A vaccine for Human Papillomavirus (HPV), approved last year, has now sparked controversy in at least a half dozen states. HPV is by far the most common sexually transmitted virus in the U.S. (a recent study suggests as many as 25 percent of women under the age of 60 are infected). Symptoms are usually not serious but two rare strains of the virus can actually cause cervical cancer—the second most common form of cancer among American women.
That’s why the introduction of an HPV vaccine made waves last year. Approved by the FDA in June, it is the first vaccine that can avert a form of cancer. Public health officials hailed it, and even President Bush talked it up earlier this year.
But the vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck, quickly overreached in its effort to market it, pressuring state officials to mandate vaccination of sixth-grade girls. In February, Texas governor Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring vaccination, but when it was revealed that Perry’s former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for Merck, the company’s role in pushing for mandatory adoption became an issue across the country. In late February, Merck announced an end to its lobbying campaign.
The HPV vaccine stands to be a major boon to women’s health, but it is not an obvious candidate for mandatory use. Mandatory vaccination of children is generally used to prevent diseases that can spread easily in school—like chicken pox and mumps—and HPV does not quite qualify. Indeed, many parents are uneasy vaccinating their 11-year-old daughters against a sexually transmitted disease. Merck marched far too aggressively into that minefield, and by overplaying its hand has not only undermined its own vaccine, but may also have unwittingly contributed to a growing campaign to build doubts in parents’ minds about vaccines in general—a campaign with serious health implications.
That broader campaign has been building slowly for years, advanced especially by a few groups of parents of autistic children, who are persuaded (without concrete evidence) that chemicals in childhood vaccinations (especially small doses of mercury) cause autism. By planting baseless fears in the minds of parents, they have caused a real decline in the number of children being vaccinated, which could contribute to the resurgence of some diseases thought to be things of the past, like mumps. Public-health officials have come to realize over the past decade that vaccines are extremely sensitive territory. Apparently no one bothered to tell Merck.
So insh’allah there will be an electoral backlash and Israel will get a government that would satisfy the emperor.
The power most prepared to fight a war to the death is the power that rarely has to do so– and the power that succeeds if and when called to fight.
It’s a bonus to win bloodless conflicts– but those who plan for them guarantee nothing *but* bloodshed.
Unfortunately there is no good answer.
The energy, time and money spent on reoccupying Gaza would weaken Israel in confrontations with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran proper (as opposed to proxy). Not to mention weaken them at home financially.
The only lasting answers would be to
Return Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. But obviously neither country wants that.
Have a true moderate government that wants to build a lasting government in peace with Israel take over Palestine. At this point that group doesn’t exist.
Therefore the only answer is degrade Hamas’ abilities in the short term in both firepower and the tunnels that supply them. And hope that something changes in the interim.
it might be worth remembering that Germany fought WWII in the belief that -
The possibility of “defeat[ing] the enemy, sometimes without firing a shot” is not to be sneezed at. Is this a pipe dream? The present situation is one where deadly fire may be less effective than a non-violent, check mate.
Sun-tzu’s approach might work against suicide bombers and organizations like Hamas as follows:
An NGO with an endowment of $5 billion declares: every mortar round, and every Qassam and every fired into Israel, will bring a Jewish settlement on the West Bank, or village in the Galilee, or neighborhood in Tel Aviv, a million dollar bonanza. At the end o f every day, in time for the evening CNN news, the fund announces the number of rockets that were fired and the Israeli recipients for the corresponding sums.
The Palestinians would see in the Israeli celebrations that the efforts of Hamas are not weakening or frightening their enemy but delighting and strengthening him.
We know that Hamas is very determined and is willing and able to suffer great hardships. But is it able to stand bringing happiness to Jews?
Would describing Olmert as Israel’s Jimmy Carter be unfair to Olmert or to Carter?
I regret to write, but I’m afraid Max Boot has it exactly right. The long delay in launching a ground attack ,the failure to have a significant call up of reserves, all indicate a weak leadership and a morally weal public. The country simply hasn’t the guts and conviction required of an independent nation. No “winter soldiers” in this bunch.If we had a military and a public like this in WW2, those of us left alive would be speaking German. We fought in Tunisia with 1903 springfield rifles and in Italy I had a 1917 manufactured machinegun, BUT we were soldiers and the American public was ready to accept casualties because the War was worth winning. Leadership then made many mistakes,of course. Anzio was one. But leadership and populace knew it was VITAL to win. Israelis seem to lack that understanding.
Max Boot wrote, “True, Hezbollah has not launched an attack since 2006 so there is some deterrence effect from Israel’s military operations.”
Let us not make light of this fact. After all, isn’t no attacks what Israel was aiming for? In the fog of post-war analysis we have had lots of time for self-recrimination about how that war was fought and, for the record, I agree with those who say that it was run incompetently by Olmert and company. However, that being said, despite the fact that Hezbollah declared victory, and certainly had a propaganda victory, they have not attacked since then. Isn’t that exactly what Israel wants? If, by virtue of military action or otherwise Israel could have that result everywhere then that wouldn’t be so bad, would it? So let’s hope we get the same result but with a better face in Gaza.
True North — You have neatly encapsulated the deceptive trap of limited objectives. If “no attacks by Hezbollah” really is what Israel has been aiming for, then Israel is dumber than a box of rocks, or at least no smarter than the US when we got North Vietnam to stop attacking the South, long enough for us to announce “Peace with honor” and go home.
We could credit Israel’s attenuated military efforts in 2006 with the hiatus in attacks by Hezbollah. But we also have to recognize that Hezbollah has been busy in the interim consolidating political power in Lebanon, with the collusion of the Arab world and the larger international community. Hezbollah has further been bolstering its emerging political status with an evolving political relationship with Iran, moving beyond terrorist clienthood to political partnership. Hezbollah’s push since 2006 has been toward political legitimacy, state power, and conventional military capability; and this is not good for Israel.
Western liberal observers have hoped in vain, in many cases over the years, that terrorists and guerrillas seeking political legitimacy would find themselves domesticated by the process. The observers regularly predict this development, even though it never occurs. Hezbollah gaining state power will not turn into a harmless ward-heeling organization; it will, instead, subvert and undermine all remaining vestiges of parliamentary multilateralism and political tolerance in Lebanon.
Militarily, Israel has had little choice other than watching as Hezbollah cultivates political “legitimacy.” But it would be very foolish to mistake this unfolding drama for a pacification of Hezbollah, or a case in point for the efficacy of military demonstrations. Hanoi was much impressed by America’s show of military strength too — all the way from 1972 to April of 1975. Hezbollah has not bombed its last.
nacl, Hitler did not exhibit careful planning in, e.g., unilaterally declaring war on the USA.
Let’s hope Israeli leaders resolve to see this through and depose Hamas. Anything less will be a frightening blow to the country’s prestige and deterrent power.
The military solution is so obvious as to be painful. Israel curtails its aerial bombardment (which tends to be counter-productive in any case). It moves an armored brigade along the Gaza-Egyptian border until it reaches the sea, then moves up the coast. Other brigades move in from the east and the north. Avoiding the major population centers of Gaza City, Rafa and Khan Yunis, it places these under close blockade. Anyone who wants to leave can do so, provided they come out unarmed. After a few days, most of the civilians will be gone. Israel can then begin dispatching commando teams from the various Sayerot units to selectively eliminate key leaders and strongpoints. After about a weak of this, it will be possible to go into the towns in strength, with the elite Golani and Givati infantry brigades leading. Another week of messy street fighting, and there will be no more Hamas in Gaza.
The hard part, of course, is what Israel does next. In a way, this is all our fault, because Israel should never have given up control of the occupied territories to the Palestinian Authority, but hey, we’re the ones into self-determination for all.
Just one detail: Could the “tough fighting” you say is in store with an invasion of Gaza possibly be any tougher anywhere in the world? It’s a massive urban sprawl that looks like a death trap–for both sides–more than just “tough fighting.”
We’re not talking the Red Army at Stalingrad, here. We’re talking about a bunch of thugs not particularly good at fighting people who can shoot back. Against such adversaries, the old paradigm of urban warfare, where the defender has a 6:1 advantage does not hold. I expect the Israelis to take several hundred casualties in the process of clearing Gaza, which would be on par with the casualties taken by the U.S. when it retook Falluja. Had Falluja been defended by a competent enemy, U.S. casualties would have numbered several thousands killed. The Israelis have the tactics, the training and the technology to dismantle any defense Hamas can put up. Also remember that the Israelis know the area intimately, and probably have much better intelligence on the ground than we had in Iraq back in 2004-2005.
Under Ehud Barak Israel will plan this invasion carefully. The question has to do with political will, about which Israel, following the lack of backbone in the West, has apparently gone wobbly.