The face of Jacob said:
You have severe problems in reading comprehension, python416. He didn't switch any commanders. The article is saying that Dan Haluts, the Chief of General Staff, appointed his deputy to be his representative in the northian command. Udi Adam is the commander of the north and he didn't move from his role. He sent Kaplinski to help Adam and not to replace him.
And again, you have severe problems in reading comprehension. Ehud Olmert didn't do that, the chief of General Staff did it. Ehud Olmert is not the commander of the army. And please tell us all what Ehud Olmert expected from that war? Most of the Israelis are supporting that fighting back. The one who doesn't is one who support the destruction of the state of Israel and maybe you are one of them.
My reading comprehension is weak, I must admit. However, it is a change in command, even if it isn't labeled as such in the press release. Regardless of where the order came from, in governance, the buck stops at the top of the food chain. If you don't want to see it as a "switch", or don't want to see it as coming from Olmert, then fine - but it is a switch and anyone who understands politics knows that a high-levelswitch in the middle of a military operation is basically an acknowledgement that someone wasn't doing their job.
The Israelis, of course, supported fighting back - but the support has dropped. And the reason why is obvoisuly because depite Olmert's claims that the IDF is winning, the rocket attacks continue. His leadership is being question, even in Israel, and everyone knows that.
There are people in this world, both inside Israel and abroad, that at the same time support Israel's right to exist and defend herself - but think this war is the result of bad strategy and bad execution. To claim this to be false is assertion is to claim that there does not exist one person who feels that way - and that is a mathematical mistruth. Support for Olmert and the war have fallen since it began, and if it wasn't for this potential UN deal, it would fall furthur.
Do think Sharon would put himself in a position where he jumped the gun to say the war was being won, while not being 100% sure that was the case? No - because he is, amoung other things, a skilled politican.
You can continue to say I am anti-semitic if you want, but that is unjustified and uncalled for - your premise that someone can't be for Israel and against Olmert's execution at the same time is just plain wrong.
Bottom line, did this war make anything better for Israel? And before you answer, think about the impact of a ruined Lebanon, polarized Shia population, and global upset caused by his short-sighted action. If Israel wanted to attack Hezbollah, then that is what they should have done. But bombing the hell out of the Lebanon isn't the same thing. All they have done is increased the power of Hezbollah. It isn't something I want to have happen, but it is the result of short-sighted tactics on Olmert's part. The blame falls squarly on his desk, regardless of the ORG chart beneath him.
I have great respect for Judiaism, and all of the Abrahamic religons. One day I hope to be able to visit Isreal. Please don't continue to paint me as someone against Jews. I have nothing against any Semites - including both Jews and Arabs. The wars will only end through reducing agression - not increasing it. More children have died then solders - and that is a pretty clear statistic showing, in my mind, that this thing isn't being done properly.
If the Mossad is so on the ball, why not use special forces and make clearner strikes directly at Hezbollah? Well because it is more costly, and the way it looks abroad is that Olmert just doesn't care enough about the civilian lives in Lebanon. That will come back to haunt him.
Again, I don't think Sharon would have made the same mistake. I would think that he would have launched a military campaign in response to the Hezbollah boarder incursion - but he would have been WAY more careful to manage the global perception of this thing. Olmert pulled a knee-jerk reaction. True leadership requires that you make decisions based on strategic goals, not based on the emotion of the moment.
