Replies

More accurately described as a battle than a war. In that context, but in my view one Israel can win by degrading Hizbollah to the extent they’re no longer a threat, and preventing their return. It’s unlikely Israel can do the latter with Syria fomenting terror in the region, but who knows, maybe the Lebanese government will step up. Lebanon needs “regime change” as well, armed militias need to be purged from their government.

Israel can’t do anything about Iran, or much about Syria, those jobs are left for the west. I think a free Lebanon would be a victory, but you’re right that Iraq is the regional key at this point. Syria will do what they need to survive, if that means getting out of the terror business, they’ll likely do it. Iran has greater ambitions.

More accurately described as a battle than a war. In that context, but in my view one Israel can win by degrading Hizbollah to the extent they’re no longer a threat, and preventing their return.

Exactly. At this point Israel is "mucking out the stable." There will be more manure after they've left, but if they repeat the chore sooner, they'll find it a little easier.

Post # 11 (Plenopotentuary) is interesting, perceiving that there is a strategic dimension in this, anticipating a larger shakedown with Iran and Syria in the future. It's a view I hadn't given sufficient consideration to. But I don't think it contradicts more immediate goals.

We need to redefine success for these kinds of incursions. If its going to be "wack-a-mole" then victory should be defined as destroying the hole, not killing the mole. We cannot overturn all regimes and impose governments, and this is what most people think of as victory. All we need to do is cripple their millitary and make their population restive so that the ruling party will need to divert their attention to domestic control. All governments are democratic to some extent.