The only way the Israelis could have achieved their objective of destroying Hezbollah as a fighting force was to adhere to the concept of total war. Total war means using all of a country?™s resources in order to secure victory. Total war means subordinating politics and mobilizing the entire country for the effort. Total war means total victory or total defeat; there are no other options.

Israel has practiced this concept before, with overwhelming victories against Arab forces in 1948, 1967, and 1973. These successful campaigns led to the perception among Israel?™s Arab neighbors of an IDF that was unbeatable on the battlefield. This perception influenced Arab-Israeli relations for decades and forced moderate countries in the region to at least tolerate the Jewish State, even if they disapproved of its existence.

After this most recent conflict, though, the reality on the ground has changed. Syria and Iran are boasting of a Hezbollah victory and all of Israel?™s neighbors have taken note of the terrorist group?™s ability to fight the IDF to a draw.

Air power is okay to shape a battlefield to influence a ground force?™s chances of success. But when it comes to fighting an entrenched enemy that is prepared to die where he stands, there is no substitute for putting boots on the ground. And any time a nation is willing to put its soldiers in harm?™s way, it must be willing to do so wholeheartedly, without reservation and without limitation.

By fighting a minimalist war, the Israeli government failed for the first time in a battle with an Arab force, resulting in a shift in perception in the region. The myth of invincibility is gone and Israel?™s neighbors are emboldened. The question now is whether or not Israel has the will to finish the job if the cease fire fails.