Sigh, you are still clinging to your straw. The Laws of War don't give **** about who are legitimate war actors and who are not. They only concern about acceptable practices while engaged in war, and allowable justifications for armed forces, including, mind you, both regular forces and irregular forces -- such as Hezbollah militants. Further, in the theory of the Fourth Generation Warfare, never once do the authors support or recognize any use of such preposterous term. Specifically, they point out The only place where the term "legitimate war actor" exists is in the realm of Hayesian D&D Book of Democracy War. Things would be a lot more clear if you simply throw out the line "Israelis are god's chosen people." That would be a point to start some more interesting discussions. However, your self-righteous/self-serving Hayesian Legitimacy is getting tiresome. Judged by both its justification and its conduct, Israel is no more (perhaps much less) legitimate than its archrival Hezbollah in the war.
Every once in a while, for some reason I'm sure will come to me when I'm not by a computer, I think of the Spanish Civil War. Why would that be?? Keep D&D Civil.
A truly interesting thought following Hayes' definition. If war conditions cannot exist between a state and a so called "non-state actor," then that would mean war cannot exist between Israel and Hezbollah. Does that mean then that Israel has declared unilaterally and by all means illegitimate according to Hayes' definition, war against Lebanon?
This brings another interesting point: had Israel officially declared war before it launched assault on Lebanon?
Did the US declare war on Iraq? That seems to be "out of style," perhaps because a debate in Congress over a war declaration might prove embarrassing for the Administration in power. It needs to get back in style, pronto. When talking about state to state wars, Hayes should comment on the lack of a war declaration regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Is that conflict, according to international conventions, illegal? Keep D&D Civil.
Yeah, they do. They are, in fact, agreements written by nation-states about their conduct - lol. They have recognized that these agreements can be extended to cover some non-nation states in internal conflicts. Nowhere is there any recognition for a subnational group to engage externally. You're simply making your position up. That there is a 'theory' out there means nothing. As I said earlier in this thread, you've given no justification why we would legitimize actions by subnational groups engaging external nation states. Nor, while we are at it, have you done anything but throw out 4GW as a theory that exists. You've not defined it or explained how it would contradict any of the assumptions in this disagreement or why we should prefer it to any other theory. But I'll save you some time so you can catch up. The theory of 4GW simply describes the emergence of asymmetric warfare by non nation-states. Nowhere does it imply this is a GOOD thing, lol. On the contrary it hits exactly at my point - which is that equating the legitimacy of nation-states to act with the subnational groups legitimacy to act produces more of these kinds of conflicts. That....is a bad thing. I understand you're having trouble coming to grips with your problem. There is nothing self-righteous about my claims, you just feel frustration because you want to wish your conclusion into being. However, it really isn't complicated. We live in a system defined by nation-states, ruled by nation-states. Equating the legitimacy of a nation-state with a subnational group brings exactly the problem you are having. That is the LAST thing we should be doing because of the myriad of problems it brings. We do not want, nor should we legitimize such a line of thought precisely because we do not want subnational groups deciding they can attack foreign nation states and starting large conflicts. This problem is tragically apparent with the current crisis in Lebanon - where a small group has started a LARGE conflict with no legitimate basis to do so. The funny part is that as I posted above in my response to michecon, we can debate whether or not Israel's actions have been justified or legitimate. That in itself disproves you're desperate charges that I think Israel is doing God's work or can do no wrong. But hey, I understand you like to get silly when you get confused. It really isn't interesting at all and has already been covered over and over in other threads. There is no indication a nation state has to declare war when it responds to an attack.
No. There was no declaration of war for Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, or the First Gulf War, for example. None of those are considered illegal according to international conventions. I didn't say war conditions cannot exist between a nation-state and a non-state actor.
As usual I'm coming way too late to this debate but can't resist responding to a few of Hayes' points: These aren't mutually exclusive as you yourself Hayes have said that states can be terrorist organizations. One of your justifications for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam's regime, which was the state of Iraq, was a terrorist organization. MFW has raised a very critical point to this debate which you have dodged. While you acknowledged that war conditions can exists between a nation-state and non-state actor, a truism, that's skirting his question which is whether it is legitimate for a state to attack a non-state actor in another country without their permission or in the case of Lebanon to attack another country. Under your strict definition of legitimacy it would be illegitimate for one country to attack a non-state actor in another country without that country's permission. Even in the case of acting to address a wrong towards the attacking country what that means is that one country is intruding on what should be a law enforcement activity of the other country. For instance if a group in Canada sneaks across Lake Superior and kidnaps an American the US can't legally and unilaterally attack that group without asking for the Canadians permission. For that matter if say it wasn't Canada but a country without an extradition treaty they would be under no legal obligation to take any action against a group that was accused of attacking Americans. So if Hezbollah has no legitimacy in attacking Israel Israel then has no legitimacy in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon as any grievance Israel should be appealed to the Lebanese government as a matter of law enforcement.
Actually I said Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, not a terrorist organization. And that was a simple benefit of the intervention, not an attempt to legitimize it under international law. Without who's permission? I didn't skirt anything. Its not illegitimate to defend yourself. But this is pretty much skirting the whole discussion, which is whether or not Hezbollah is a legitimate actor for external military action. It isn't. Therefore it is a mistake to equate Israel and Hezbollah. I don't have any idea where you're getting this 'permission' stuff. I never said anything like that. Not sure where you get this from? Not from anything I've said. Hezbollah is not a legitimate actor to externally attack another state. That doesn't conversely mean that Israel can't attack Hezbollah. That's terrible logic - a 'mistaken reversal' IIRC. Al Quaeda was not a legitimate actor in it's attack on 9/11. That doesn't conversely mean that the US was illegitimate in attacking AQ.
I don't have time to respond to all of you points but its not a mistaken reversal at all. If a group from Canada kidnaps an American can America unilaterally attack that group in Canada? No that would be an act of war against Canada. When you talk about legitimacy what do you consider the consequences of violating legitimacy? The consequence is war. In the case of Israel attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon they are committing an act of war against Lebanon, not Hezbollah, since by your definition Hezbollah isn't a legitimate actor. Its a two way street.
No, it isn't a two way street at all. That's just false. Hezbollah is inherently an illegitimate actor, Israel is not. That is by virture of of Israel being a nation state and Hezbollah not. The implications of Israel responding inside Lebanon could affect the overall legitimacy of the reaction, but it is not without debate as in the case of Hezbollah. As I posted earlier, Hezbollah does not meet the first necessary condition of being such a legitimate actor, which is to be a nation-state. Therefore we cannot and should not try to equate Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah's action was illegitimate, will always be so. It has no effect on Israel's inherent standing as a legitimate international actor. It is, as I indicated earlier, a mistaken reversal. If you are a not a nation-state, then you can never legitimately take external military action. The converse of that is: If you are a nation-state, then you could legitimately take external military action. NOT If you are a nation-state, then you can never legitimately defend yourself from a non nation-state.
4GW is more than a theory, it's a reality. Although the author (William S. Lind) of 4GW mainly discusses the concept in the pretext of "modern" warfare, 4GW defined as war fought between non-state and state is about as ancient as war itself. The fact that Laws of War are written between states doesn't mean 4GW is not in existence, nor does it provide any legal ramification to approve or disapprove the "status" of a war actor, be it Israel or Hezbollah. What's funny is even the most staunch supporter of Zionist-Neocon cabal can at best mutter "Israel has a right to defend herself." There are only legitimacies pertaining to justifications and conducts of war, regardless of the identities of war participants, but never such a thing as "legitimacy of war actor." You are taking it to a whole new groundless level gratuitously all by yourself. Well first of all you are confusing the concepts of 4GW and asymmetric warfare. While virtually all 4GWs are asymmetrical in nature, not all AWs are 4GWs. They are not interchangeable. Second, nowhere in the theory of 4GW does the author express or imply either side of the conflict is inherently legitimate or otherwise. We see every conceivable negative label is thrown at "non-state actors," but there is simply no such term "illegitimate actor." Talk about making things up, which you are good at. There lies the fundamental problem with your line of thinking, hayes. Everything done on the part of Israel is justified simply because it is shielded under the false assumption of "legitimate actor," while exactly the opposite is ascribed to Hezbollah. Disproportional military actions against Lebanon, indiscriminant killing of Lebanese civilians including women and children, intentional shelling of UN post, destruction of non-combative Lebanese infrastructures and residencies, and promise-breaking bombings of Southern Lebanon, etc., are all in the name of destroying an "illegitimate actor," whose counter-measures are never given due considerations. When you repeatedly and arbitrarily grant Israel immunity on the basis of baseless "the only legitimate war actor" status, all hell breaks loose. Hezbollah didn't have much support to begin with, but now it has gained enormous sympathy and support throughout the Arab world, including the non-Muslim factions in Lebanon. Despite your warped assertion, Hezbollah didn't start the war, Israel did. IDF's convoy didn't get blown out in Israel, but inside Lebanon. Israel and Hezbollah have been going at each other along the border all along. The latest skirmish prior to the full-scale war was nothing new. Call it a stupid move or miscalculation by Hezbollah, but it is Israel who had long pre-meditated on another invasion of Lebanon. The "abduction" of IDF soldiers is only a convenient excuse on the part of Israel. The U.S. could have played the role of a peace broker, but it hasn't done so. The U.S. could have been a neutral arbitrator, but it ain't so. Israel as of today still occupies Palestinian territory, Lebanese territory and Syrian territory, still holds Hezbollah/Lebanese prisoners without trial. Talk about "myriad of problems"? Sure we are livinging in the system defined by nation-states, but the mere presence of such system doesn't at all guarantee world peace. No country in the world has ignored more U.N. resolutions than Israel. On the other hand, we can all forget about "winning hearts and minds of Arabs" because of what we have been doing to Iraqis. But the LAST thing we want is to create more hatred towards the U.S. in the Arab world. Unfortunately our one-sided policies with regard to Israel are exactly moving U.S. in that direction, undermining ultimately U.S. self-interest. You were wrong when you said multinational forces were UN peacekeeping forces in 1982 Lebanon. You were wrong when you said a democracy never attacks another democracy. You are wrong again when you conjure up "legitimacy of war actors" out of thin air to justify your Zionist-Neocon ideology. Well, it is sort of interesting in the sense that declaration of war is part of the larger brouhaha governing the conduct of warfare.
Your main problem, wnes, and this is a big one - is that I never said anything about granting Israel 'immunity.' Not once. In fact I clearly stated it was certainly up for debate whether or not Israeli action was legitimate. You are creating a massive strawman and then arguing with yourself. Classic logical fallacy and a bit pointless since it doesn't address my contention at all. You are mistaking the claim that states are the only legitimate actors in this arena with a claim that state action is always legitimate. My argument is that Hezbollah is not a legitimate international actor. I give (pay attention here) a warrant for that claim: Israel meets the first necessary condition for being a legitimate actor - being a nation state. Hezbollah doesn't. You contend that there is no such thing as an illegitimate actor. You seem to be in massive denial. States run our daily lives. Our planet is divided into states. States govern every aspect of our lives. Very few consider organizations such as Al Quaeda legitimate. Why is that? Because they are not legitimate actors. External conflict is the province of the nation-state, not any group of people who decide they should attack the next country over. But let's set aside for a moment the fact that all international agreements (notice 'international' itself emphasizing the preeminence of the nation-state) are agreements made by states for states because states are the legitimate actors in conflict on our planet. You seem to need some declaration of what should be readily apparent. But let's set that aside for a moment: that is my argument. I give reasons why it is so, and why it is the perspective we should take. Stop chasing your tail and explain why we would want to consider non nation-state actors legitimate bodies to engage in external conflict. Your response is that anyone can be a legitimate international actor. I disagree. Such a perspective only serves to legitimize organizations like Al Quaeda deciding themselves to launch attacks on targets of their choosing. Do we want more or less of that? I think less. All of our international system is based on the nation-state. That system is being challenged by other organizations. Which do we want to legitimize or determine are legitimate? I think it is a mistake to assert any organization has the same legitimacy as a state. With your perspective any group has legitimacy to act and that is a disasterous road to travel. Last let's talk about your continued silly assertions about who started the war. The simple fact is that Hezbollah's leader already conceeded they started the war in an interview I already posted. Every major organization already condemned Hezbollah for starting the conflict. Stop beating your head on a brick wall. It's a non-starter for you.
Tell me Hayes in your opinion then would Cuba be justified in bombing Miami in the name of self-defense since non-nation state organizations based there have taken military action against the legal and internationally recognized Cuban government and are committed to the destruction of that government? Does the US have any right in regard to Cuba acting militarily against anti-Cuban groups in Miami as long as Cuba takes such action in the name of self-defense?
Justified now? No. Then? Not sure - it would more than likely have been legitimate since we transported the exiles to Cuba. Although it wouldn't have been too smart on Cuba's part . Not sure - but then that doesn't have anything to do with the point I've been making, and you've been completely missing. Keep trying to slide off the point if it makes you feel better.
Haye's the problem I see is that you're argument regarding legitimacy is one that has no practical implications and at the same time is malleable as you have been perfectly willing to support non-nation state groups against nation states as in your support of the Contras. What do you mean by legitimacy? Should the Anti-Castro groups in Miami be considered illegitimate? Should the American Revolutionaries who took on the British? Should the government of Taiwan as that isn't widely recognized as being a nation by most countries including the US? All of these organizations are non-state actors, or in the case of Taiwan one with limited recognition as a state, in conflicts with internationally recognized states, yet these are groups I suspect you support their causes.
It has everything to do with the point you are making unless your point of legitimacy is a meaningless point, which I suspect it might be. It has to do with if in a conflict of a non-state actor vs a state if the state has the right to unilaterally attack that non-state actor on the territory of another soveriegn state. The point is that if you consider the non-state actor illegitimate than by attacking it on the territory of another state without the approval of that state you are attacking that state and engaging in an act of war on that state. If the non-state actor is illegitimate that still doesn't grant the right of a state to attack another state's territory just to get that non-state actor since you're not attacking the legitimate territory of the non-state actor but the legitimate territory of the other state.
Conventions created and agreed to recognize the legitimacy of internal forces of resistance in civil wars. There is no recognition of an internal force that is by definition not a state acting externally. Hence the practical implication of recognizing such a distinction is this: an internal force like Hezbollah may have legitimacy in acting internally but not in acting externally. So if one is to equate Israel and Hezbollah I would answer - no, they are not equals. They do not start from the same legitimate base when considering external action. Hezbollah can never legitimately militarily act externally because that is the province of states exclusively. Therefore we should not equate action by a state and a subnational group. One has a starting point of legitimacy that the other does not have. Certainly Israel can act illegitimately, but that is up to a debate to determine whether the action is legitimate or not. There is no debate that Hezbollah's external attack was illegitimate.
Hayes, I'm not going to address all the acronyms you guys are using, but how on earth can the destruction of the national infrastucture of a small, fledgling democracy, along with the killing and maiming of hundreds, if not more, of it's non-combatant civilians, when said country was finally, finally getting that democratic form of government Bush babbles incoherently about all the time, but also finally coming close to repairing the said infratructure destroyed during earlier vicious fighting, involving, among others, the same actors going hammer and tongs right now? With the Lebanese military being smaller and less well equipped than Hezbollah, how can a serious person blame them for what has happened? And why didn't the US have a massive aid program to help that fledgling democracy? We're supposed to, "make it all better," after all this has occured? Israel fighting Hezbollah can be rationalized. Israel doing what it is doing now cannot, unless one is living under a rock. Not that you are, of course, being the exception! Keep D&D Civil.
No. It is absurd to assert that one state cannot defend itself against an aggressor inside another country. Your standard would effectively create a safe haven for any terrorist group to launch attacks into other countries. This is no different than the US intervening in Afghanistan to get to Al Quaeda.
