The dictionary defines “self-defense” as: “The act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant.”
Apparently, some schools and nations have a very different idea of what constitutes self-defense.
In May, A 16-year-old girl at Santa Rosa High School was suspended for fighting on campus–after she was attacked by two other girls from another school.
The May 16 fight was recorded on cell phone video by a third student.
Mia Danley, the girl’s mother. claims her daughter was jumped by two girls who had been cyber-bullying her for months. The reason: she was dating one of their former boyfriends.
Reacting to the cellphone footage of her daughter being assaulted, she said: “I see my baby being attacked viciously and I see her defending herself like we taught her to.”
Allen Danley, the girl’s father, showed school officials the cellphone texts that one of his daughter’s assailants sent threatening a fight.
But this made no difference to school authorities.
Santa Rosa High School has a strict no-fighting policy. But Allan Danley pointed out to school officials that their own student handbook states that “a student cannot be arrested or suspenced for defending themselves.”
They, in turn, claimed that his daughter didn’t cry out for help during the fight. So she was considered a willing participant.
Now let’s turn to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and the United States.
On July 8, it began launching hundreds of missiles at Israel.
Hamas rocket blasts toward Israel
And Israel, to stop the attacks, responded in kind.
As a result, Israel has come under repeated verbal attacks by Hamas-sympathetic nations.
The charge: Israel is being too effective at defending itself, killing more Palestinians than Hamas is able to kill Israelis.
Reuven Berko, a former soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) recently addressed this charge in a guest column in the online newsletter, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
A major reason for so many civilian deaths among Palestinians, writes Berko, is that Hamas turns them into human shields by hiding its missiles in heavily-populated centers.
On July 17, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Far East (UNRWA) discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant UN school in the Gaza Strip.
“UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations,” said the agency in an announcement. “This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
UNRWA claimed that “this incident…is the first of its kind in Gaza.” But Israel counters that this is just one of many proven instances of Hamas hiding its fighters and munitions among a heavily civilian population.
Click here: UNRWA Strongly Condemns Placement of Rockets in School | UNRWA
At the heart of Berko’s editorial is the subject of “proportionality.”
Writes Berko: “Israel is held to an impossible moral double standard.
“Israelis, proportionality advocates seem to believe, should be killed by Hamas rockets instead of following Home Front Command instructions and running to shelters, to say nothing of Israel’s blatant unfairness in protecting its civilians with the Iron Dome aerial defense system….
“Anyone who demands that Israel agree to a life of terror governed by a continuous barrage of rockets and mortar shells on the heads of its women and children in the name of restraint and ‘proportionality’ would never agree to risk the safety of their own families in a similar situation.”
Berko points out that during World War 11, the Allies didn’t hesitate to retaliate for the Nazi blitz of London. In February, 1945, British and American planes firebombed Dresden, killing about 25,000 people.
Nor did America feel guilty about dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, killing about 250,000 civilians.
Summing up his argument, Berko writes: “The ridiculous demand for proportionality contradicts every basic principle of warfare.
“According to American strategist Thomas Schelling, you have to strike your enemy hard enough to make it not worthwhile for him to continue….
“In the Western world, killing someone in self-defense is considered justifiable homicide.”
Berko could just as easily have ended his column with the words of Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, whose Union forces cut a swath of destruction across the South in his famous “March to the Sea.”
William Tecumseh Sherman
Wrote Sherman: “Those people made war on us, defied and dared us to come south to their country, where they boasted they would kill us and do all manner of horrible things.
“We accepted their challenge, and now for them to whine and complain of the natural and necessary results is beneath contempt.”


1991 IRAQ WAR, 2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CNN, D-DAY, FACEBOOK, FLAMETHROWERS, GENERAL CURTIS E. LEMAY, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, NAVY SEALS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, PREDATOR DRONES, REPUBLICANS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIR FORCE, VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, VIETNAM WAR, WALT DISNEY, WORLD WAR 11
NO “VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER” IN IRAQ
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 11, 2014 at 9:02 amWith forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) launching a blitzkreig throughout Iraq, President Barack Obama seems to have caught the “Victory Through Airpower” disease.
ISIS has thrown the American-trained Iraqi Army into a panic, with soldiers dropping their rifles and running for their lives.
This has led Republicans to accuse the President of being about to “lose” Iraq.
As a result, Obama has shipped at least 300 American “advisors” to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad.
And on August 7 he authorized “limited airstrikes” against ISIS forces in Iraq, to prevent the fall of the Kurdish capital, Erbil
“Earlier this week, one Iraqi cried that there is no one coming to help,” said Obama. “Well, today America is coming to help.”
By August 10, the United States announced a fourth round of airstrikes Sunday against militant vehicles and mortars firing on Irbil.
Yet giving that order will not alter the balance of power in Iraq. It didn’t work for America in the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq.
Both wars opened with massive barrages of American missiles and bombs. The 1991 war saw the first use of the vaunted “stealth bomber,” which could avoid detection by enemy radar.
The 2003 war opened with an even greater bombardment to “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering. They didn’t.
Baghdad under “shock and awe” bombardment
Nor did air power prove effective on the Iraqi insurgency that erupted after American forces occupied Baghdad and much of the rest of the country.
That war had to be fought by U.S. Army regulars and Special Operations soldiers-–especially Navy SEALS. It was a dirty and private effort, marked by nightly kidnappings of suspected Iraqi insurgents.
Here’s where fantasy became fact for America’s military–and p0liticians.
Victory Through Air Power is a 1943 Walt Disney animated Technicolor feature film released during World War II. It’s based on the book–-of the same title–-by Alexander P. de Seversky.
Its thesis is summed up in its title: That by using bombers and fighter aircraft, the United States can attain swift, stunning victory over its Axis enemies: Germany, Italy and Japan.
Although it’s not explicitly stated, the overall impression given is that, through the use of air power, America can defeat its enemies without deploying millions of ground troops.
The movie has long since been forgotten except by film buffs, but its message has not. Especially by the highest officials within the U.S. Air Force.
Although the Air Force regularly boasted of the tonage of bombs its planes dropped over Nazi Germany, it failed to attain its primary goal: Break the will of the Germans to resist.
On the contrary: Just as the German bombings of England had solidified the will of the British people to resist, so, too, did Allied bombing increase the determination of the Germans to fight on.
Nor did the failure of air power end there.
On June 6, 1944–-D-Day–-the Allies launched their invasion of Nazi-occupied France.
It was the largest amphibious invasion in history. More than 160,000 troops landed–-61,715 British, 73,000 Americans, and 21,400 Canadians.
Allied air power bombed and strafed German troops out in the open. But it couldn’t dislodge soldiers barricaded in steel-and-concrete-reinforced bunkers or pillboxes. Those had to be dislodged, one group at a time, by Allied soldiers armed with rifles, dynamite and flamethrowers.
This situation proved true throughout the rest of the war.
Starting in 1964, the theory of “Victory Through Air Power” once again proved a dud–in Vietnam.
From 1964 to 1975, 14 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia–-more than five times as many as it dropped in World War II.
Yet the result proved exactly the same as it had in World War II: The bombing enraged the North Vietnamese and steeled their resolve to fight on to the end.
The belief that victory could be achieved primarily–-if not entirely–-through air power had another unforeseen result during the Vietnam war. It gradually sucked the United States ever deeper into the conflict.
To bomb North Vietnam, the United States needed air force bases in South Vietnam. This required that those bombers and fighters be protected.
So a force to provide round-the-clock security had to be maintained. But there weren’t enough guards to defend themselves against a major attack by North Vietnamese forces.
So more American troops were needed–-to guard the guards.
North Vietnam continued to press greater numbers of its soldiers into attacks on American bases. This forced America to provide greater numbers of its own soldiers to defend against such attacks.
Eventually, the United States had more than 500,000 ground troops fighting in Vietnam–with no end in sight to the conflict.
If American troops once again face off with Iraqis, “Victory Through Air Power” will prove as hollow a slogan as it has in the past.
Share this: