still can't figure out which set of goal posts is in play -
reports were that if Hizbullah/Lebanon did not accept a cease fire by wednesday then Olmert was going to call for a step up in ground ops
other reports said if Hizbullah did not stop firing by the weekend then military ops would be expanded.
which is it, or is this just more double talk coming from Olmert.
I like your "sand in the gears" analogy with Olmert's handling of the conflict. And that he will be forced to continue this war b/c Israelis demand it. And that if any cease fire were accepted its terms would be more beneficial to the Israelis than Lebanon. But i'm not so sure that construct holds true b/c there has been a lot of talk about including the Lebanonese demands into the cease fire (not exactly sure which ones), but i think the worse outcome would be for Olmert to continue dragging his heels militarily and then accepting a cease fire with terms which conceivably could allow Hizbullah to survive
He is in danger of doing that. They forgot the lessons of Shock and Awe. Overwhelming force.
Assuming the council meets Wednesday, there will be further callups, which take time. The the troops have to assemble and be outfitted, more time. Then they have to make it to the front, figure on 5 mph, standard for large military formations dealing with civvies trying to use the same limited road network.
The you have the border crossing, then passage through existing lines, etc, etc, etc.
At any point in the chain, the UN or developments on the ground can and probably will cause further delays, if not stopping an offensive entirely.
A drive on the Lit is possible, but a lot of i's have to be dotted and t's crossed before it actually happens.