This article seems to be about intellectualizing war and putting it on the level of diplomacy. The problem is that war is not always rational and takes on its own life. Think about the second Lebanon war which was started for no good reason, since it was determined that in effect it would not get the 3 soldiers back. The best deterrence is to state that Israel does not want war with Syria, but if attacked will not accept an inconclusive result, but will fight until Syrian millitary capacities and arms stocks have been totally broken. To say that you will accept an indecisive result has the effect of encouraging war, and indicates to the Syrians that you will accept this and a certain number of Israeli dead. You want to say you will accept none, and beat them into the ground if they attack. A sad thing if the IDF is now so sophisticated as to find the loss of even one soldier or civilian for a war left un-won intellectually acceptable and maybe desirable.
from the article: Leaving the home front out of range