The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is the closest thing to state-on-state warfare we have seen in the Middle East for quite a while. If Southern Lebanon was a nation-state, this fits the Westphalian view of state violence and would probably be formalised with a declaration of war. Interestingly, the strategies of both sides in this conflict presume their opponent is engaged in total war.

Source: Burning oil fields in Iraq from google maps. Total war is becoming restrained by public opinion on civil and environmental casualties.

Total war is where the whole nation is geared toward warfare. This means the complete mobilisation of all national assets; politics, society, culture, industry etc for the purpose of warfare.

Under this doctrine, any aspect of the opponents mobilisation is a fair target. This includes civilians, housing, culture, etc. Anything that can disrupt the complete war effort of the opponent is valid for destruction.

The ultimate weapon for this kind of warfare is the nuclear bomb. It is utterly indiscriminate in its power; destroying anything civil, societal, political, military and cultural that gets in the path of its blast.

The nuclear bomb is such a cheap and relatively precise weapon that it makes the fire-bombing of London in 1940 and Dresden in 1945 quaint historical curios of a doctrine of total war's past.

4GW

Fourth Generation Warfare theorists prefer to see both imprecise and precise tactics as disruption based, rather than total war. For instance John Robb commented on Hezbollah's rocket attacks;

Hezbollah's success against Israel codifies two strategic methods that we will see global guerrillas emulate. The first is the value of strategic coercion through economic attrition. Ongoing disruption of the Israeli economy through rocket attacks attaches a quantifiable strategic cost to the conflict.

The lobbing of rockets, largely arbitrarily, into Israel can also be viewed as a statement of Hezbollah's rising status as a nation-state competitor. It is a traditional aerial bombardment that is a component of total war. In my opinion this is a mix of both strategy and their lack of precision technology.

Israel has followed a similar path of total war, destroying Lebanese infrastructure so the Lebanese nation-state cannot support Hezbollah economically, socially or politically. In fact Israel has stated their aim is to make the Lebanese reject Hezbollah from their nation-state due to the depravities they will suffer from no electricity, air conditioning etc.

Both Israeli and Hezbollah's strategies find their rooting on the presumption of total war. Additionally, both strategies assume that Giulio Douhet's theories of terror bombing can bring conclusions in a conflict through submission of the national character.

During World War II the British and German bomber assets originally did not target cities or civil populations. They attempted to attack only military targets and keep collateral damage to a minimum. This changed with the wholesale bombing of London in 1940.

Arthur Harris commanded RAF Bomber Command in World War II. His main platforms flew at night as they were particularly vulnerable during the day. Due to the inherent imprecision of the technology available, and the large numbers of aircraft that were being produced by industrialism, bomber command started the process of carpet bombing cities.

This came with the hope that in the destruction of the city were military and infrastructure targets. It also assumed that Douhet's theory of the destruction of national character by bombing would also occur.

The lessons of Britain and Germany was the terror bombing does not work. Anger becomes focused outward on the aggressor, not inward on the political, civil services or military forces which are unable to protect the population.

Israel and Hezbollah are on a hiding to nowhere with their total war, or Douhet, approach of affecting the opposing population.

The American development of precision weaponry in the 1970s has changed the dynamic of public opinion to Total War. Originally these precision weapons could only be carried by larger strategic aircraft, but now even smaller platforms can deploy them.

The media arrival of this technology was in the first Gulf War where presentations were given to the media of precision bombs flying in through ventilation shafts on bunkers and hard-areas.

Western public opinion has become intolerant of collateral damage, of which nuclear or carpet bombing creates a lot of. This aspect of Total War has largely disappeared from western nations due to technology improvements.

In the same way that Hezbollah's old style carpet-bombing or indiscriminate rocket firing is condemned; Israel has been criticized for attacks on Ambulances and civilians. Public opinion has also become hostile to environmental damage resulting from bombing attacks.

Douhet's theories still have traction. It was assumed in the second Gulf War that American 'shock and awe' tactics using precision weaponry would reduce the Iraqi will to fight (or mobilise in Total War). Yet Iraq remains an insecure environment three years after the invasion. It prefaced military victory, but did not subdue Iraq itself.

Israel and Hezbollah face similar problems. There will be no resolution or victory in their tactics. Total War and Douhet place the emphasis in the wrong area. Victory requires the political defeat of an opponent, the military is just one aspect of that defeat.

What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground to do when no matter what they do, they are criticised?

"At some point in time - sooner rather than later - you've got to say 'Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent', and that's the position we've taken," Bush said during a news conference with the prime minister of this impoverished Balkan country.

SMH

It is probably the most justifiable position to take - governance has to acquiescence of the governed or it can't ever work from either perspective.

And yet, at the risk of enduring the contempt of the contemptible for my ability to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head, and fearing to fall prey to the dreaded Motives Fallacy, one can't help but wonder what George W. Bush will say when the Iraqi Kurds and the Taiwanese say that enough is quite enough, thanks for coming.

I suppose it depends on who has to deal with the shitstorm that results when China or Turkey starts lobbing bits of metal large and small.

It's perfectly all right to support the idea of Kosovar independence; it would certainly behoove him to pay some lip service to the dichotomies. On the one hand the US is happy to support independence when the opposition is weak - somehow I can't see Russia starting a war no matter how much they support Serbia. On the other, they tell the Kurds and the Taiwanese to cool it, suck it up, enough isn't quite enough yet. It doesn't seem frivolous to note that Turkey is US ally and China, the enemy of the Taiwanese, are major trading partners, holders of many many US dollars and armed with nukes.

And yet...the US more or less ignored the Balkans during the nineties - when the Croatians were expressing themselves - and were roundly criticised for it. There was even a pop song released calling on the US and the UK to intervene. They functionally ignored various uprisings behind the Iron Curtain and have rightly been criticised for it for years. What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground - despite the reality - to do?

I suppose there is only so much that can be done. Certain quotes from a Condoleezza Rice profile in the June 2007 Atlantic - which is behind a subscription wall, sorry - expressed the opinion that US efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace are really only the end-result of months, or years, of effort behind the scenes by Israelis and Palestinians; when Rabin and Arafat shook hands, when Sadat and Begin shook hands, the US State Department took home credit when their contribution was merely the tip of the iceberg. That could be true, could be just disgruntled grumblings - although the quotes were from a retired head of Mossad, so hardly someone never listened to - and either way it hardly seems relevant what they are since all the peace accords have failed. So if the US just stepped up like your Dad agreeing to be a co-signer on your first car loan, or if the US had its fingerprints over every aspect during the entire timeline, it seems clear that the US can't do much when there are intractable issues between both sides and when it is politically - geo- and/or internally - unpalatable to make the sides compromise. Even when compromise does occur, the US can't force acceptance by the internal parties, thus the downfall of the Oslo Accords.

To answer my question, there is nothing they can do. They will be criticised no matter what tack they take on any and all questions of the fate of other nations. One can only ask that the policy each individual (it hardly seems fair to ask Bush to stay consistent with Clinton) administration remain internally consistent. So if the people of Kosovo are entitled to say that enough is enough and that they can go their own way, then it seems fair to ask that the Kurds be informed that there will be Army divisions and flight crews ready to hand down a world of pain to any Turkish military elements that cross the border if or when the Iraqi Kurds declare independence. Or Iraqi military elements, for that matter. But, that will never happen. Instead, for the sake of saving face, the Kurds are more likely than not being told it suck it up.

Israel is drafting a new constitution with the goal of it being in place for the state's sixtieth birthday. Apparently Israel is not governed with a written constitution. In any religious state there is always the issue of secularisation:

The real obstacle that has impeded a constitution for 60 years is not the Arabs, but the disagreements between the secular and the religious. If a decade ago it was clear that a constitution would mean a separation of religion and state, says Abramowitz, now the discourse is on a constitution the religious can live with. And why should the religious agree? In order to change the status quo, where the Supreme Court determines its own jurisdictions, by determining the Knesset's and the court's jurisdictions in advance.

While it may be politically sensible, it is constitutionally unwise to allow religion into the constitution or have any constitutional role in government - especially the judiciary.

The article continues:

Ben-Sasson will propose to the religious the solution suggested by the Israel Democracy Institute: that certain religious laws be protected from High Court of Justice intervention. Regarding some issues of religion and state as well, it may be stipulated that the Knesset can override High Court decisions with a relatively small majority, 61 votes.

Which is worse than the Muslim courts in Malaysia and more like the exalted position religion gets in the Iranian government. If this occurs it will be a poor constitutional decision by Israel that will lead to conflict and distress between secular governance and religious self-interest.