How proportional do you want it?

Everyone keeps telling Israel to use proportional force.

This fight is extremely disproportionate, but in the favor of the terrorists; they are not wearing uniforms, so they can disappear into the crowds they hide behind. They are not bound by any rules, like, don't shoot at ambulances. They will shoot from places of worship, and God help whoever returns fire. As I said before, knock a chip of paint off of an outhouse in the middle east, and you have 'Desecrated one of Islam's holiest shrines'. Every city is 'The Holy City of...' They shoot from hospitals, or even among UN 'Observers', then scream foul when Israel shoots back anyway. The press is invaribly forgiving of the terrorists tactics, explaining that this is the only way they can score kills. Yet they are unforgiving when Israel takes out one of the children these scumbags hide behind.

When the terrorists have a prisoner, they always seem to demand Israel trade twenty or fifty or hundreds of their guys in custody to get the Isreali back. So, by their math, one of Israel's guys is worth twenty or fifty or hundreds of theirs? How proportional is that? They do the same thing to us in Iraq, unless they chop up the prisoner first. Given the apparent value to humanity these people show, I think their disproportionate math is probably justified.

It occurs to me that what people seem to want when they ask for 'Proportionate Response' is a war that ends in a tie. Just like the scoreless soccer and football that liberals like to play, they want the wars, if you must have them, to be even and fair. Sorry, but a 'fair' fight is the one that I win. I am sure the Japanese didn't think the nukes we hit them with was 'proportional', but they damn well gave up, too. The Germans probably didn't think we were being fair, either. Tough.

The best measure of force to use is enough to win. Convincingly.