Israel said it would clear a security zone along the Lebanese border, Everyone would be expelled, and anyone who entered would be fired upon. The depth of the zone was left unclear. It could be as much as 20 kilometers, or more. The zone would eventually be turned over to an acceptable (competent) international peacekeeping force.
If the Israelis really do intend to create a temporary buffer zone in the south, I'd think they would need at least a division's worth of troops (15,000) to do the job--I think the population in the area is about 600,000.
And Strategypage paints a better picture of the results of this fighting than I'd suspect from what I've read:
While Hizbollah has been able to muster public support throughout Lebanon and the Arab world, they know that in the aftermath of all this, despite declaring a victory, they are already being blamed for causing a disaster, and will suffer substantial losses in the aftermath of this war. Hizbollah will lose control of much of south Lebanon, and other Lebanese Shia political parties are already maneuvering to grow at Hizbollah's expense. While most Lebanese cheer Hizbollah publicly, privately they see all this as a ploy to restore Syrian and Iranian control over Lebanon.
I hope Strategypage is right and that I am wrong in thinking that Israel has screwed up their response. I'd feel more confident of this assessment if the Israelis would limit their bombing in Lebanon to the southern part along the border with Israel and not hit Hizbollah targets in cities further north or Lebanese infrastructure. And will the Israelis be able to persist in their ground attacks for several more weeks? At least? Given the failure to really stomp on Hizbollah so far, will the Israelis reach their objectives in this time?
The Israelis are good, so I shouldn't underestimate them. And it is possible that the Israelis aren't boasting of successes to keep Hizbollah in the fight where they can be killed rather than retreating and seeking a ceasefire. You never know.
But if the Israelis plan more, where are the troops?
UPDATE: Strategypage says Nasrallah is critical to holding Hizbollah together:
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is so critical to the success of Hizbollah, that if he's killed, the whole organization may fall apart. Although on paper the movement has clear lines of authority, and a defined order-of-succession, if you take a close look at Nasrallah's henchmen, you realize that most of them are pretty much the ordinary run of uninspiring Arab thugs.
This makes Hizbollah more fragile than it may seem and provides Israel with a clear objective--albeit one hard to find in a country at war.
In addition, this report says Israel will continue but won't expand the ground campaign; but will still mobilize three divisions of reservists. Why several divisions of reservists if they aren't going to Lebanon? Either Israel is hiding a planned expansion in Lebanon, is worried about Syria (who some time ago was reported as mobilizing though I've heard nothing about it since), or the reporter doesn't know the difference between a division and a battalion. Hard to say which explanation makes more sense.
UPDATE: This report confirms actual divisions and cites 30,000 troops. I guess you could say this would support a troop rotation of 10,000 reservists to back up 5,000 active duty to keep 15,000 in Lebanon. But why mobilize all of them now given the difficulty of keeping many reservists on duty for long periods? And this is in addition to prior mobilizations announced. Plus, I thought Israel's reserve divisions were mostly mechanized. We seem to be up to four or more division equivalents ordered to duty.
Oh, and the report has this gem:
Iran's Mehr news agency said Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was in Damascus for meetings, but gave no other details. Similar reports were carried by the Iranian Labor News Agency and the Fars agency.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah was to take part in the talks, which will include Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to Kuwait's Al-Siyassah newspaper, known for its opposition to the Syrian regime.
It said the meeting was designed to discuss ways to maintain supplies to Hezbollah fighters with "Iranian arms flowing through Syrian territories
You don't say?
