Israeli officials are now hinting at a full-scale invasion of Lebanon. If that happens, it fits into the scenario I predicted a few days ago, based on a report coming out of Israel at the beginning of hostilities. David Warren explains the scenario. If they do follow through with a ground invasion, will they be able to smash Hezbollah without suffering unbearable casualties? Will the Syrians and Iranians run for cover or will they engage? If they try to sustain Hezbollah indirectly through the Syrian-Lebanese border, will the Israelis bomb the two border crossings that remain open? It is frustrating to read so many articles advocating a wider war, like this one, often written by people I respect, and yet it seems they have lost some sense of history, which teaches us that wars are always unpredictable. Would the Kaiser have pushed the Austrians to take a hard line with Serbia in 1914 if he had known the Russians would go to war over it, followed by the French and British? Probably not. He didn't know it would come to that. None of them knew. They followed their instincts and listened to their prejudices and assured themselves that God was on their side. In the current scenario, take any prediction with a grain of salt, but especially any prediction concerning the behavior of people we do not understand.

Speaking of the unpredictable, how about this report that the Lebanese Army, rather than disarming Hezbollah, may join them to defend Lebanon against the Israeli invaders. If it happens, it will serve as just another reminder that people oftentimes do not do the rational thing, instead, they do exactly the opposite.

Ken Allard wonders if this August will be like August 2001 or August 1914.

The Washington Post says the U.S. should avoid falling into a diplomatic trap.