Yeah, you got where I was going with it. Notice that he never resolves the question you quoted above, though. And without that, doesn't it throw the whole article into contention? I'm with you and KB 100% on the logistical aspects/the calculus behind it. The thing that ends up sticking in my craw is the clumsy attempt at spinning it into a moral decision rather than tactical.

In this case, the moral choice is not the prudent choice from the perspective of self-preservation. If we're going to talk morals, I'd argue that a ground commitment is a necessary prerequisite to any claim to moral authority. Not only does it pose a more honest attempt at curbing civilian death, but it forces each side to at least meet each other as humans and then kill each other as such; it also forces Israelis to recognize a human cost to any protracted hostility. After all, hostility shouldn't be cheap- that's a sure fire way to eliminate morality from the equation.

Where do you fall on all this, anyhow? Not fightin' whards, just curious.