Your analogy Eclectic, is an appeal for an emotional response, which is precisely the problem here. Israel is making a huge mistake by trying to break Hezbollah in Lebanon through smashing that country into pieces. A failed state on its northern border is more like the US transforming Mexico into Afghanistan.

A strong, western leaning Lebanon was Israel's best security. A low-key and measured response in collaboration with the Lebanese was called for here - and better support for the Lebanese security forces becoming more powerful since the pull-out would have helped. Lebanon's progress was significantly proven when they ejected the Syrians. Hezbollah was more of a problem, but they could have dealt with them soon enough.

Instead, Israel has opted to do Syria's dirty work for them. The Syrians (so far entirely without any loss at all) have gained revenge on the Lebanese government, reasserted their influence over Hezbollah and made Israel look like murderous lunatics.

Israel has a failed state on its border, potentially a long-term occupation, hordes more Arabs signing up to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv and pictures of dead babies beaming around the world. Even if they root out Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, the rockets and nutters will still be around hiding in the north or popping over from Syria.

Eventually, they will have to go home again and the terror groups will infiltrate down and we're back at square one.

PM Olmert is too weak at home to have chosen the sensible alternative noted above. If Olmert really had a backbone, he would be attacking Syria, which has a lot of military targets he could destroy without collateral damage. The supplies to Hezbollah would dry up pretty soon if Assad is getting his ass handed to him, even symbolically.

Destroying Lebanon makes no sense whatsoever. Except to Syria which is laughing with victory.