Conventional answer to an unconventional foe?

Prepping the Battlespace?

"Imposing" strategy on Hezbollah?

Come on guys. Comparing this to the Gulf War campaigns (fought against a poorly-trained, equipped, and led Arab army trying to ape Western tactics) is going to lead you to all sorts of wildly inaccurate conjectures (like the belief that an Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon will be more effective this time than it was in 1982...or the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon will go any better than it did prior to retreat in 2000).

The leaders of Hezbollah aren't stupid. They won't sit in southern Lebanon, dug in, waiting for Israeli ground forces to surround and annihilate them. You give far too much credit to Israeli operational planners and far too little to Hezbollah. Israel is faced with an opponent that mastered the Improvised Explosive Device long before anyone knew what it was in Iraq, an opponent whose tactics were copied by the Chechen resistance, an opponent that is not constrained by any laws of warfare. Any casualties inflicted on Israeli soldiers show its weakness against a non-state opponent. The majority of casualties inflicted against Hezbollah will be difficult to identify and just as likely appear as strikes against innocent civilians on the battlefield. How does Israel win in either case?

If Israel's current active opponents (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the militant wing of Fatah...not to mention Hezbollah) could be defeated through simple conventional campaigns, do you really think they'd still be around...?