We cannot say that war has never worked – I’m sure we can all think of some instances where war has produced something better than what existed before.  So, maybe I should say that using "Third Generation" war tactics, such has been used by the US in the invasion of Iraq and by Israel in the invasion of Lebanon, against an adversary that is skillful in the ways of "Fourth Generation" warfare will not work.   Today’s sad news out of Qana, Lebanon, that scores of civilians, many children, were killed by an Israeli air strike, demonstrates the political limits of using heavy conventional weaponry, however high tech it may be, against an unconventional enemy.

     Even though Israel says that it does not intend to target civilians (or UN blue helmets), when it drops bombs on civilian buildings it is committing not only a moral wrong, but also a political error.  It is morally wrong because, even if Hezbollah is using civilians as shields, which is wrong, that does not justify the killing of those civilian shields by Israeli forces (I heard on the news this morning that UN observers reported that there were no Hezbollah fighters near the civilian building that was bombed).  Two wrongs do not make a right.  And that is where the political error comes in. 

    Now we have horrible photos of dead children, dead from Israeli bombs.  Israel will say they did not intend to kill civilians and that Hezbollah was using the building as a missile launch site.  But, politically, none of that matters.  The level of death here will overwhelm all other considerations.  And that is precisely what Hezbollah wants!  All that has been achieved is the further isolation, politically, of Israel and, by extension, the US.  Hezbollah is fighting a long-term political war.  Israel’s narrow focus on immediate military objectives is serving Hezbollah interests.

     Let me be clear  here: I do not support Hezbollah.  They have committed war crimes by indiscriminately killing non-combatants.  All I am trying to point out is that Israel’s response is not working: while it may weaken Hezbollah militarily in the short term, it is strengthening Hezbollah in the long term.   The brutality and inhumanity of the Israeli assault are backfiring, which reminds me of this passage from the Tao Te Ching:

There was once a saying among those who wielded armies:
I’d rather be a guest than a host,
much rather retreat a foot than advance an inch.

This is called marching without marching,
rolling up sleeves without bearing arms,
raising swords without brandishing weapons,
entering battle without facing an enemy.

There’s no greater calamity than dishonoring an enemy.
Dishonor an enemy and you’ll lose treasures of time.

When armies face one another in battle,
it’s always the tender-hearted on that prevails.

     Passage 69

     I think the basic idea here is similar to Sun Tzu’s famous dictum of "winning without fighting."    It would be better to retreat, and stop killing, but that would pre-suppose a political settlement – "raising swords without brandishing weapons."  You raise the "sword" of political engagement so as to avoid brandishing real weapons.  It is in that sense that the "tender-hearted" prevail.  The "tender-hearted" care most about humanity, about avoiding unnecessary death and destruction.  If political forces can be manipulated to avoid wanton killing, like that in Qana, then the side that is most skillful in those sorts of non-military encounters will prevail.

     Thus, war does not work; or, at least, it is not working for Israel in the current conflict.  Has it worked for Hezbollah?  Only if it continues.