[ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 30, 2006]

Hasan Nazrallah, the head thug of Hezballah, said recently that if he had known Israel would respond with such force, he never would have ordered the abduction of two Israeli soldiers.  After all, there was no reason to expect any significant retaliation, because Hezballah had been firing missiles into Israel with impunity for quite a while.  The Western media reported Nazrallah's statement, but apparently did not appreciate its significance:  One of civilization's most barbaric enemies had just admitted that Islamofascist attacks can be deterred by a credible threat of retaliation.  (A credible threat, by definition, is one that can be believed, as opposed to an idle threat, such as the pronouncements by the United Nations and other appeasement organizations like the American Democratic Party.)

Apparently the Islamofascists are not mindless, bloodthirsty automatons after all.  They may be evil, but not completely irrational.  They do cost-benefit analyses.  They can be deterred by visions of what they would consider their own ignoble destruction.

I would argue that the threat of retaliation insured by genuine retaliation ALWAYS deters antisocial behavior, whether one is training a puppy, rearing a child, enforcing the law, or conducting diplomacy. All that is required is that a person does what he says he will do. If you do X, I'll do Y, so you'll never be able to do X again.  Doesn't that end the discussion about fighting this enemy? Threats not followed through are like crying wolf, worse than meaningless and ultimately perilous.

Self-styled liberals fear that if civilized peoples respond with destructive force to acts of war by barbaric mass murderers who are commanded by their god to kill us, it will make the murderers "mad" and "not like us," as if such a concern is even relevant.  The extension of that logic is supposed to go this way:  If we ignore our enemies, they will leave us alone, and if we give them what they want, they will like us.  I'm sure that if we infidels all committed suicide, our would-be murderers at first would grudgingly appreciate our saving them the trouble, but ultimately would curse our corpses for denying them a chance to hitch a quick ride to Heaven on any body parts that otherwise would have been blasted into that lofty neighborhood.  

It would seem, then, that the liberal appeasers' view of the inaccurately named war on terror has been blown to smithereens like so many Israeli school children.  Still, some sincere thinkers suggested that Nazrallah's comments might actually vindicate the liberal thinking that hostile actions make enemies mad:  The kidnapping made Israel so mad that she retaliated.  Of course, the same silly liberals who would say this also accused Israel of responding disproportionately, as though the only proper response would have been to kidnap two Hezbos in return.  But it's the rational fear of disproportionate response that makes violence such a powerful deterrent.  Nothing deters certain behaviors in an organism more than the guaranteed destruction of the things it values most: its own life, the lives of its beneficiaries, and its way of life.

Just kidnapping two Hezbos in retaliation would have accomplished nothing.  The limited retaliation that did occur hurt Hezbollah somewhat, but Hezbollah's utter destruction would have solved the problem.  That does not mean other problems won't arise in the future, but letting Hezbollah live guarantees the death of many more innocent people.

Perhaps Mr. Nazrallah's apology to the non-Hezbo Lebanese was cynically tossing them a bone:  "Look, folks, you know that we exist for one reason and one reason only, and that is to destroy Western Civilization and kill all the infidels, pushing Israel into the sea on our way westward.  Had we known our efforts would make the decadent Infidels mad—mad enough to actually do something to stop us, then we would not have bothered."

Does it matter why Nazrallah said he would not have committed an act of war against Israel if he had known Israel would retaliate?  If he can be deterred by the threat of retaliation, fine.  In any case, he must believe the retaliation weakened his strategic relationship with his Lebanese hosts.

Whether Nazrallah is posturing for the good graces of the better people of Lebabon who cannot stand up to his bullies (which makes one wonder why Nazrallah is even apologizing in the first place), this fact remains: Force deters force.  If war isn't the answer (as our enemies obviously believe it is), then the right questions aren't being asked.