Clarity of purpose in war is essential. The enemy must understand and believe you will do whatever it takes to achieve your objective. How is a war supposed to end when your enemy doesn’t even know what you want in the first place?
Last week, President Joe Biden said what most needed saying about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, “I don’t trust Hamas to do anything right.” He was responding to a question about whether or not the terrorist network would uphold its end of the bargain in the recently negotiated humanitarian pause and hostage exchange, but the point applies much more broadly. Hamas is a terrorist group whose sole goal is the eradication of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people in the region. This is why they exist, and their only reason for being. Anyone who previously doubted this fact should no longer do so after the atrocities committed on October 7, where over a thousand people were slaughtered, women were gang raped before and after their death, some with their breasts cut off, babies were burned and beheaded, and children as young as four years old were taken hostage. Whatever your feelings about Palestine, Israel, or the root causes of the conflict, there is simply no going back to business as usual of any kind after such a heinous attack. Unless you are willing to accept something similar or perhaps even worse happening in the future, there can be no deals, truces, or peace agreements. We never negotiated with the Nazis or Imperial Japan for many of the same reasons, demanding unconditional surrender or their destruction, more on both in a moment, and we certainly shouldn’t be negotiating with Hamas now for any reason. As it was during the Holocaust, the only solution for an organization that publicly advocates genocide and condones the mutilation of women is to completely destroy it. To some extent, the President appears to understand that, at least in most of his public statements. For example, he described the elimination of Hamas as a “legitimate objective” during the question and answer session of the same press conference. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had previously said we stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Israel in their efforts. He has also spoken eloquently about the barbarism on display and why we need to remember precisely how brutal and vicious the October 7 attack truly was.
Unfortunately, the President himself undercut his own position and added counterproductive confusion within a couple of days. This time, he refused to actually say the goal is to destroy Hamas. Instead, he cut himself short, calling for something entirely different and not at all clear while discussing the ongoing hostage releases. “For every ten hostages released, the [ceasefire] will extend another day. So I’m hopeful this is not the end. But we don’t know. But I got a sense that all the players…are looking for a way to end this where the hostages are all released and Hamas is completely — no longer in control of any portion of Gaza.” What this means is impossible to say except it is a far cry from complete destruction and suggests to Hamas that they might well live to massacre another day: Where is Hamas going to go and what are they going to do when they get there? Is Hamas going to set up some kind of government somewhere en absentia? Are they going to settle down in the Caribbean? How can Hamas possibly continue to exist and why would the American President suggest that they might? It’s impossible to miss that these comments occurred in the context of the most bizarre and incompetent hostage negotiations anyone has ever seen. In principle, I understand the desire to ensure the hostages are returned safe, but in practice the United States has facilitated precisely none of the things that would make that happen. Close to two months later, we still don’t know how many Americans are being held hostage in the first place. The best they can say is “under ten.” We have no idea what hostages Hamas plans to release, when, or whether or not we can expect more Americans to be released. The best they can say is they hope that is the case and so far only one four year old whose mother and father were brutally killed has been released. In other words, we are effectively waiting for a terrorist organization to do what it wants on its own terms, exactly what they themselves planned when they took the hostages in the first place. One can debate the wisdom of negotiating with terrorists as a principle, especially when it is obvious that Hamas has taken so many specifically because they wanted to buy time during the conflict itself, but at a minimum any hostage negotiation requires a full list of those taken and proof of life. These are details that should have been provided before the negotiations even began to indicate Hamas’ seriousness and to validate that they have lived up to the terms of any agreement, but somehow that didn’t happen and – surprise – Hamas isn’t living up to their terms. They were supposed to release any children with their mothers, but they have not. Right now, they are still holding infants – as in babies – captive.
Somehow, however, we have pressured Israel to accept a deal that they cannot truly verify, and one that is entirely on Hamas’ terms and in their strategic interests, not the interests of our ally. They decide who gets released and when, without even confirming who they have in the first place. This, of course, only underlines the obvious fact that Hamas only took the hostages and agreed to the deal because they believe it provides them a tactical advantage. It should go without saying that you do not do anything in a war that gives your enemy an advantage of any kind, but we have done so even when no one in a position of authority believes Hamas can be trusted on anything, from the hostages, to the death toll, to whether they use hospitals as military bases. Last month, President Biden noted this himself. Similar to his statement above, he said, “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed.” “I’m sure innocents have been killed, and it’s a price of waging war,” he added, stating another obvious truth. The very next day, however, he was apologizing to the Muslim community, promising to “do better” without saying how. To some, this may seem like a minor issue – or even as the media would have it, some necessary politicking given the conflicting demands of his electoral coalition heading into an election year. The Washington Post, for example, recently reported how the White House is grappling with “internal divisions.” “Earlier this month, a group of about 20 distressed White House staffers requested a meeting with President Biden’s top advisers, as Israel’s war in Gaza entered its sixth week,” they began. “The previously unreported meeting of officials underscores how Biden’s handling of what is arguably the biggest foreign policy crisis of his presidency is dividing a White House that has prided itself on running a disciplined and united operation. The Israel-Gaza war has roiled the administration more than any other issue in Biden’s first three years in office, according to numerous aides and allies inside and outside the White House, as staffers agonize over their positions on highly emotional issues.”
In the Post’s view, “White House officials contend that Biden’s ‘bear hug’ approach to Israel has given him credibility with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, allowing the president to exert the kind of pressure that led to the current hostage deal and fighting pause. U.S. officials are using the pause to urge Israel to make its expected military operation in the south of Gaza, where nearly 2 million Palestinians are concentrated, more targeted and less deadly, according to two senior administration officials.” Of course, they don’t come out and say it, but these are not positions that are reconcilable by any means. You cannot promise to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with an ally simply to pressure them to pursue strategies that run completely counter to their goals. If the goal is indeed to destroy Hamas, there can be no negotiation and any pause in the fighting they agree to is only going to serve their interest. If Israel desires a pause or a temporary ceasefire, it should be entirely on their terms for their purposes. Neither can you claim to reduce the deadliness of a military operation when its measure of deadliness is being dictated by the enemy themselves. Even if you are willing to accept the extended time frame and additional loss of life that comes along with prolonging the conflict, you are only emboldening your enemy when your objectives are unclear. Hamas cannot help but think they might survive somehow given the mixed messages, behind the scenes pressure, failure to negotiate properly, and other actions by the global community less than two months after their attack. If they believe they have an opportunity to continue in some fashion or leverage in any future negotiations, they will act accordingly. Sadly, we see the same general approach to the conflict in Ukraine. After almost two years of fighting, no one knows what the President would consider a reasonable end while the Ukrainian President somehow thinks they will recapture territory his country hasn’t controlled in a decade. Oddly, there are no reports of negotiations of any kind to reach a ceasefire, despite Ukraine’s spring offensive completely failing to achieve their stated objectives. President Biden, to my knowledge, has not pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to seek a reasonable end or engage with his Russian counterpart to negotiate a settlement. The result is yet another endless war, a quagmire with no potential end in sight – while we are busy pressuring Israel to negotiate with Hamas. Russian President Vladimir Putin is a bad actor by any definition, but Hamas is a barbarian horde from another dimension. Why we would pressure one ally to negotiate and do nothing for another is a complete mystery, one which only sows chaos and confusion, suggesting once again that we are at war with ourselves.
Contrary to what passes for conventional wisdom, wars must be won completely and as quickly as possible. Prolonging them – even if you have a humanitarian goal in mind – only prolongs the suffering and usually results in even more deaths. If a report from The Wall Street Journal is any indication, we can see that happening right now. Those pushing for a pause are seeking a permanent ceasefire that would leave Hamas in power, giving them the opportunity to repeat October 7. “The chief brokers of the Israel-Hamas hostage-prisoner exchange are pushing the two sides for a long-term cease-fire that would prolong the truce in Gaza beyond the current two-day extension and start talks that would end the war altogether, said Egyptian and Qatari officials. A long-term cease-fire would likely require Israel and Hamas to make hard-to-swallow concessions, such as trading Israeli soldiers for potentially thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, the officials said. And it would require Israel to hold back on an offensive in southern Gaza intended to capture the strip and kill Hamas’s top leadership, the officials said. Hamas could also have to accept demilitarization, they added.” This, of course, is madness when Hamas leadership has already committed to attacking again and again until Israel is destroyed. Forget surrender, they have not recanted or altered a single position, praising their atrocities and promising more. Hamas itself has said they are not willing to negotiate on any settlement so long as Israel exists. What settlement could possibly be reached under these circumstances, when one side openly calls for the destruction of the other and refuses to change their position?
Once upon a time, these were realities that were simply understood rather than debated, and you took one side or the other. In World War II, for example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor, President Harry S. Truman sought the “unconditional surrender” of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The phrase had a very specific meaning. It’s a surrender in which “no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. It is often demanded with the threat of complete destruction, extermination, or annihilation” as summarized by Wikipedia. In other words, there will be no negotiations of any kind on the terms. The only way for the war to end is for the enemy to completely capitulate to the demands of the victor. This may seem rather drastic to modern sensibilities given that negotiation is now the preferred means to end wars, but far wiser minds than mine, have properly recognized that there is no other alternative when the enemy is both morally reprehensible and impossible to negotiate with, as Hamas surely is by any rational standard. The only thing you can do is defeat them so utterly, they surrender unconditionally. Throughout both the FDR and Truman administrations, there were internal debates about what would be acceptable. In the case of Japan in particular, there were many inside the administration who felt a surrender where the Emperor was allowed to remain in power was the best choice. In public, however, there was no wavering, no dithering, no shifting goal posts even though some government officials in Japan itself sent out feeler messages to gauge whether negotiations were possible. Ultimately, the Administration issued a declaration from Potsdam, Germany on the matter urging the Japanese to surrender or face “utter destruction.” “We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” This is because clarity of purpose is essential. The enemy must understand and believe you will do whatever it takes to achieve your objective. If they do not, they will seek ways to exploit the gray area in between, fight harder because they doubt your will to victory, or attempt to receive concessions they should not. How is the war supposed to end when your enemy doesn’t even know what you want in the first place?
This is precisely what’s happening now in both Israel and Ukraine, it will undoubtedly get worse if the President and his administration continue to be at war with themselves rather than the enemy. It is worth noting that none of this precludes having a different opinion than mine on how to resolve the conflict. Some might well believe a political settlement is possible, and everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on the matter, but that only underlies the main point: One needs to have an opinion on the end result in order to achieve it.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 