Forwarded to the Israelis. Hopefully we'll see action soon.

By they way, looking forward to your next installment of the Sabbath Prayer for Peace.

Wow Mark,

You should be in charge of the Israeli offensive!
Go, Mark, go!!

I don't think a landing from the sea or even air is likely for many reasons. But I think the delay is for two purposes:

First, I think the major reason is that Israel had about 10,000 ground troops ready and involved in the current fighting. Their estimates for a full-scale ground attack big enough to defeat Hezbollah is 40,000. They way the Israeli army is configured, that takes a few days to mobilize. Most have already activated and are ready to roll, so the that will soon not be part of the delay.

The second is window-dressing. By that I mean they are "giving the UN one last chance" to come up with a cease-fire agreement with which they can live. That is not going to happen, and they needed the time to assemble the ground forces for the offensive that is about to unfold.

Once it starts, there will be no stopping it until Hezbollah is defeated. And that will come to pass. Resupplies from Iran and Syria will be attacked vigorously and stopped as part of this offensive.

And once again, Shipley, having nothing constructive to say, says it anyway.

Canadians should restrict their "thoughts" to the only things they know: ice fishing, moose hunting, and hockey. In every other subject they are like the provervial French accordian, useless.

Rev,

If the Israelis can't defeat 4,000 guerillas with 10,000 soldiers, what makes you think 40,000 will get the job done?

Secondly, The Israeli bombing campaign already cut-off Hezbollah from Syria...I mean how exactly are they getting supplies from the north when everything moving is bombed by Israeli warplanes, and the roads and bridges have already been severed?

"And once again, Shipley, having nothing constructive to say, says it anyway."

--I find that to be the most hypocritical statement I have heard all day.

Third Eye Open- Standard military tactics-attacking forces should outnumber defending forces at least 6 to 1. This is what my professor taught me in a Military History graduate course.

Nice Mark, you just employed my strategy I use in playing "Risk" for defeating the Hezbollah!

Third Eye Blind, how are they getting supplies? The UN has been seen actively resupplying Hezbollah with weapons. The Red Cross workers have also been assisting Hezbollah. That's how they're getting supplied.

Mark, I love Bush, I reall do. However, how exactly do you expect Israel to take a bold action when you have the United States, Britain, France, and internation Co. breathing down her neck to make a cease-fire?!? I would love to see Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gilerman, to ask John Bolton when America and Britain will negotiate a cease-fire in Iraq. That would be crazy, they would say. Iraq is the front lines of terrorism. Giving into the terrorists via a cease-fire would be a victory for terrorists, they would say.

Mr Gillerman would answer, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT WOULD BE CRAZY TO "CUT AND RUN" IN IRAQ. ISRAEL IS ALSO FIGHTING ON THE FRONT LINES OF TERRORISM, AND OUR COUNTRY IS MORE IN THE ACTION THAN YOURS. NOW, WHY ARE YOU ASKING US TO COMMITT SUICIDE AND MAKE A CEASE-FIRE WITH TERRORISTS COMMITTED TO DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL???

Need I say more on how crazy this "diplomatic" situation is?
-OC

Rich,
Then they need 24,000 troops -- or maybe they did math differently at the grad school I attended.
Also, did your professor ever mention the term, "force multipliers"?
If he did, I'm sure you'd agree that having complete control of the air and a balanced force of armor, infantry and arty represent a significant advantage for the attacker facing troops armed with light weapons and WWII vintage rockets.

Forgive me, I never went to grad school. 6-1, force multipliers, wow, do I ever feel naive. I'm just Joe Sixpack, a guy who thinks they should just bomb the bejesus out of them. Light em' up. Show them the wrath of God. Whoever survives the raids should have their heads put on spears. (I watched Spartecus, the other day. You know, the one with Kirk Douglas) This should put the fear into the rest of them heathen. All rules are out now. White phosphur them. Shoot any male of military age. The civilian populace has been warned to get out. Who ever stays now is one o' them terrorists. Light em' up. They have two options: get on their knees and pray to the right God, and put the weapons down and walk out now while they have a chance.

Mark, you can be my "backseat general" anytime you want. Your views are always Godly and on spot. I am sure Jesus will warmly shake your hand as you enter the kingdom of heaven. Being in the military you have a keen perspective of the theatre of battle. It is our loss you are not there. On point. Leading the charge. I wish you were there.

May God bless George Bush and all those who support him unfailingly.

Tom,

But for the protection offered by the British Indian Army, Ghandi would never have amounted to anything...to be a man of peace cannot, in propriety, mean being a man who will never make war.

I want peace - and I will pray for it again and again...but I also know where duty lies, and I do have a fund of knowledge about matters military.

Salve,

Couple reason:

1. Hezbollah is very well dug in - concrete bunkers an all that.

2. The terrain is exceptionally rugged and not conducive to armoured warfare.

3. They have more than just small arms and WWII vintage rockets.

4. As Israel advances, they'll need a right flank guard against any possible move by Syria to intervene.

5. As Israel advances, every square inch of supply lines will have to be ceasely guarded by forces sufficient to defend themselves against any conceivable enemy action.

All in all, it ads up.

"1. Hezbollah is very well dug in - concrete bunkers an all that."-MN

I wonder what dropping a MOAB on one of those concrete bunkers would do to those Hezbollah cowards who hide behind children?

"Hey Nasrallah, this one's for you!"

Freedom, the MSM would scream about the children that were killed. Now, I personally think it would be worth it if we knew for sure Nasrallah and his lieutenents were there. Course, a comando raid might be more effective, fewer chances of civilian casualties.

Um Sal, what the hell is your point? I said AT LEAST 6 to 1. Please try to keep up. Obviously more is better in this situation. Of course we talked about force multipliers. Hezbollah has many force multipliers itself; knowledge of the terrain, human shields, supply lines from Syria, the media, the United Nations, and moron democratic terrorist enablers. I think we have a few of the last ones on this site. Know any? Besides, when did I say anything about Israel not having the advantage anyways? Its a nice straw man, but I don't really see your angle with it. As far as light weapons, have you completely ignored the news articles highlighting Hezbollah's Iranian made tank killing rpgs (capable of destroying Israel's heavily armored Merkava Tanks)or are you simply playing ignorant to pain the Hezbos as poor victims. Poor little terrorists, throwing rocks at tanks like those poor Palestinians. -

Raker- you are seriously annoying and have way too much time on your hands. I hope you realize you are the only person being amused by your idiotic posts.

If Hezbollah is not destroyed, they win.

Heck, if Israel DOES destroy them; it will be hard enough for the MSM to admit their 'liberators of occupation and oppression' have been eliminated. Just a 'setback', I suppose.

If only Rumsfeld listened to Rich back in 2003 -- or at any time since, for that matter.

Olah

This is exactly my point. Israel is in the front line in the GWOT. If you weaken Israel, you only make the Western World harder to defned. Unfortunately our leaders have a huge blind spot here. I don't want a cease fire. I want Israel to win out right. The mere fact that anyone wnats a cease fire, indicates that Israel is whipping Hezbollah's tush. All along my condern has been that Israel would be forced into a cease fire prematurely.

Rich

To bad Don Rumsfeld did not take your military history course. One should not need a military history course to know these things. It shuld be common sense.

Salve

Hezbollah is more powerful than you give them credit for. Rich discusses this pretty well. Respectfully, I would suggest, in addition to your main stream media sources, that you consult sources outside of the main stream media. Willing or not the main stream media is being played by Hezbollah and their terrorist enablers.

Um Rich,
I'll grant you that 10:1 is better than 6:1.
As for poor terrorists "throwing rocks at tanks" don't even go there.
If I'm not mistaken the technology for ERA-defeating double charge penetrators goes back over a decade -- hardly some "secret weapon" -- even if the media is just discovering it, I've no doubt that the IDF is very familiar with it. Tanks have been suseptible to various hand-held antitank weapons since WWII and tactics to protect them have continually evolved to meet the threat. When tanks get involved with infantry at close range -- tanks will be knocked out -- the IDF knows all about that too. I might ask what your point is -- poor IDF, forced to fight an enemy that can destroy their tanks if they're not careful?
As for your list of Hezbollah force mulipliers; you're frankly blowing smoke. Knowledge of the terrain is an advantage, but a supply line that is subject to air interdiction is certainly no advantage, especially when the IDF has secure supply lines (though that will change the deeper into Lebanon they go).
I fail to see how "human sheilds" have been a big advantage for Hezbollah either -- since the IDF drops leaflets then ignores the presence of civilians.
The U.N., media and "moron democratic [sic]terrorist enablers" don't have much influence on the battle -- don't forget that Israel has its share of "enablers" too -- and they ARE able to influence things on the ground: Bush, Blair (both holding veto power over any U.N. action) and American weapons systems made available on request -- oh, and don't forget the warmongers who just can't get enough and thus would support Israel no matter what it did.
The point?
The point is simple -- if all Israel wanted to accomplish was to take out some rocket launchers and defeat 4,000 light infantry -- they shouldn't need 40,000 troops backed up by every conceivable high-tech goodie to do it. Instead, what we're seeing is a full-scale invasion of Lebanon. An invasion that will put IDF forces within a few klicks of Damascus -- something that is sure to furthur destablize the region.
That, by giving Israel the "green light" to do just that, the U.S. is not working toward peace or stability in the ME but rather an expansion of imperialist aggression.

Sal- Where do I begin? First off, I never said anyone should feel sorry for the IDF, they do have many advantages, they are soldiers that are trained to fight and die, and they are kicking the Hezbo's butts. My point was that the Hezbos were not as defenseless as you made them out to be, and that it would be no pushover. The fact that the IDF is suffering casualties should be no surprise to anyone. If you believe the supply lines from Syria can be stopped from the air alone, you are mistaken. It is not like these shipments are coming over in military vehicles, so they will keep coming, unless Israel decides to destroy every car, truck, and donkey cart from Syria. As far as the human shields, if the Hezbo's weren't dressing like civilians, launching rockets from apartment buildings, and mixing among the general population, this would be a much different fight. It is cowardly, but as a tactic it is a must for assymetrical warfare. The hezbo's force the IDF to use a lighter touch, their true number of casualties is hidden by the fog of war, and the MEDIA uses the ensuing collateral damage as a club to bash ISRael with. The leaflets are obviously meant to get the civilians out of harms way. I must have missed the leaflets that land in Israel ahead of the rockets. The U.N. has no influence on the ground? Well, for starters, if they could get a resolution under chapter 7, this whole fiasco would be over. If the U.N. had disbanded Hezbolla two years ago like they were supposed to, this would not have happened. Can you tell me one thing Unifil has accomplished in Lebanon? As far as the Democratic enablers, people like you give Hezbolla cover, and make them feel like they can get away with this bull. Your labeling of the Hezbos as light infantry, is once again understating their capability and armament. Your charge that Israel is not really interested in stopping the rockets but, domination of the region is laughable. What exactly do you feel the solution to this problem is?

Rich, you are much too cerebral. I stand in awe.

B.Poster, you couldn't be more wrong. Israel was getting cease-fire screams BEFORE they have fired a shot at Hezbollah. This is NOT a sign that they were asked to stop because they were kicking Hezbollah's "tush". In fact, the very fact that screams for a cease-fire started 4 weeks ago before Israel did anything WEAKENED Israel's ability to fight Hezbollah. Calls for a cease-fire are not acts of superiority. They are acts of fear. You do NOT call for a cease-fire when your side is winning. You tell them to finish the job. The West has handed terrorists a victory. No way I can say it any simpler than that.
-OC

Olah- this would be the case if the fighting stopped. I don't see the fighting stopping on Monday, but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, Rico, silly ol' Don should have listend to an anonymous blogger instead of his seasoned generals and worldwide intelligence gatherers.

And then of course he should turn to another, YOU, for a report on how well he was doing.

See, this is why I had to get away from the Liberal mindset. Or, as I say now, "mind"set. The need to be resolutely oppositional, the need to be totally negative, the feeling that snideness is the same as wit, the sneering sense of superiority, just got too distasteful to be around any more.

And as a realist, living in the real world, I knew that every time a "decider" makes a decision, those who were too spineless to do the same would line up on the sidelines to critique every single thing, whether they understand it or not. And God forbid any decision might not result in total, 100%, absolute perfection of success immediately, even when run through the most biased of Liberal evaluations!!!!!

But you are right, Rico----you listen to someone who took a course. What do those silly old war-seasoned generals know?

Simpering---that's the word I was looking for. To be a Lib means to believe that simpering oppositionalism is the same thing as knowing anything.