I really don't understand why they are still only using 10000 soldires. Just put a good 60000 troops on the ground and wipe the area up to the Litani river clean of everything that puts up resistance.

Diplomatic pressure is the only reason this has not happened yet. You can thank the Arab League and their buddies the French for extending this war. Why are they aruging over when the Israelis will leave? Does anybody really have any doubts that they will leave as soon as an internatinal force shows up?

Clearly the Arab Leage and France are arguing simply to make it seem like Hezbollah won something. And I say fck them all. If they want to endure more of their people dying for no reason, then they are welcome to stay the current course.

probable manipulation at the New York Times...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22017_Down_the_Rabbit_Hole&only

Color, how is prolonging the war by not using a full size ground force causeing any less "carange". You think airstirkes will kill less people than ground forces?

I understand they don't want to suffer losses, and I'm with them on that 100%, but you can't win a war from the air. And putting just 10000 in is unfair to the 10000. Why are they being undermined by not haveing more stoop support?

Obvoiusly I'm no military expert, but it seems, that if last time it took 60000 to capture the same area of Lebanon (in 82) when the resistance was smaller, and Israel had local allies, 10000 will not do this time around.

Interesting collection of faked media images...


http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Posted by simrud:

I really don't understand why they are still only using 10000 soldires. Just put a good 60000 troops on the ground and wipe the area up to the Litani river clean of everything that puts up resistance.

Diplomatic pressure is the only reason this has not happened yet. You can thank the Arab League and their buddies the French for extending this war. Why are they aruging over when the Israelis will leave? Does anybody really have any doubts that they will leave as soon as an internatinal force shows up?

Clearly the Arab Leage and France are arguing simply to make it seem like Hezbollah won something. And I say fck them all. If they want to endure more of their people dying for no reason, then they are welcome to stay the current course.

I'm with Colorfl1 here. Israel has to show some restraint - to minimize carnage as well as animosity in the region. Simrud - 60,000 is overkill - which will most certainly backfire. Think of the consequences for a minute. You will never be able to get every single Hezbollah member - but you will definitely inspire more violent anti-Israel sentiment among Muslim people in the region. Don't be surprised when that expanding group of Arab terrorists use that as an excuse to kill you and your family in the name of -od.

Code the thing is, there are already plenty of Muslim terrorists who would like to kill me and my family in the name of their deity. Frankly, it doesnt matter how many many more million of them are out there.

Muslims hate Israel almost entirely already. Nothing Israel does, or doesnt do change that.

kill4luv--listen i'm not a big fan of gwb, i think he's the worst president in modern times, ALTHOUGH i feel he is RIGHT about SOME of his convictions with axis of evil--problem is he helped maked axis bigger--moving into south america, africa, now russia etc.. and has us is quagmire using a war plan that has 0/100 chance of success. i UNDERSTAND what he is trying to do, be on the aggresive, but strategic blunder has cost him everything he can woo-wooo new terror plot and spin it, but he is an exacberator not realy and inhibitor.

remember what i said about these people would be happy to drag my daughter or yours head through streets of tehran--this is why we support almost any us measure, even if we think its nuts or wrong like in basketball you might not like the guys you play with, but you still want to win

those people getting on those planes were looking to blow up my-your--maybe someone else who post here? kid in a plane over the ocean--this is how you want our kids to go?

gwb is RIGHT to stay on aggresion, but unless you use military tactic of complete annihilation---its the only one that works--look at history you must flatten opponent!you watse time lives money etc..

are you scared to send your kids to school this year? does your wife work in a hospital? what if terroists look to soft spots where my family is like this? you know what my answer is flatten the MFers who want to do this before they get my family or yours. If they want to fck with us like this, we have to hit them so hard that they never think about it again, or just dont have capability.


also, muslim communities not doing enough to denounce these acts. why dont muslim american briton australian etc step up and say enough---why they wont do it. a key here is if muslims around the world use one strong voice, but that isnt going to happen and ultimately were going dow a road where us muslims could face hard times.

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by codeunknown:

I'm with Colorfl1 here. Israel has to show some restraint - to minimize carnage as well as animosity in the region. Simrud - 60,000 is overkill - which will most certainly backfire. Think of the consequences for a minute. You will never be able to get every single Hezbollah member - but you will definitely inspire more violent anti-Israel sentiment among Muslim people in the region. Don't be surprised when that expanding group of Arab terrorists use that as an excuse to kill you and your family in the name of -od.

Are you guys joking?? Hezbollah has already announced its purpose is the DESTRUCTION of the state of Israel. 60,000 or 10,000 wont do ****. It wont make anyone in that area hate Israel any less. Get it over with and send as many as you need to secure that area.

[Edited by - Silverfuel on 08-11-2006 05:49 AM]

Its unfortunate that you feel that way, Silverfuel. That won't get it over with. That will get it started, however. There are really 2 things I'm concerned about. One is strategic from Israel's point of view - you don't send in a massive target early without eliminating Hezbollah's rocket capabilities because it is entirely likely they will fire on their own soil in a move that sacrifices their own civillians. Theoretically, utilizing ground troops is a strategy that aims to reduce the non-specific damage that comes unavoidably with air-strikes and, in that light, its admirable that Isreal would risk its soldiers in a move that finally attempts to minimize Lebanese civillian casualties. Yet, that poses a significant risk on invading troops. In fact, some sources have commented on the susceptibility of poorly armored Israeli tanks to the mainstay of Hezbollah anti-tank weapons and rockets, which are descending on Israel as we speak - empirical proof that their arsenal is not yet fully depleted. The deployment and distribution of these troops is a risky venture even under armored protection as a result of the shortened distance to enemy rockets, discrete localization of troops, extensive time of operation and a potential Hezbollah territorial advantage. The risk becomes further daunting when you consider that deploying a force of 60,000 soldiers depletes a significant segment of the Israeli army, listed at 125,000 active personnel in 2004, and encourages opportunistic attacks from potent scavengers including Hamas, Syria and Iran.

I am just as concerned with the carnage dealt to the Lebanese people. The evident danger with over-supplying troops is the excessive and redundant use of force as well as the statistical significant increase in military blunders. If you're sending in an enormous number of troops, you need the equipment to arm and support them. Thus, the variable of interest is this offensive equipment, which gives you an upper bound estimate of destruction, in an equation which seeks to maximize Hezbollah disarmament and minimize any casualties on any side. The constraint on the equation should be the conceived threshold necessary to deter Hezbollah forces, an assessment that differs significantly from the 82 war, which was fought with relatively inefficient equipment and an implicit goal of temporary deterrent occupation. Every Israeli soldier is now equipped with an IMI Tavor assault rifle, an upgrade, as well as an M16 and hand grenades. Modern NEGEV lightweight machine guns that can fire up to 1000 rounds per minute and MK19 grenade launchers are also plentiful. Despite the majority of APCs in the Israeli armny, the 401 brigade has upgraded Merkava Mark 4 tanks. The war is clearly different and a conservative but but sufficient approach is best - as opposed to the silly "lets crash the party and get it over with" notion.

As I've explained before, every life - civillian or military, Arab or Israeli - is EXTREMELY valuable to me as a human being and a doctor first and foremost. These are real people - not pawns or dummies - intelligent, consious lives that breathe and suffer and dream. The carnage I was referring to is one of catastrophic, blood-curdling proportions and one that could critically impact both sides. From my empiricist Utilitarian perspective, a conservative ground troop approach is clearly the a priori strategy to follow.

Posted by colorfl1:

I have already said that I do not know what the right answer is between these dire choices in this current predicement.

I was just commenting on the general Israeli mindset.

I wasn't addressing you. Regardless of what the right answer is, there is a correct framework and Isreal is being prudent at least in not exterminating the area impulsively.

As you obviously stated, the goal is to halt the threat in a manner which elicits the least casualties. Those launchers, which Israel is trying to destroy, are recognizably located in civillian areas and casualties are inevitable. Minimizing them is the key. And remaining conservative with troops, who remain at risk if deployed in APCs, is the best option at the moment while diplomatic resolutions are still on the table.