Israel's Lebanon incursion

The IDF's advance into Lebanon after two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah is certainly not the first example of cross-border hostilities between the states. Hezbollah has long been a dominant force in southern Lebanon, firing rockets into Israel, and the Israeli occupation force returned home only six years ago. The 1980s, of course, saw a war between the two countries, and Israel began its occupation before that decade ended.

But what does today's incursion say about the value of state borders, and the gravity of Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits states from infringing upon the territorial integrity of other states? Granted, Israel would surely invoke Article 51, which guarantees a right to self defense. Hezbollah is not the Lebanese military, but it does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament. So perhaps Israel's attack, including the destruction of a few bridges, is justified.

But it's still messy.

It reminds me of the U.S. Army's campaign into Mexico to get Pancho Villa in 1916 and 1917. We have a litte border violence today, but less than 100 years ago, hundreds of Americans were killed by Villa's men, and 75,000 National Guard troops were dispatched to the border. (The regular U.S. cavalry was there as well, including a young lieutenant named George S. Patton.) In comparison, President Bush's current plan to send 6,000 troops to the same area seems pretty tame.

Of course, the United Nations wasn't around in 1916 to be concerned about Mexico's territorial integrity, but then-President Wilson did ask Mexico for permission before we sent troops in. Agreement was reluctant, but it was agreement.