defeat against
I have elsewhere shown, Ariel Sharon was tainted by that doctrine.
Needed, therefore—especially in the present Middle East War—is
First, we need to regard Islamic despotisms as one might regard the
slave-holding states of the Confederacy in pre-civil war
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided Speech”:
A world divided against itself cannot stand.
This world cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
Sooner or later, it will become all one or all the other.
President George W. Bush is
right: The United States must spread democracy to
Middle East if it is to win the war
against what is misleadingly called “militant Islam” or “IslamoFascism”—misleading
in that it underestimates the breadth and depth of the enemy.
What applies to
America applies to
has an ethical mission vis--vis Islam, it will eventually succumb to
the barbaric religion that surrounds it.
And it must pursue this mission with a massive and sustained
ground operation against Hezbollah to win a decisive moral as well as
military victory—a victory to prevent a future occurrence of Islamic
aggression and arrogance.
Lincoln and slavery.
The Muslim looks down at non-Muslims as white slaveholders looked
down at blacks. To Muslims,
Jews and Christians are despicable “infidels” who, to avoid death, may
devoid of human rights, or Muslims.
In becoming a Muslim, however, the
dhimmi exchanges one form
of bondage for another—as may be seen in the pages of Bat
Thanks so much to President Lincoln and General William Tecumseh
Sherman—and let us also mention 200,000 black Union soldiers—slavery was
abolished in the
We shall need the equivalent of a Lincoln and a Sherman to
liberate those held in bondage by Islam.
Israel must therefore have as its mission not only the destruction of
Hezbollah but also the positive goal of liberating Lebanon from its
foreign masters—of helping it to become a free and democratic
country—free from the Islamic ethos of
jihad and the evil doctrine
that non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims.
It must be understood that Hezbollah is only the spearhead of
Iran’s Islamic War
against Western civilization which
Israel represents in
(In this Islamic War against the West, let us not forget the now
obscured but most insidious role of
which has so many former American officials on its payroll.)
And remember this: In their war machines, Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan made use of modern physics, whose originators were neither German
nor Japanese, but an Italian (Galileo) and an Englishman (Newton).
Hence the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan—nations that
believed in their racial superiority—showed that
war is the ultimate
revealing agent of national conceit and hypocrisy.
We must defeat Islam to show that it is not superior to Western
civilization, hence to Judaism or Christianity.
Mark this well: Whether it knows it or not,
the seed of Western civilization, is engaged—unwillingly—in a
metaphysical war. This war
will not and cannot be terminated by diplomacy.