All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't get his conclusions. He says that he "read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border." From this, he draws "the implication ... that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly." He also apparently draws the implication that this could be done solely with airpower.

What is the basis for drawing those implications? The IDF "begging" to wipe out positions implies neither reliance on airpower nor a quick and painless attack. And it seems unlikely that the IDF would have to "beg" to wipe out Hezbollah missiles if the Israeli leadership really beleived that could be done so easily. Why wouldn't the government readily agree to so damaging a sworn and dangerous enemy if the leadership thought it could be done so easily?

And there is ample evidence to refute his "implications." According to the NYTimes, among other sources, Israel has been planning this attack for about a year. The plan obviously included extensive use of ground troops, including armor and special forces -- note how quickly those were deployed. The plan may also have included calling up reserves, which I believe Israel has done. None of that is characteristic of a military or civilian leadership that believes it can accomplish its goals through simple, quick, and painless air strikes.

I get the "strong sense" that the implications this author draws are based more on his own preconceptions than anything else.



(Note that I did not go all Spanky on your ass and raise the question of just where he "read" the stuff on which he relies.)

I realize that I know this guy's stuff and you probably have never heard of him before, so take it from me that I never seen him utter a critical word about the Israeli government before.

If the IDF launches major ground operations, then his speculation is wrong. We'll have to see.