[conservative in nyc]

Wars aren't fought in a day, and don't lend themselves to our 24-hour news cycle. Logistics take time to work out. Reservists need to be mobilized. Weapons need to be moved into place. Not to mention that there are millions of civilians, including Americans and other foreign nationals in Lebanon, which hampers Israel's ability to stage an all-out war.

Striking Syria first isn't necessarily in Israel's best interests right now for a number of reasons. For starters, Syria would lob even more missiles at Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. International public opinion will further turn against Israel. And whatever replaces the idiot Bashar Assad's government may be even worse than him.

[jhp]

I am not expecting an immediate reponse by any means, and i apologize b/c i know i've left that impression. What i am concerned about is the political will of the current Israeli govt. to conduct this war. And i agree that hitting Syria first isn't the best idea for all the reasons you mention. But Syria will get the message if a serious invasion of south lebanon (they need to secure the north side of the Litani river and trap those Hizbullah bastards in) and the bekka valley takes place. But an operation like that will require protection of the western flank (ie Syria) and it would be prudent militarily to take out Syrian SAM sites which could threaten air superiority over the bekka and should maybe hit an airbase or two to prevent any Syrian AF intervention (on second thought let them get airborne for another bekka valley turkey shoot). Olmert has got a lot to prove and if he doesn't handle this crisis well he will find himself out of a job