Useful comment from Krugman re: Israel

[Cassandra]

Which I agree with.

"Israel's decision to rely on shock and awe rather than either diplomacy or boots on the ground, like the U.S. decision to order the U.N. inspectors out and invade Iraq without sufficient troops or a plan to stabilize the country, is having the opposite of its intended effect. Hezbollah has acquired heroic status, while Israel has both damaged its reputation as a regional superpower and made itself a villain in the eyes of the world.

Complaining that this is unfair does no good, just as repeating "but Saddam was evil" does nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. What Israel needs now is a way out of the quagmire. And since Israel doesn't appear ready to reoccupy southern Lebanon, that means doing what it should have done from the beginning: try restraint and diplomacy. And Israel will negotiate from a far weaker position than seemed possible just three weeks ago.

And what about the role of the United States, which should be trying to contain the crisis? Our response has been both hapless and malign.

For the moment, U.S. policy seems to be to stall and divert efforts to negotiate a cease-fire as long as possible, so as to give Israel a chance to dig its hole even deeper. Also, we aren't talking to Syria, which might hold the key to resolving the crisis, because President Bush doesn't believe in talking to bad people, and anyway that's the kind of thing Bill Clinton did. Did I mention that these people are childish? "

I have a friend who's a Coptic Christian from Egypt (he loathes Muslims from childhood experience but manages to be a devoted Democrat anyway) who says it's just astonishing that Israel went in without the intelligence about Hezbollah that they should have had.
If you're going to do a war, either do it effectively for a sensible reason (if that's not an oxymoron) or don't do it at all.

[Justitia]

1. As usual, Krugman makes good sense. -eom