The Policy Blender

Interestingly, the French have already vetoed a NATO peacekeeping force post-conflict...

I don't know where to begin so I'll try to stick to one point.

The overt objectives of israels bombing and invasion of lebenon are the retrieval of two captured soldiers and the destruction of Hizbullah or at least its military capability.

If we accept that concept alone we must surely question the bombing of Beirut, the deliberate crippling of the Lebanese ecomomy and government, and the disregard for civilian life. Also creating half a million refugees and destroying 50 thousand homes, some schools, a hospital, lots of bridges, airports..... none of which could be regarded as legitimate targets in line with the above goals.

I don't think any thinking person could believe that direct military action will result in the completion of either of those goals.

Firstly the ease with which shia militants in Lebanon can get small and medium sized arms on the international market or smuggled from Iran or Syria is not going to change, so any disarmorment is temporary.

Secondly Shia Muslims, and indeed, other Lebanese citizens will not be de-radicalised by pictures of exploded children. By the reality of exploded children. Israels enemy to the north will not be removed through violence.

Thirdly Lebenon has been greatly destabelised. The worse economic and social conditions get, the more likely it is that Israel will be blamed at a popular level. This will be bad.

Finally I believe it is unlikely that the two soldiers remain alive.

The invasion then has no purpose, or a sinister purpose.

If you accept this position, then you can add other, shorter words to disproportionate.

Its a side point so I wanted to put it seperately.

John Bolton US Ambassador to UN "Still no-one has explained how you conduct a ceasefire with a group of terrorists".

Well with different levels of success try:

Ireland, were thing are much much better thanks to long and difficult negotiations.
Spain, were Zapatero's government has achieved a permanant ceasefire with ETA.
Nepal, were the forces demandind democracy made deals with Maoist rebels to stabalise the country.

That's just three off the top of my head. I guess they don't teach diplomats this stuff any more.

This morning the BBC asked the question 'What can Iran do to help Hezbollah?'. Is the BBC in favour of Hezbollah being helped? A question like 'What can X do to help Lebanon strikes me as ok, to be encouraged in fact, as they're still being knocked to shit for reasons that are beyond their control (or at least, the media coverage I've seen has never suggested that the Lebanese Government are in a position to stop Hezbollah). Did the BBC ever ask what Afghanistan could do to help Al-Qaeda?