Well, Mr. Guy-- (can I just call you Old?)--you have admitted the Israelis did not go "all out". This perception has caused a lot of discontent in Israel--it's as if they could not decide whether it was purely a military campaign or also a political maneuver. As a result they wound up doing neither well.

Also, if you don't think solidifying opposition against you, which Israel did do with its destruction of Lebanese infrastructure (and accompanying "collateral damage") is a negative development--you should think again.

And it was totally unnecessary--seizing border territory, in response to Hezbollah's provocations, would have incurred much less opposition from Lebanese in general--and not inflamed the Arab world. So it would have been a temporary solution--this is the Mideast---attempts at permanent change can easily backfire. Consider Mr. Bush's campaign to push democracy--in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Not precisely the results he wanted.

From what I read, Israel's attack on Lebanon far from the border was also premeditated--it was hoped that this would raise opposition to Hezbollah by Christians and others who would resent the destruction Hezbollah had brought on Lebanon.

And it worked--for a few days.

Then, as the civilian death toll rose, the tide shifted against Israel. And the continued bombing solidified that trend.

As I said earlier, Hezbollah miscalculated--but Israel did also--and the latter was far more serious.

And if you think "going all out" is the solution, you must have been a big fan of World War I--that's how it started. Now, as then, the other powers will not sit idly by.

Good thing your power to set foreign policy is limited, to say the least.