yea, but I sometimes think it would have been better to just continue to let them fight it out. I think they are setting up a quagmire by getting multiple countries to set up camp in between them. All it is going to take is some group of soliders getting "accidentally" killed by one of the 2 factions and then you have a potential escalation. It is impossible to be neutral. Every country that sends in troops has a an allegiance to one side or the other. Also like how France volunteered to be the leaders of the peacekeeping force, and offerd up a whopping 400 troops.
Hizbollah comes out a clear winner. They held out and are still in existence. I have a good friend in the IDF and he says there are mutinous tones within the military and the government over the conduct of this. Essentially Hizbollah stays intact, they've faced the IDF and held them at bay, and they still have the hostages - the reason this began.
Every paramilitary group outside a government now sees what it takes to fight the most powerful military in this region and win. This was a morale booster for Hamas, Al Aqsa, al Qaeda, etc.
Your statements only hold merit because Olmert did as Bush has done. He tried to fight a PC war. He restricted the IDF's plans.
I think most onlookers understand that. In fact, if anything, seeing the Islamist reaction to Israel pulling out of Lebanon ought to send a clear signal that we should not follow suit in Iraq and leave too soon.
at least the french are doing something
no i don't think we should be involved, in any aspect of this whatsoever, because i am pretty sure this ceasefire could have been reached a good week earlier had we not. if we aren't going to be involved militarily we should not be involved politically. simple as that. locking things up in the UN looks just as bad as sending soldiers over