It's quiet, little is happening, I finally have time to say something I've wanted to say for a good while now, with at least a chance to get it right.
Back in the early days I took some grief for pointing out that it would be ignorant and dangerous for Israel to invade southern Lebanon until all available ABM assets were in place.
Israel didn't.
That might mean Olmert's a twinkie, and it might mean he's one hell of a well informed or well advised player.
Later on Israel took a lot of grief over those hinky limited incursions into Southern Lebanon, but you'll notice that not one Iranian IRBM has cracked containment at Dimona, no Syrian missiles with chem warheads have landed in Israel, and that certain losses have been inflicted on Hezbollah.
Olmert might be a twinkie, and he might be a real player, capable of walking a very fine line.
Today we see Israel catching significant hell over a ceasefire, taken at a time when the Muslim street was tearing up pavement and would probably have, within 24 hours or less, forced commentary out of Muslim leaders like Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Mubarak in Egypt that we couldn't overlook and they couldn't take back.
Olmert might be a twinkie, and then again, he might just have found the only way to preserve both this war, and also our relationships with these Muslim countries.
I know everybody has their pet theories, but I just like to look at the straight math, and so far, this equation remains indeterminate.
astute post.
here is some math for you [in support of my pet theory ;)]
at every decision making point in your post, one of the options is "Olmert is a twinkie". So, given the limited spectrum of time in which this conflict takes place there is a 50/50 shot of Olmert being a twinke by your account
Now lets look at all points in time prior to this conflict, and i'll wrap it up nicely in one of Olmert's more infamous quotes:
"We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."
Now do the math.
It just occurred to me, since the "leaders" keep us guessing, maybe this is a good thing.
Mo1, have a look at jeffers's post #262.
I'm still very skeptical.
I remember squaring off with you that night and you "clicked" me.
I had said to you that Israel had no intention of invading Southern Lebanon...killing a bunch of Hezzies and then occupying and "holding the hill", because they didn't have enough troops along the border and that they would be vulnerable.
I preferred the hit and run techniques they seem to be utilizing all week.
Remember we talked about FAEs...(fuel air explosives) to render the bunkers useless and to suck the oxygen away from anybody with ambush on their minds.
I have come to look for your contributions here, and am glad we've communicated since.
Cheers!