The West’s moral high ground is a death trap. Restraint against ruthless adversaries only cedes advantage, costs lives, and undermines long-term security.
JS Mill said it is a "grave error' to apply rules of morality to barbarians who won't reciprocate:
"To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error, and one which no statesman can fall into."
The issue is not the rules. It is the standard at which they should be applied. Civilized nations will always follow the rules to some extent: civilians and their infrastructure will be protected. Protection is lost when infrastructure is used for military purpose. The question is, what standard should be applied when dealing with barbarians who won't reciprocate?
Article 53 - Prohibited destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
and Article 52 of the Additional Protocol 1 1977
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
What is 'absolutely necessary'? What is 'a definite military advantage'. The Red Cross has interpreted these provision, but they do not consider the standard that should apply when dealing with barbarians who won't reciprocate. When dealing with barbarians whose whole strategy is to flout the rules, the standards of 'absolutely necessary' and 'military advantage' should be lower.
Rules of engagement should reflect the fact that barbarians won't reciprocate. In this connection, Hegseth's "No stupid rules of engagement" is a step in the right direction:
I don’t think we have to make war any horrifying than it already is, but we should be prepared for a bitter struggle to gain freedom from the mullahs. Let’s hold to our values and rules based order.
I am reminded of a quote by Moshe Dayan “Israel must be like a mad dog, too crazy to bother”. I keep coming back to it, but Israel must be ready to fight these psychopaths with nuclear weapons. Israel cannot let itself be indefinitely paralyzed by rocket attacks by this genocidal, regime. It is perfectly OK for Israel to use them in an existential threat scenario; after all, the USA used them in 1945 even when Japan didn’t pose an existential threat.
100% correct. Halas! Enough!
Ben Gurion famously said that his wish is for Israel to be both a light unto the nations, and a nation like all others.
That my friends is a non-starter. We can't be both.
Exactly. Israel has been too soft dealing with barbarians. See my comment below.
In WWII the Allies didnt mimic their opponents but they didnt hold back from doing what was necessary to win.
That was an absolutely brilliant article/column. Thank you very much. I posted it to my Facebook page. Go Israel go America. I love you both.
JS Mill said it is a "grave error' to apply rules of morality to barbarians who won't reciprocate:
"To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error, and one which no statesman can fall into."
The issue is not the rules. It is the standard at which they should be applied. Civilized nations will always follow the rules to some extent: civilians and their infrastructure will be protected. Protection is lost when infrastructure is used for military purpose. The question is, what standard should be applied when dealing with barbarians who won't reciprocate?
Article 53 - Prohibited destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
and Article 52 of the Additional Protocol 1 1977
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
What is 'absolutely necessary'? What is 'a definite military advantage'. The Red Cross has interpreted these provision, but they do not consider the standard that should apply when dealing with barbarians who won't reciprocate. When dealing with barbarians whose whole strategy is to flout the rules, the standards of 'absolutely necessary' and 'military advantage' should be lower.
Rules of engagement should reflect the fact that barbarians won't reciprocate. In this connection, Hegseth's "No stupid rules of engagement" is a step in the right direction:
https://www.military.com/feature/2026/03/05/hegseths-stupid-rules-of-engagement-line-and-what-roe-actually-do.html
I discuss Mill in this article:
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-the-strike-on-iran-illegal
I don’t think we have to make war any horrifying than it already is, but we should be prepared for a bitter struggle to gain freedom from the mullahs. Let’s hold to our values and rules based order.
I am reminded of a quote by Moshe Dayan “Israel must be like a mad dog, too crazy to bother”. I keep coming back to it, but Israel must be ready to fight these psychopaths with nuclear weapons. Israel cannot let itself be indefinitely paralyzed by rocket attacks by this genocidal, regime. It is perfectly OK for Israel to use them in an existential threat scenario; after all, the USA used them in 1945 even when Japan didn’t pose an existential threat.
Morality is not a suicide pact.