What I find inexplicable is the Israeli bombing of Beirut. I can understand, from their point of view, wanting to create a buffer zone on their border; I cannot understand bombing and chasing out of Lebanon the only counter force to Hezbollah within Lebanon. Thanks to Israeli bombardment everyone with a passport and money is leaving; those that remain are the Shiite base of Hezbollah.

I have heard ANC speakers say why they never did terrorists acts. They said they were out to divide the enemy not unite them. Not so long ago the very people Israel is forcing out of Lebanon were in the streets demonstrating against the Syrian occupation. Now Israel is thanking them with bombs.

And in all fairness, since I have been talking up Tom Ricks's article, Brad DeLong compares his earlier journalism & wonders when the hell the scales fell off his eyes, & why we haven't heard about that spot on the road to Damascus.

Sir, I hope & pray that you're right ...

My fear is that the population�s judgment will be that anyone killing the Israelis who bombed their families, can�t be all bad. Lots of past evidence for that conclusion�s being drawn.

Yes, and in most cases that would be the case. However, after the Cedar Revolution, the people's view of Hezbollah has changed from them being "one of them" to being agents, or at least lap dogs, of Syria. It is my opinion that Israel hopes to use those feelings to turn the blame on Hezbollah and by proxy Syria as well.

Right, but I wouldn't rule it out of hand either. Cf. "the American military." As the Tom Ricks article reminds us, a smart, competent military can be rendered stupid & incompetent by its civilian leadership.

By bringing the fight to Lebanon as a whole, Israel forces the population to make a judgment of Hezbollah, do they represent Lebanon enough to make it worth fighting their war, or not?

Maybe so. My fear is that the population's judgment will be that anyone killing the Israelis who bombed their families, can't be all bad. Lots of past evidence for that conclusion's being drawn.

If Israel is careful they can inflict enough harm for people to blame Hezbollah, but not so much harm that they blame Israel more.

That's the catch, indeed.

I'm sure the IDF is very familiar with Galua. Again, nobody should be thinking the Israeli military is stupid or incompetent.

Here is the issue, Hezbollah is not an insurgency in Israeli occupied land. It was once, yes, and it may become that again, true. In fact, that is probably the preferable position for Hezbollah. But, when all this started, Hezbollah was not an insurgency, nor were they operating in an area occupied by a foreign power. They are a rouge militia operating without the oversight of consent of the government elected by the Lebanese people.

Given that difference, Israel's actions make more sense. You can't fight a foreign militia on foreign soil without involving that foreign nation. Hezbollah wants to fight Israel remotely, Israel is denying them that. By bringing the fight to Lebanon as a whole, Israel forces the population to make a judgment of Hezbollah, do they represent Lebanon enough to make it worth fighting their war, or not? It will be interesting to see what Lebanon decides, already there is anger at Hezbollah for this. If Israel is careful they can inflict enough harm for people to blame Hezbollah, but not so much harm that they blame Israel more.

And Anderson is once again showing his ability to PLAGIARIZE thoughts and words from someone else,

Like I said, So what else is new ?

Israel Begins “Limited” Incursions Into LebanonBy Greg Tinti After “massing” on the Israel-Lebanon border yesterday, the IDF has commenced a campaign of “limited” ground operations with the purpose of destroying Hezbollah infrastructure in ...

The relevance to the present debacle in Lebanon is striking, and those interested in intelligent assessments rather than tough-guy "bomb them all" bluster might wish to read the whole thing:

Galula warned specifically against the kind of large-scale conventional operations the United States repeatedly launched with brigades and battalions, even if they held out the allure of short-term gains in intelligence. He insisted that firepower must be viewed very differently than in regular war.

"A soldier fired upon in conventional war who does not fire back with every available weapon would be guilty of a dereliction of his duty," he wrote; "the reverse would be the case in counterinsurgency warfare, where the rule is to apply the minimum of fire." * * *

As civil affairs officers found to their dismay, Army leaders tended to see the Iraqi people as the playing field on which a contest was played against insurgents. In Galula's view, the people are the prize.

"The population . . . becomes the objective for the counterinsurgent as it was for his enemy," he wrote.

From that observation flows an entirely different way of dealing with civilians in the midst of a guerrilla war. "Since antagonizing the population will not help, it is imperative that hardships for it and rash actions on the part of the forces be kept to a minimum," Galula wrote.

Apparently nobody in the IDF has read this book, either, or paid attention to its validation by counterexample in our last 3 years in Iraq. It's now a bestseller at our staff college at Leavenworth ... too late, I fear.

Wow. I never thought kidnapping Israeli soldiers stationed in Israel consitutes capturing POWs. Plus, Bush is criticized for calling out Syria and Iran for supporting this terrorist group.

I guess we know what side ken is taking in this fight...

Fixed it. Thanks.

Ken: it's all happening just like in that Left Behind book! No wonder Bush is thrilled!

Further proof that Bush is insane.