France Sends Troops to Lebanon
Or maybe not
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m happy to report the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701 is going swimmingly.
According to the concept for that resolution France was supposed to assume leadership of Son-of-UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon and implement the wonderful agreement that had been loving wrought by the Security Council.
Presumably, or at least in the understanding of everyone involved, this leadership involved France sending troops to accompany the general who would command the operation. Sadly, they were all mistaken.
France is going to provide an additional 200 troops to a new United Nations force in Lebanon, French President Jacques Chirac said on Thursday, disappointing some U.N. officials who had hoped for a bigger contribution.
However, Chirac left open the possibility that France might eventually provide more soldiers and said some 1,700 French troops positioned near Lebanon would be made available to the United Nations but would not be placed under U.N. control.
Read on.
Turkey was one of the Muslim nations expected to make a significant contribution as it has full diplomatic relations with Israel and the Turkish and Israeli militaries conduct periodic joint exercises. But just hold on
Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Namik Tan said no decision has been made to send Turkish troops to southern Lebanon as part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force.
Tan made his remarks at his weekly press conference on Thursday in Ankara.
"If Turkey sends a force, it will not be for the purposes of war. Our units will be there too serve humanitarian and logistics functions," Tan declared. Turkish troops, if deployed, will not be charged with disarming the Hezbollah resistance.
So it looks like most everyone agrees that the Hezbollah cat needs to be belled but no one is really willing to do it. Big surprise.
There is a bright side to all this. I have less and less fear of encountering Neil Stevens’ bare bum at high noon on Pennsylvania Avenue.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | More 9/11 Tapes Released — Comments (10) »
France Sends Troops to Lebanon 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Lebanon won't disarm Hezbollah
But Lebanon said its army wouldn't be disarming the militants or searching for their weapons
Under the cease-fire, which took effect Monday, the Lebanese and U.N. forces are to be the only armed groups in the region. But the cease-fire plan doesn't give the U.N. peacekeepers the authority to disarm Hezbollah
Yesterday evening, Saniora's Cabinet approved something of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy on the weapons: The Lebanese army may seize arms that they see. But they won't go looking for them
Emphasis mine
So Hezbollah can have all the weapons they want in their homes, offices and warehouses they just can't be in groups walking around in plain sight!
WOW - I feel much better - this was a wonderful idea :-(
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude"
And your emphasis is covering the whole thread... heh
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
its only like that on my Mozilla browser? my explorer browser at work(which is were I posted from) and here at home (which I never use) looks fine...
Sorry :0)
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Since broken html by definition has no correct way to be rendered, it's not always going to work the same for everyone.
What I ought to do is see if it's possible to write or find a Drupal filter to fix that sort of thing...
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
...the French recruit a national treasure to head up peace-keeping force in Lebanon...
Major General Jerry Lewis
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude"
I expected UN response to 1701 to go just like the UN response to 1441.
But hey, where are all of France's hundreds of weapons inspectors now that Hezbollah is hiding weapons in Lebanon? Hmm...
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
The I told you so temptations aside, consider a bigger point here. Though some of my friends here think I'm crazy anyway, I still believe(operative word "believe") that France stabbed us in the back in the Colin Powell days...that he went forward based on assurances made and vacated by the French in the run up to Iraq.
I can be slapped down and proven wrong I guess, but if I am only right in the general paranoia realm, add to that the fact the France vacated the first resolution on Lebanon, deferred to the Arab league, reluctantly ponied up on the newer one, volunteered soldiers that are now different than what they implied during the "bargaining" process, and I (at least) come up with a disingenouos partner...globally and on the Sec. Council.
I am starting to think we ought to consider moving publicly to remove them from their position on the Sec. Council. They offer nothing in the way of international security anyway...why should they have veto power?
[tongue in cheek]...who is with me on replacing France with Israel on the Security council?
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
If we drop France and put in Israel, we should probably keep going. Replace Russia with India, Communist China with Japan, and then we'd be getting somewhere!
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
a really long one. And tell them to seek their funding from France while they are at it.
I think the downfall of the UN is that it actually things countries won't act or behave in their own interests, it is mostly just a way to lend legitimacy to thugs and dictators the world over.
Allowing China and Russia onto the UN security council was a huge mistake. At the time, nobody knew France would once again turn into such a pansy country, so France is absolvable.
I do think that India and Japan are two countries that deserve more say and wouldn't mind them being permanent members, if we are going to continue to pretend like the UN is actually useful for anything. I think you can easily justify booting France from the council.
A re-org of whatever composition would be a viable discussion in the changed "conflict landscape". We have a ww2 mentality in the makeup of the sec council, and with the cold war gone, there are a great many "different" stakeholders in global security than what this motley crew can contribute to.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
the only people who really win anything here is Hezbollah, and the UN will just be putting more forces in the region who will happily sit around and take note of Hezbollah hauling in more weapons, and will take note of Hezbollah launching them into Israel.
And while they are taking note, they will once again become easy targets of Hezbollah.
A cease fire with peacekeeping troops who don't really have any power to keep the peace is just stupid-it was stupid of Israel to agree, it was stupid of the volunteer forces to agree. It is looking more and more like there aren't going to be too many volunteers to provide the buffer zone.
I suspect this cease fire doesn't last too long-just long enough for Hezbollah to regroup and start shooting again. And I am sure that Israel will once again be condemned for being meanies to Lebanon, when they respond.
The only cease fire that would have been worthwhile IMO is one that permits the UN peacekeepers to actually take the weapons away, by force if neccessary.
repentishment of its weapons.
And Lebanon under the new UN resolution has a mandate to control that area, and be the only armed units other than the UN peackeeping ones.
If Hezbollah starts shooting rockets, does that mean the Lebanese government this go around has more culpability for the fighting, than this go around.
My real issue here is that at some point somebody has to take responsibility for Hezbollah being armed and dangerous in Southern Lebanon.
To date, Lebanon has gone on the "we are weak, we aren't strong enough to get rid of them" argument.
But with UN backing, and a military presence in the area, seems to me they lose this argument, unless they are actually seeking to actively disarm Hezbollah.
I think the reality is the only way Hezbollah is going to be defeated is if the fighting is taken to Syria and Iran.
And now that in this 'victory for Hezbollah,' the Lebanese government is starting to claim Hezbollah's forces as its own, that means that the Lebanese government has it coming when Israel bombs the daylights out of them next time.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
MSM and others see it as such?
Seems to me like Lebanon is going to do the dumb thing and allow Hezbollah to rearm right under its nose, and the UN's nose, because while I think people like me aren't going to swallow the "poor Lebanon, they can't help it, Hezbollah was too strong blah blah blah" argument, I think the same old people who see evil in everything Israel does are going to trot out that argument again, and they will win in the court of public opinion once again.
So why should We care how they see it?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
All that matters is whether those willing to act see it that way. That's the lesson we all learned from UNSCR 1441 and the fall of Baathist Iraq, right?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Syria and Iran can still claim innocence and will still win the global popular opinion of being picked on pre-emptively and unjustifiably. Their collective PR campaign slogan is "who, me?"
Israel will continue to be chipped away at until Lebanon is either propped up or taken down because of its inaction with Hezbollah. Israel really has no other choice but to wait for an attack large enough to justify taking down the whole of the country as part of taking out Hezbollah.
This has been shown to be more difficult than anyone thought...it WILL, as Neil and others have correctly pointed out elsewhere, take a replacement of the Israeli govt., a shakeup of the funding and support for the military, and a re-try at Hezbollah. Syria and Iran at this juncture makes victory for Israel in the long run essentially impossible.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
guts to really do what it takes for victory in anything. So I would agree that a shake up in Israeli government is neccessary.
I think where my thinking is going is just that one of the big objections to the Israeli attack on Lebanon was that they were bombing portions of Lebanon that weren't really "hezbollahs"-that it wasn't fair to hold the poor weak Lebanese government accountable for the actions of Hezbollah. To some degree I think they had an argument.
But, now, with the new resolution, and with an actual mandate for the UN troops to help Lebanon set up their forces in the southern region, and to at some point disarm Hezbollah. I just don't see that "poor Lebanon can't do anything about Hezbollah"
I guess, the "poor Lebanon can't help it" excuse just isn't going to hold much water to me, but I suspect it always will to the liberals out there.
But in the end, the heart and head of the snake that is terrorism in that region, and in reality most regions lies in Syria and Iran. Until somebody really does something about Iran, the religion of peace is going to be anything but.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
This announcement is the death knell of the international force altogether. I predict that there will be no international force deployed.
My take: the international community expected Israel to do the dirty work of actually killing all the Hezbollah fighters in S. Lebanon. France, et.al. were willing to police the area AFTER Hezbollah was ejected, but never agreed to do the heavy lifting.
Unfortunately, Israel's tactics were not effective to clean Hezbollah out of S. Lebanon. As we all know, they still control big parts of Lebanon, and have already reneged on their "sort of" promise to disarm. Of course, the fearsome Lebanese Army has announced that they won't confront Hezbollah.
Result: no international force at all. Who would put their young men/women into that mess?
Israel needs to be ready to resume the war at any time. The war will resume as soon as Iran deems the time right. N.B. Iran is encouraging and financing the refugees to return to S. Lebanon, so to maximize the number of human shields around when the war resumes.
This episode shows the character of the ruthless enemy we face. The silver lining here is that this clearly proves the unreality of Europeans' (and some Americans') faith in the UN.
Can anyone please explain to me the logic behind the UN Cease fire resolution? If the world community is trully committed to disarming Hezbollah, what was the purpose of the cease fire? Any military force committed to the disarmament of Hezbollah would out of necessity have to engage in the same tactics that the Israeli army did.
The logic is really quite simple. The world community understands one thing really well, that they must pass some high profile resolutions out of the UNSC on a reasonably regular basis. The reason, if they don't people will figure out that the UN is a completely worthless organization that takes up valuable real estate space in NYC. When that happens, the US will quit funding the party and the "diplomats" will have to go home to their second rate or third rate countries and will lose access to free luxury cars, free parking, diplomatic immunity, five star restaurants and high class hookers that probably don't have HIV.
The resolution has nothing to do with Hezbollah or Israel. The "world community" doesn't give a rip about either, they are simply pawns to be used to keep their diplomatic benefits.
It's no accident that "diplomat" begins with "dip".
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
He's tip toe-ing on a lot of issues bcause his intra-party, Sarkozy, is nipping at his heals. Chirac has stifled himself in political calculation for fear of his people losing control of the party.
Don't tread on me.
Eveybody get one bullet so they can't start too much trouble.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.