Ok that will effect the economy, all those trained workers the skilled ones not in there jobs.
And while you may not think its important, it is a very important component in all countries mobilisation plan.
Army's are consumers not producers.
Ok lets say they invade Lebanon and occupy it.
1) What is the occupation policy.
2) What to do with the Lebanon population.
Dealing with Syria.
1) What is the occupation policy.
2) What to do with the Syrian population.
How many troops will be needed to sustain a viable occupation force in both Lebanon and Syria.
As for Iraq we have not won on the ground yet, but we are getting there, we have a long hard slog in front of us.
A victory will be when Iraq is stable enough to stand on her own two feet and be able to secure her borders.
I have nothing against limited strikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.
But that is another matter.
Move the population out of any area you intend to keep, at gunpoint, then formally annex the territory taken. Mine and wire the new border, and keep it closed.
It is really very simple.
"How many troops will be needed to sustain a viable occupation force in both Lebanon and Syria." Since the parts they decide to keep will have a population that consists entirely of Israelis, precious few. The border needs to be defended as a military line - but a line not an area. With prepared defenses.
"we have not won on the ground yet"
Sure we have. There are some nutters setting off bombs occasionally because we insist the new Iraqi government play pattycake according to Al-Grab rules, but that is self inflicted. There are brazen enemies like Sadr walking around free because we don't have much in the way of nerve, but that is self inflicted. There would still be random murder, there is random murder in Washington DC. Nobody pretends it means we haven't yet won the war to liberate Anacostia.
Victory is not the absence of violence. There is no absence of violence in this world. Victory is the absence of success for the initiators of it, and them being on the receiving end regularly. The rest is merely the ongoing duties of free men, to kill their enemies as those present themselves.
"A victory will be when Iraq is stable enough to stand on her own two feet and be able to secure her borders."
It also needs to be able to hold of Iran should it invade. Oops, it will still need our help for that. That was all Nam needed, and political defeat at home on an unrelated matter took it away. SVN was farther along than Iraq is, in terms of defending itself. In 1972 it defeated the equivalent of a full invasion by Iran, with just US air to help. But in 1975 the air wasn't there, and last I checked there is no south Vietnam on the maps anymore.
The moral of which is, only winning the whole war matters in the long run. And the political front is decisive for that objective.
As for stuff on the ground inside Iraq against the nutters, the Iraqis need to execute Saddam yesterday, and they need to shoot Sadr, and they need to break a few thousand balls every night in basements without a permission slip from a JAG lawyer. All of which are failures of nerve, politically, and none of which are unfinished military matters.
"I have nothing against limited strikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities."
Nor do I, if they did so. But we aren't going to launch them - watch and see. And that I have something against.