Think even of the Second World War. Did it make the world safer or more dangerous? If you point to the atom bomb, the Cold War and the Communist victory in China, it becomes easy to say that it left the world even more dangerous in 1950 than it had been in 1939 or 1941. So should the Americans, British and their other allies have shrunk back from war? Of course not.

The war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous because the occupying forces failed to impose security or facilitate the creation of a legitimate Iraqi government soon enough. The war in Lebanon that has resulted from Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and hoarding of huge numbers of rockets near Israel's border might, in a certain limited sense, be considered justified. Retaliation, the punishment of Hezbollah, the destruction of some of its weapons, the deterrence of future raids are all understandable aims if you are Israel.

But if Israel's and America's aim becomes to fight this war until Hezbollah is entirely defeated and disarmed, then things could become even more dangerous. Such an aim is not achievable. Pursuing it will make things worse, not better, both for Israel and for the wider Middle East.

The real opponent in such a war becomes Iran with Syria as an accomplice, not Hezbollah. Does George Bush really want such a war? It could become like the Korean War of 1950-53, which began as a justified, UN-sanctioned effort to prevent a North Korean takeover of South Korea and became a war between America, its allies, and a China determined to display its military strength and willing to take hundreds of thousands of casualties in doing so.

The war in Lebanon must be stopped. The new status quo will not be a happy or safe one. But the alternative of a long war is far more dangerous.