# UN in Lebanon



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2006)

If this is how Peacekeepers operated in southern Lebanon, then calls for increasing the UN presence or increasing the mandate will be counterproductive at best:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004334.html (Digest version)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_16-2006_07_22.shtml#1153523571 (full article)



> *Kofi Annan And The Kidnappers*
> David Kopel;
> 
> On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you."
> ...



Poorly paid troops, operating under vague mandates are an invitation for disaster. Other UN missions are also plagued by inappropriate behaviour, like the "Sex for Food" scandle in the Congo; in this case the UN forces are able to act as the biggest warlord in the valley, but when faced by a vicious opponent who can fight back, only well trained Western armies can do peace support and peace enforcement (and in recent history, only when under NATO or Coalition , *NOT* UN mandate and command).

For Lebanon, and by extension any other place where order is breaking down (i.e. Dafur), the solution is not the UN at all, but a robust, professional western military intervention to supress warlordism and support nation building efforts. This resembles the period after the 100 years war, when Royal forces were raised and supported to supress the "free companies" of mercenaries roaming the French countryside.


----------



## Echo9 (25 Jul 2006)

While I am sure that there are many more on this forum with personal experience of the UN in action, but I would suspect that most would agree with me:

1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts.  It, at best, keeps a lid on them so that they do not boil over, but that the underlying causes are not addressed.  

2.  In fact, in a number of circumstances, UN involvement exacerbates the underlying problem, because the presence of conflict guarantees that the infusion of UN cash to the region continues.  Think Cyprus.  Or, the bureaucratic tendency to entrench itself causes the conflict to become entrenched.  Think of the UNRWA.

3.  UN Peacekeeping rarely, if ever, establishes rules of engagement sufficient to achieve the aims even as set out within the mission's mandate.

4.  UN Peacekeeping usually results in little more than welfare for third world armies.

5.  UN Peacekeepers often bring their problems with them, introducing new factors into conflict that did not previously exist.  Think of the prostitution problem in Africa.

The fact that the UN is still held in as high regard in the world as it is comes mostly from its lofty and noble founding ideals.  It has little to no correlation to its actual record over the years.

Canadians need to know this sham for what it is.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2006)

Who would go?
Not the American Zionist Supporting Infidels
Not the Canadians (tapped out)
The Brits?  Aussies? Kiwis?
Germans (I doubt the Israelis would agree)
The French?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jul 2006)

UNFIL = United Nations _Interim_ Force In Lebanon

UNFIL has been in place since 1978...  "Interim" - heh... :  Useless.

Look to NRF 7 and the EU for any potential force.  The "entry brigade" for NRF 7 is, God help me, the Franco-German Brigade...  :blotto:  BTW, the Israelis and Germans get along just fine - no issues regarding deployments...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2006)

Prodi of Italy is supporting the move.  The Italians were in Lebanon in the 80s with the French and Americans IIRC.  Their troops and carabinieri also seem to have acquitted themselves well in Southern Iraq with the Brits until Prodi pulled them out.

Perhaps the Spanish might be convinced to go in if Prodi sends in the Italians.

Some others (Bloomberg) are speculating about the Turks having a role - no baggage there I suppose.  There again who doesn't have Mid-Eastern baggage.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2006)

Aren't the Turks the same ethnicity as the Hezbola (sp)?  IE.  Sunni on Sunni or Shea on Shea (SP)?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2006)

I am not sure about which religious sects are involved, keep in mind that we already have Sunni Hamas cooperating with Shia Hezbollah and Shia Druze cooperating with Jewish Israelis, but I do know that Turks and Arabs are not the same ethnicity.

The Turks moved into Iran in the 1000s and became Muslims.  They then lorded it over the Arabs until Lawrence, Allenby and the fall of the Porte with the exception of the period when their "kissing cousins" the Mongols moved in during the 13th century.  Historically there is little love lost between Arabs and Turks.  The Turks used the Sunni in Iraq to keep the Shia in line.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2006)

The Turks have a saying: “Better to kick an Arab than a dog”

The Turks would be a good choice, tough and not afraid to kick back, they are close enough to be seen as Non-western, but far enough away to not want to play one side. Plus having Muslims in the army means they can easily enter mosques and such.

I think the Indians could do well if properly led and given good ROE’s 

Turks. Indians, Italians with perhaps Germans doing command and comms.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Jul 2006)

Echo9 said:
			
		

> While I am sure that there are many more on this forum with personal experience of the UN in action, but I would suspect that most would agree with me:
> 
> 1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts.



Was it supposed to?


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Was it supposed to?



Yes -- it was to stabilize the situation and promote a solution.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Yes -- it was to stabilize the situation and promote a solution.



I don't think so.  Certainly something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me...just a way of calming people down while you go about negotiating or creating an actual solution. Stabilization I will buy. Promoting a solution? How does peacekeeping do that?

If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly, and not confuse them with peacemaking or peace enforcement which I am led to understand is another thing altogether.

One can't "keep" peace until it is actually created.  Expecting Peacekeeping to be the solution is putting the cart before the horse. Making peace is the solution, keeping it just administration afterwards.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Certainly *something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me *


Interim: "having temporary effect: serving as a temporary measure until something more complete and permanent can be established." 

No UN mission is expected to be permanent....they are all what one may call, "interim." Peacekeeping, and indeed, peacemaking, _isn't_ a solution; nor is it intended to be. Both are merely steps _towards_ peace, with the requirement for peacekeepers or peacemakers based solely upon the political will of the combatants.



> *If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly*, and not confuse them with peacemaking or peace enforcement which I am led to understand is another thing altogether.


Yes, let's, shall we. 

UNIFIL was a "peacekeeping" mission, in that both belligerents had agreed to a ceasefire based upon the UN presence. "Not shooting" + "UN presence" = "peace" "keeping." Their presence was to set a condition for subsequent, more permanent peace, through negotiations. These negotions would not occur had the UN not been present to act as impartial witness to both sides adhering to the agreed ceasefire/peace - - they were not there, nor has anyone but you suggested, that they were there to impose peace.  

By your definition, suggesting that peacekeeping is merely administering in a peaceful environment, is what we call......well, that's "day to day living" in my world. It has nothing to do with the UN, peacekeeping, stability operations, or whatever other buzzwords you choose to misunderstand.

------------
Note: Before you come back with more google/wikipedia wisdom, yes, the UN _does_ have "Permanent Missions." This is merely terminology relating to standing groups, and has nothing to do with a discussion on "interim forces."


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

Not sure what tangents you're choosing to explore, Journeyman. My comments were in regard to this statement:

"1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts."

My comment to that is that it isn't supposed to. You only prove my point with your comments. UNIFIL (your example, not mine) was set up after the beligerents agreed to a ceasefire, followed by negotiations.  The latter would be the solution, the peacekeeping merely a means to bring about the conditions necessary for the solution. Peacekeeping doesn't "solve conflicts".


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2006)

This is from today’s _Globe and Mail_ and it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060726.COFORCES26/TPStory/Comment/


> Hard questions about a NATO force
> 
> *Given the serious risks involved in Lebanon, a strong mandate is critical, says former diplomat MICHAEL BELL*
> 
> ...



Bell’s key point is a question – and I really hope PM Harper asks it: _”…  is whether, knowing the Jewish state's mindset, Israelis will restrain themselves if Hezbollah still finds ways to get at them despite a NATO presence along its northern border. If they do not hold back, as is more than possible, what would an international force do then?”_  In other words: what happens if the NATO force is not ready, willing, able and allowed to *fight* Hezbollah (and others) for the _sovereignty_[ of Lebanon?

I, personally, agree that Canada should not participate – not with ground forces, anyway – in a NATO (led?) mission in Lebanon because, I believe, we are already stretched too thin.  We need to ‘stay the course’ in Afghanistan and, as a very high second priority, strengthen our military training establishment in order to recruit and train thousands and thousands of new soldiers to fill the ranks.  Another overseas commitment of land forces will:

•	Weaken our absolutely necessary recruiting/training efforts; and

•	Add to our personnel retention problems by further over-tasking army personnel. 

Despite my views I think Bell may be right when he says: _” It's a given that any new peacekeeping force will be touch and go. But despite the high risks it may be the only alternative to the present crisis.”_  If that is the case, if, as Mrs. Thatcher used to say, There Is No Alternative!” then Canada may ‘need’ to join to:

•	Encourage other, smaller NATO members (e.g. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway) to also share a heavier load; and

•	To help restore our sadly (dangerously) eroded reputation as a responsible ‘middle power.’

To the topic:  I think that anything other than a *NATO led* force – operating with a UNSC mandate (as we do in Afghanistan) but without *any* UN involvement - is doomed to make matters worse.  Further, I think:

•	Turkey is the logical leader;

•	NATO should invite India  and Pakistan (and other militarily competent non-NATO nations) to join the force; and

•	UNSC permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) should be restricted to 3rd line logistical support functions only – no troops, not even 2nd line logistics elements, on the ground in Lebanon.  Italy and Spain have both withdrawn from Iraq and may be willing to play major roles in Lebanon – perhaps Brazil, Germany and Japan, too. 

What role for Canada?  Maybe as part of a NATO air force (a _‘six pack’_ of CF-18s?) in Lebanon?

Edit: spelling


----------



## Echo9 (26 Jul 2006)

While I realize that I did stir the pot with generalities of UN Peacekeeping, I think that if people really read the original news article posted, they would see that imposition of a UN force in Southern Lebanon would be counterproductive.  UN Forces (note the Indians in the story) are not seen as impartial observers, but instead as partisan enablers of Hezbollah.


IMHO, the best route to a lasting peace in the region is to let Israel finish the job- discredit and smash Hezbollah into pieces, following them to Damascus if required.  If Bashar Assad was as smart as his father, it wouldn't be necessary to go to Damascus, but in the current circumstances, it might be.

For those who think that a quick ceasefire is the right approach, please try doing a 3 or 4 turn wargame with the situation and see what would likely end up happening.  If we're not right back here in a few years, then I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Not sure what tangents you're choosing to explore, Journeyman. My comments were in regard to this statement:
> "1.  UN Peacekeeping does nothing to solve conflicts."


Well, to point out the obvious (ie - how these quote blocks work), my response was directly and obviously (except to you apparently), tied to your statements 


> Certainly *something called an "Interim force" doesn't sound like a solution to me*


 and 





> *If we're going to use words like "peacekeeping" let's use them correctly*



To which I pointed out, and will repeat this one final time, (since I get much less joy out of trollism than you):
a) Yes, peacekeeping is intended to play a role in solving conflicts - - its utility, and the degree to which it succeeds in its intended role, is completely in the hands of the belligerents,
b) An "interim force" is never intended to be a "solution"; a fact you apparently chose to misinterpret for argumentative value, and
c) I agree terms should be used correctly, which is why I bothered explaining the obvious in the first place.

OK, I'm finished with this one


----------



## Red 6 (26 Jul 2006)

There are a lot of good points here. I think public opinion is going to force the collective hands of many governments on this issue, regardless of the reality on the ground. In the US, the UN is seen as a poor/inneffective choice for leading any sort of peacekeeping force. (Not necessarily what I think) I thought it was sort of interesting, this talk of what an "interim" force is supposed to do. I never took part in any of this sort of operations while I was in the Army, but I always supposed the mission was to separate the two sides of a conflict. If the interim force isn't doing that, what's the point of them being there?

The American public (the portion that knows what's happening there) doesn't have much trust in a UN mission to Lebanon and NATO is being heavily touted as a possible solution. I hadn't thought of the EU as a solution. I don't know a lot about their military structure, but I'm inherently doubtful about it. The idea of a European military force outside of NATO doesn't sit well with me anyway.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jul 2006)

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was merely correcting semantics and pointing out painfully obvious errors in logic.

I have no great love for the UN and I, personally, will never, _ever_, wear a UN beret again. Ever.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jul 2006)

Quagmire: The great majority of Turks are Sunni Muslims, and as others have pointed out there is no love lost between Turks and Arabs.  I had a very close Turkish friend in Ottawa many years ago who said he liked the Israelis because they knew how to fight the Arabs, who had betrayed the Ottoman Empire during WW I.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was merely correcting semantics and pointing out painfully obvious errors in logic.



I really take exception to this, as I feel you're the one displaying a lack of logic.  If you can give an example of a conflict in which peacekeeping provided the "solution", I'd be appreciative.  Instead of responding to the questions raised all you've done is make ad hominem attacks by calling me a troll and questioning my intelligence. Peacekeeping implies that two or more "belligerents" are being separated by armed soldiers.  I don't see that as a solution to anything - a "solution" would be a condition in which the armed soldiers were no longer there, ditto the belligerents.  Perhaps we are defining "solution" differently. If you're not capable of discussing this without resorting to insult, perhaps it's just as well you're "done with this." So if you're capable of continuing in a mature fashion, I would be interesting in pursuing the question further - if I was trolling I wouldn't.

Are you saying that an end state in which armed soldiers are separating two armed factions bent on attacking each other is indeed a "solution"? My view is that soldiers shooting at each other is not a problem, but a symptom of a problem. Perhaps you view it differently.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

A mission to that region has Jug Fuck written all over it.  If whatever force is not wililng to engage either side when it needs to there is no chance of having any credibility.  If Isreal decideds it doesn't care nothing short of the Brits or Americans could stop the full might of that military.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> *Are you saying that an end state in which armed soldiers are separating two armed factions bent on attacking each other is indeed a "solution"?*



I have said:


> Interim: "....*a temporary measure * until something more complete and permanent can be established."





> *merely steps towards peace*, with the requirement for peacekeepers or peacemakers based solely upon the political will of the combatants.





> [Peacekeeping] presence was to *set a condition for subsequent, more permanent peace*, through negotiations.





> peacekeeping is intended *to play a role in solving conflicts * - - its utility, and the degree to which it succeeds in its intended role, is completely in the hands of the belligerents





> An "interim force" is *never intended to be a "solution"  *



I have spelled out, repeatedly, and quite clearly, that I believe peacekeeping is merely a potential step in solving a conflict....*emphasizing that it is no way to be considered a "solution."* 

That you still respond with the question you did suggests only two possible things, only *one* of which I had mentioned previously:
a) you're trolling (which I suggested), or
b) your intellect is questionable (which only you mentioned)

Based only on reading previous posts and today's efforts, I'm inclined to attribute your offerings here to "a) trolling." Is anyone surprised?

Hence,


> *I'm finished with this one*



(Hint: responding with yet another question/comment showing you don't understand what has been stated repeatedly only gives credence to "b." Either way, there won't be a response)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jul 2006)

Journeyman,

Are you proposing that a peacekeeping force is an appropriate solution "at this time"?  If not, in this case what are the conditions that you believe need to be in place prior to said deployment?


Matthew.    ???

P.S.  In my opinion, until Hezbollah changes its tune (which isn't going to happen) or is wiped out and is replaced by forces from a Central Lebanese Government who stop apologizing for assymetrical attacks from their land, then putting anyone in the line of fire as a "peacekeeper" seems not only incredibly dangerous for those forces you drop in, but also horribly counterproductive as the status quo (pre-Israeli invasion) is the most dangerous and destabilizing imbalance you could have.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jul 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt. You've answered your own question. PM inbound.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jul 2006)

Lewis Mackenzie: Levant crisis/dead Canadian UNTSO member--radio interview: "July 26, 2006, Supporting Israel: Guest host Karen Horsman spoke with retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie".
http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 4444 (26 Jul 2006)

I mean no disrespect to Journeyman, but it appears that you and Michael are arguing the same point. You've both stated, albeit slightly differently, that peacekeeping forces are in place as either on step towards a solution or to facilitate a permanent solution, and not a solution in and of themselves. If I've missed the core of either of your arguments I apologize, but on reading the posts I couldn't see any significant differences in either argument.

Not looking to enter the argument or anything, just my .02


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I have said:
> I have spelled out, repeatedly, and quite clearly, that I believe peacekeeping is merely a potential step in solving a conflict....*emphasizing that it is no way to be considered a "solution."*



You mentioned that my knowledge came from 'wikipedia" - if that isn't a questioning of my intelligence, I'm not sure what is. Your exact words:



> It has nothing to do with the UN, peacekeeping, stability operations, or whatever other buzzwords you choose to misunderstand.
> 
> ------------
> Note: Before you come back with more google/wikipedia wisdom



Anyway, as has been pointed out, we're both saying the same thing whether you realize it or not. Really not sure why you feel the need to be abusive and insulting while you're doing it. Anyway, thanks for confirming my point.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

If you guys wish to sling mud back and forth do it in the privacy of PM's please.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> If you guys wish to sling mud back and forth do it in the privacy of PM's please.



Slinging mud?  Surely you jest, it would seem we are in complete agreement that peacekeeping is not intended as a "solution".

Anyway, sorry to bring this off the specific topic of Lebanon. But it is relevant to point out that peacekeeping will be no more of a solution there than it has been anywhere else. As to how effectively it can put the brakes on the proceedings, time will tell. The whole UN bombing incident has certainly cast a pall over these discussions.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2006)

This pic demonstrates the problem that UNIFIL has created for itself.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Jul 2006)

The photo's already been posted, without context or description.  Is there a Hezbollah vehicle parked along side the fence?  Who knows...

I would suggest that these photos are more representative - and more than a little hard to miss, even in the worst conditions.  Just ask the 5 Finns killed by indirect fire in 1999...
















Again, I'm hardly a fan of the UN or UNIFIL, but really...


----------



## Koenigsegg (26 Jul 2006)

I dunno, those bright flags with the globe, and wreath are pretty hard to see...(insert some sort of smily here)


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2006)

UNIFIL press release 20 July.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=UNIFIL+press+release&u=www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr04.pdf&w=unifil+press+release&d=aSK23GP9NLTn&icp=1&.intl=us

UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON 
(UNIFIL) 
Naqoura, 
20 July 2006 

PRESS RELEASE 

Heavy exchanges of fire continued unabated along the length of the Blue 
Line. The IDF and Hezbollah are also engaged in exchanges on the ground in 
the general areas of the villages of Marwahin in the western sector, and 
Marun al Ras in the central sector. A number of IDF tanks and bulldozers 
moved into these two areas inside Lebanese territory yesterday afternoon, 
and stayed throughout the night and into this morning. The IDF reportedly 
used incendiary shells in the area of Kafr Kila in the eastern sector. 

There were 31 incidents of firing close to UN positions during the past 24 
hours, with three positions suffered direct hits from the Israeli side. Ten 
artillery shells impacted inside UN position of the Ghanaian battalion on the 
coast in Ras Naqoura, causing extensive damage. Four artillery shells 
impacted inside the patrol base of the Observer Group Lebanon in the Marun 
al Ras area, including three direct impacts on the building which caused 
extensive damage and cut electricity and communication connections. At the 
time of the shelling, there were 36 civilians inside the position, most of whom 
were women and children from the village of Marun Al Ras. There were no 
casualties. One artillery shell impacted inside the UNIFIL Headquarters 
compound in Naqoura, causing extensive damage and danger to the UNIFIL 
hospital where the doctors were operating at the time. Splinters of artillery 
shells also damaged the boundary wall of the Naqoura camp. Extensive 
shelling damage was reported in the Ghanaian battalion position south of 
Alma Ash Shab. Hezbollah firing was also reported from the immediate 
vicinity of the UN positions in Naqoura and Maroun Al Ras areas at the time 
of the incidents. 

All UNIFIL positions in the area of operation remain permanently occupied 
and maintained by the troops. UNIFIL is still facing serious restrictions in its 
freedom of movement, and was able to carry out only a small number of 
logistic and humanitarian convoys yesterday, including the supply of water to 
the civilian hospital with 1000 people in Tibnin. Doctors at the UNIFIL 
hospital in Naqoura performed a limb saving surgery on two children from 
the Alma Ash Shab village, who sustained multiple splinter injuries. 

Some re-supply convoys to UNIFIL positions are planned for today, but the 
ability to move will depend on the situation on the ground. All UN positions in 
the close proximity of the Blue Line are facing shortages of basic supplies, 
and our ability to re-supply them is vital.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jul 2006)

Great map of UN positions courtesy of strategypage.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2006727154852.asp

Also an article.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060728.aspx

The UN Takes Sides in Lebanon
July 28, 2006: The UNIFIL Observer outpost that was "accidentally" targeted by Israeli firepower on July 25th, leaving four UN troops dead, was probably a victim of its own chatter. The unarmed observers, with a clear view of the fighting between Hizbollah and the Israelis, were apparently reporting whatever they saw, with other UNIFIL locations, over unencrypted ("in the clear") radio frequencies. This chatter could be picked up by Hizbollah. Since the Israelis have control of the air, and use aircraft and UAVs to gain an information advantage over Hizbollah, this UNIFIL chatter was giving the Hizbollah fighters information they would not otherwise have. That was endangering Israeli soldiers. Then again, the UNIFIL post was right in the middle of a battlefield. There was a furious firefight going on around the UNIFIL position, and the Hizbollah gunmen were using the UNIFIL position for cover from Israeli fire (an old Hizbollah tactic.) The Israeli damage to the UN bunker may well have been accidental. 

Then again, Israeli troops have complained to UNIFIL about this sort of loose talk, and inadvertent shelter for enemy troops, before, but such complaints have been brushed aside. The Israelis have caught some UNIFIL actually working for Hizbollah, and many more of the UN troops developed very friendly relations with Hizbollah. There was always a practical reason for this. When UN troops give Hizbollah a hard time, Hizbollah is not bashful about threatening the UN troops with violence. But the UNIFIL/Hizbollah cooperation goes beyond idle chatter. At about the same time the UNIFIL troops were killed, other UNIFIL troops were repairing roads in the area that had been bombed by the Israelis. UNIFIL engineers were making the repairs so UNIFIL vehicles could use the roads again, but UNIFIL was not going to do anything to keep Hizbollah off the newly repaired roads. 

The UN is insistent that the Israeli bombing was deliberate. If the UN military officials put themselves in the situation the Israelis were facing, they would have probably given the same orders. That is, if the UN officers cared about their troops. UNIFIL has shown a keen sense of self-preservation during past encounters with Hizbollah. Now the UN is discovering that the Israelis will play for keeps as well. Despite what Israeli and UN diplomats (and their spin doctors) do over the next few weeks, UNIFIL has apparently received the message.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jul 2006)

Sorry, should have been at "UN Observers To Be Removed" where have re-posted.

See this from _Captain's Quarters_:

July 28, 2006
UN Acts Late In Removing Observers
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007641.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aluc (30 Jul 2006)

http://www.torontosun.ca/Comment/Commentary/2006/07/29/1709669.html



Editorial....What peace is there to keep.


The safe position to take on the Middle East today is that there needs to be an immediate "ceasefire."

A ceasefire maintained by "peackeepers."

Let's examine those two terms.

To begin, here's what a "ceasefire" would mean right now.

It would mean Hezbollah gets to reload.

Believing that a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel right now would bring any real peace to Lebanon, Israel, or the region, is as naive as believing that a United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon would do the same.

There's been a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for almost 30 years.

Anyone notice any peace breaking out there recently?

In reality, any "peacekeeping" force in southern Lebanon, composed of UN, NATO or other forces, would have to be a fighting force capable of keeping Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

That's what the beleaguered Lebanese government failed to do after Israel voluntarily withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. That's why Hezbollah was able to launch a sneak attack on an Israeli military outpost from southern Lebanon, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others. And that, everyone agrees, is what started this latest confrontation.

So, who in the world's up for that job? Canada? Not with our military already stretched to the limit in Afghanistan.

The United States? Great Britain? Australia?

Impossible. Any of those forces acting as peacemakers in southern Lebanon would become prized terrorist targets themselves, perhaps even more so than Israeli soldiers.

The European Union?

How effective have most members of that alliance been in fighting terrorism since 9/11?

The Arab League? The only thing its members might ever conceivably agree on, if they thought for a moment they could actually win, would be to attack Israel. Fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon simply isn't on their radar.

Russia? Japan? China?

Okay, now it's getting silly, isn't it?

So let's hear from those advocating a "peacekeeping" force to maintain a "ceasefire" along the Green Line between southern Lebanon and northern Israel. And be specific.

Whose soldiers would man it? How many? What will be their rules of engagement? Will they be able to shoot first, or only shoot back? What will be their mandate if Hezbollah hides among civilians while attacking them? Will their response have to be "proportionate"? What does that mean -- that you have to take as many casualties as the enemy or stand down? Name a war where that rule has ever applied -- to either side.

Those are the kinds of questions that underlie simplistic calls for a "ceasefire" maintained by "peacekeepers."

That's why Stephen Harper, the first pro-Israel Canadian prime minister since, well, 1993, got it right last week when he said the only way a lasting peace can be achieved is if the nations IN THE REGION want it. And that would mean nations like Syria and Iran (among many others in the Arab/Muslim world) being prepared to fight terrorism instead of supporting and financing it. Needless to say, don't hold your breath.


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2006)

Good article. 

Too many people with adgenda's and silly ideas of how things actually work, wander out into the street, join the pedestrians going towards whatever group is anti something and think they are doing something. 

They would have been better off at home, reading up on the nature and reasons behind the conflict. 

Yeah, I know, that's a lot of work. And that's the trouble, every body wants a drive-thru answer to struggles that have been going on for 2000 years.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jul 2006)

I fear if we were involved it would end up being like Somalia.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jul 2006)

Possible intervention force contributors:

Analysis: The later the better for an int'l force
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1153292028794

'The likelihood is that, unlike last time, the US will not be playing a central role in staffing such a mission. Its military is fully stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. "As far as boots on the ground, that doesn't seem to be in the cards," said John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, over the weekend.

Instead, the talk is of 10-20,000 troops led by France and/or Turkey, with possible contingents from Germany, Italy, India, Brazil and Pakistan. But with European troops bound to be targeted by Hizbullah and its allies, some commentators are suggesting that any European role should be backed up with forces from the Arab world - from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and/or Jordan...' 

Via _Captain's Quarters_
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007657.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jul 2006)

Arab troops could be even more unreliable than the current UN force as they might be bribed or openly cooperate with hizbollah. Any force that goes into southern Lebanon will have to be very aggressive to keep out hizbollah and at the same time train up a reliable Lebanese Army. I see Hizbollah moving into Syria and West Bank continuing operations from there.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2006)

Someone else who gets it:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/08/myth-of-pearson-and-peacekeeping.html



> *The Myth of Pearson and Peacekeeping *
> 
> The left loves to remind us that Canada is most proud of its tradition of peacekeeping, when in fact, we have no tradition of peacekeeping. We do have one of peacemaking in Europe and Asia through our involvement in the Great War, Second World War, Korea, and Afghanistan. We have maintained peace best through strength in NATO and NORAD, not the United Nations.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Aug 2006)

The idea of a peacekeeping force itself was actually American. Pearson picked it up and ran with it as a way of giving the UK and France a face-saving way out.

What everyone forgets is that in 1967 UNEF was kicked out by Nasser, one of the triggers that led Israel to initiate the Six-Day war.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_middle_east.htm

So that first peacekeeping mission did not even prevent a subsequent war.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Aug 2006)

MarkOttawa: It's interesting on that site you mention that Congo and Korea were considered successful. Too bad there is no date on the page....Maybe no resolution comes from UN peacekeeping, just postponement...

But really doesn't it, along with a_majoor's post, go to show that peacekeeping is not an option here. I would submit that, at best, talking about peacekeeping here is a misnomer. 

What is needed is more like an ISAF. I doubt UN could pull that off. NATO is occupied. Was EuroCorps (or whatever they wanted to call it) ever formed? Is there room for another bloc to step in?


----------



## GAP (2 Aug 2006)

Pearson, even while proposing the option to the UN, was more worried about NATO crashing than anything else. He never supported and actually condemned Nasser and his actions, much like Harper is doing to Hezbollah.  He was also one of the strongest supporters of forming the country of Israel in 1948.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Aug 2006)

cplcaldwell: Eurocorps website:
http://www.eurocorps.org/

This is not an EU force, but rather a formation of national forces available for NATO or the EU.

I think what you are thinking of is the "European Rapid Reaction Force": 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force

As far as I can see the ERRF really does not yet have any concrete reality.  I cannot see the EU as such agreeing to command a risky mission in Lebanon.

Mark
Ottawa


----------

