Gideon's Blog

In direct contravention of my wife's explicit instructions, herewith I inaugurate my first blog. Long may it prosper.

For some reason, I think I have something to say to you. You think you have something to say to me? Email me at: gideonsblogger -at- yahoo -dot- com

Site Meter This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, May 02, 2002
Good piece by Michael Rubin in NRO comparing Yasser Arafat & Saddam Hussein. The implication of his comparison: in both cases, killing the supreme leader is a necessary and very nearly sufficient condition for significantly improving both the lives of the people and the prospects for peace. I agree. One comparison he doesn't make: Operation Defensive Shield is like Operation Desert Storm. Both achieved significant battlefield victories, wiped out the enemy's army, and achieved their basic military objectives (uprooting the terrorist "infrastructure" in the one case and liberating Kuwait in the other). But in both cases, the leader of the enemy was allowed to escape alive, remain in power, wipe out his domestic enemies who might have unseated him, and ultimately convince his people and the world that his defeat was in fact a victory, setting the stage for a more difficult and dangerous war some time in the future. In Arafat's case, we're only at the beginning of the process. But, with Arafat's return to freedom and the relentless murder of "collaborators," we're rapidly proceeding through the other stages.

If you don't kill Agag, all your warfare against the Amalekites will be counted as a transgression and not to your merit. And, frankly, if you do kill Agag, the Amalekites might be more plausibly convinced not to be Amalekites. Some day, anyhow.