According to the JPost, an IDF Division with APCs is headed North right now.
No, Olmert is losing his nerve, IMO. He's looking for the easiest possible way to stop the offensive without losing face and his job.
He's had little choice but to allow the IDF to bomb Lebanon due to circumstances, but I'm of the opinion he's still a pussy and doesn't have the spine to follow all the way through with a full assault on hezbollah.
This "development" seems to be another sign that he's incapable of taking this offensive the distance, IMO.
The deaths in Haifa should have been enough to insure a ground offensive into southern Lebanon at least, but who knows what the Israeli government is thinking currently.
At this point, I would have assumed that a full out ground offensive would be under way. I know it takes time for logistics to satisfy the demands of such a plan, but it still seems to me that Olmert and Peretz are simply relying on air strikes as a 'show of force' that will stop the attacks, which of course is unlikely to happen.
This 'restrained' BS needs to stop, IMO.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I bet there is some serious internal strife going on between the IDF and the Olmert govt.
Pox wrote:
No, Olmert is losing his nerve, IMO. He's looking for the easiest possible way to stop the offensive
without losing face and his job.
So if IDF was under your command, you would publicly state that you intended to overrun Lebanon, giving a precise estimate of when you would begin offensive operations, at a point in time well before your military was ready to execute?
If and when Israel stands down its reserves, you can call capitulation credibly.
If and when that happens, we can then discuss the advisability of initiating a potential nuclear conflict over three kidnap victims, and a vehement desire to prove that an individual is not a "pussy".
You do not have to possess high energy weapons to inflict nuclear damage onto your enemy, all you need to do is demonstrate an ability to hit your enemy's nuclear installations successfully.
I know the young bucks always want to run in and prove their courage, and this is all part of a Darwinian process. Not every adolescent is permitted to advance up the chain of command to become a general officer.
But with age comes wisdom, and with wisdom comes an inclination to dot every i, and cross every t before initiating combat. It is a part of respecting the lives of those who serve under your command, and a part of respecting the lives of those whom you have sworn to serve and defend.
When the board doesn't offer favorable odds, a true general is never afraid to wait for a better opportunity.
We survived, prospered, and won a 30 year nuclear stalemate with the Soviet Union, and we did not do so by rushing into combat half cocked. We took some losses square on the chin in light of avoiding losses in much greater numbers.
All this said, I am not advocating that anyone back down, at least not at this point. I do think it prudent however, to assess all of the possible outcomes, and design a strategy consistent with achieving your objectives with the fewest possible casualties, execute that strategy fearlessly, and re-assess the effectiveness of said strategy at numerous points along the way.
I think if we choose not to engage at this time, then in the long run we can take the Islamists, utilizing many of the same natural tendencies which defeated the Soviet Union.
I also think that if we take the time to maneuver a very small quantity of additional assets into place, we can engage all of our enemies now with full expectations of victory.
I do not have access to the body of information available to the Israeli Prime Minister, nor to the US Government, but I do have faith in my Commander in Chief to accurately assess the situation and take the proper course in this matter.
From there, I can rest peacefully, come what may.