Is the US hoping to have the bombing of Lebanon continue ... until?

It is no secret now that the US wants no cease fire until Hezbollah's "back is broken." In fact, Condoleezza Rice goes one step further. She has described Israel's overreaction in so far as the bombing of Lebanon is concerned as "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Whew! Almost poetic, but very, very scary (to me).

Incidentally "overreaction" was my word, not hers -- and Sean Hannity just said "disproportionate response" on the TV behind me, but he was quoting "leftist Islamo-fascists" or some other pleasant sounding phrase he has for the likes of me.

But I do not see that I am "taking sides" when I suggest that Israel is using disproportionate force in attacking Lebanon -- and the Hezbollah, who are admittedly a terrorist organization -- as a response to the capture of two soldiers three weeks ago.

I obviously have no idea what Secretary Rice will tell Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert next week, but my personal expectation is that she will urge him to increase his bombing campaign against Lebanon and secure a sizable foothold in Southern Lebanon. That's not just idle speculation; after all, why did we send additional 5000 pound LGBs (yes, precision guided munitions of all sorts have been delivered to Israel over the decades) to Israel this weekend unless we wanted them to intensify their air campaign.



Oh yes, those are Israeli markings on the F-15 Eagles above. We shouldn't be surprised; the deliveries of F-16s and F-15s to Israel date back to almost the date we began exporting these aircraft.

I know that we might find ourselves negotiating with unreasonable persons (terrorists are hardly "reasonable"), but the killing of civilians and burying of children in makeshift coffins could at least temporarily stop ... for however long. Is war the only answer?

What would Jesus do?