It’s times like this, whenever America or Israel does something flamingly brutal, defensible only through Orwellian means, that I especially pay attention to the “serious” wingnut pundits, those who are always thinking “exterminate the brutes” but, knowing that their control of “tone” ultimately determines the amount of their pay, are word-weaselly careful to obscure that fact. Inevitably, one will crack. Their bland and lizardy Senator Palpatine mien will give way to the snarling Sith Lord within. I think Michael Rubin may be getting close to that point:
When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?
Likewise, when terrorists seek to strike at the United States, why should we find ourselves constrained by an artificial notion of proportionality when responding to those terrorists or their state sponsors?
Ultimately, it may be time to recognize that, in the face of growing threats to Western liberalism, strength and disproportionality matter more to security and the protection of democracy than the approval of the chattering class of Europe or the U.N. secretary general, a man whose conciliatory policies as foreign minister of South Korea proved to be a strategic disaster.
In other words:
You the conquered have a spitwad shooter? I get to threaten you with a Desert Eagle, point five oh.
You the conquered have a switchblade? I get to bully you with an Uzi.
You the conquered have a homemade rocket? I have the right to annihilate you with tanks, jets, subs, Jericho missiles.
And I, like many a serial killer, have just rationalized overkill.
* – Belloc