# What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??



## CanadaPhil (25 Jul 2006)

Much of the discussion in the media right now is of what countries should be part of a "peacekeeping" force (for lack of a better term) to replace Hezbollah and act as security buffer for Israel in order to bring about a long term cease fire. 

However, it looks like no nation is willing to commit to any such possible endeavour at this point (well duh!)

Today I heard that Germany was offering as long as it was OK with Hezbollah??  :

My vote is for TURKEY & FRANCE. 

I think that Turkey is an obvious choice. They are part of NATO, have relatively well equipped forces, have diplomatic relations with both Israel and Lebanon, and are a majority Muslim nation.

France is the other obvious choice as Lebanon was once a former "colony" (again for lack of a better term) and many Lebanese speak French and have ties with France. They also have great influence in Syria. I also believe its high time that France finally step up and stop playing Monday morning quarterback and bashing Israel from the sidelines as they love to do. 

PS: I don't think that Canada should touch this thing with a 50 ft. pole. Thankfully, PM Harper agrees.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2006)

I hope no country falls for that trap. But if one country stepped up its should be India. They have no love for islamic terrorists and have plenty of manpower to sustain a division size force.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jul 2006)

How about some arab countries or countries from that part of the world. It seems that the west always has to do their dirty work, then we get criticied by arab nations for not doing it the way they would. 

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## Etienne (25 Jul 2006)

I think that for starter, Lebanon should start cleaning their own country first by kicking out Hezbollah. They have already achieve to kick out the Syrian army out 2 years ago, with the help of the international community. If they can't achieved that, or don't want to...well it's another  ball game..

Chimo !


----------



## rz350 (25 Jul 2006)

I would say a mix of nations that get all with the region. Some western nations that get along with Israel fairly well. Maybe Saudi or Egyptian Muslim forces to keep Lebanon happy and a few random nations, India, Russia perhaps, they seem to have decent relations with both sides (They Buy Israeli avionics and sell weapons to the Muslim nations...they have no real love for either side, so they would do a good job of being somewhat neutral, and try to keep both sides as intact as they can so they can keep buying and selling weapons) That and I remember a while back Putin said he would consider sending Russian forces to the area as part of a multilateral mission (hey, gotta go with the willing as opposed to the unwilling)

Thats all IMHO (my *very* humble opinion)


----------



## Red 6 (26 Jul 2006)

In my opinion, NATO should take the lead in any sort of stabilization force, and the rules of engagement need to be clearly enforced. Hezbollah will not adhere to any cease fire without heavy pressure and will undoubtedly use it as an opportunity to launch small scale sleeper attacks, stage and shift forces, get their logistical tail in order and bring up more Katyushas. I hope the United States is NOT involved. It's hard for me to feel sympathy for Hezbollah and its followers since they have the blood of 241 dead Marines on their hands.

The trouble with any outside military force coming in is the risk they will be sucked into the conflict through suicide attacks. Force protection will have to be ceaselessly enforced.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Looking at it with a little bit of optimism, there may be a possibility of a UN Zone of separation being created and enforced by NATO forces.  It would have to be a wide enough zone to keep the Israelis happy, but not managed in a way to take away from Lebanese sovereignty.  

Lebanon has been in the process of reconstruction, mainly due to many of her citizens with Dual Citizenships returning from Western Nations.  I am sure that the Lebanese Army and Police Force are in much better shape and efficient than what we find in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they would be an asset in this matter.  I do not think it would be wise to allow the Lebanese Army into this UN Zone, but the Police would be a vital ingredient in any plan to manage this zone.

UN (NATO) Forces would have to oust Hezbollah from this zone, disarming and destroying any Hezbollah sites in the zone (Hopefully putting an end to Hezbollah in the process.).  NATO forces would have to aggressively and actively enforce the neutrality of the zone.  I am not proposing a militarized zone, but a military administered zone, by a well armed and disciplined NATO force.  Lebanese civilians would be free to live and work in the zone, and be policed by their own police forces.  Those police forces would also have to maintain close liaisons with the NATO forces.  

I would recommend that this Force have ROE's that would allow them to defend themselves vigorously.  I would make it a "No Fly Zone" to all buy NATO aircraft and aggressively enforce it.

This would have to be a Force that could maintain the neutrality of the Zone and do so aggressively and therefore be a well armed, trained and disciplined force.  I don't think any idea of a Force made up of any other nations would be able to fill those criteria.


----------



## Red 6 (26 Jul 2006)

You're right on target with your ideas, George. Whatever organization takes on this mission(NATO, EU, UN) , it will be one of the toughest of its kind ever undertaken. Trying to enforce a separation between a sovereign government and a terrorist group will be incredibly hard. I mean, the whole idea of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel. Everything they do stems from that tenet.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

I like Georges' suggestion, except for one little thing.  The area in question is predominately Shite. The police forces would likely be Sunnis, which is not going to go over well. Even if the police forces were Shite, they are very likely to turn a blind eye to Hezbollah activity, which is why Hezbollah gained so much power in the area in the first place. 

I may be out to lunch here, but I thought the area also had a high concentration of Maronite Christians...


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Gap

I was thinking along the lines of Bosnia, where NATO forces actually did raids onto weapons caches, and the like.  The Police would maintain the Civil Laws, but NATO forces would aggressively maintain the military situation.  They would actively 'clean out' Hezbollah sites and enforce the neutrality of the zone.  Civil Laws would be enforced by the Civil Police Force, which I am optimistically hoping are not as biased as in some other Middle Eastern nations. 

Lebanon have a very diverse cultural, ethnic and Religious population, which I feel may lend it to reconstruction more successfully than the other nations in the Region.  I don't think that there is the same Racial/Religious/Cultural hatreds in Lebanon as we find in places like Iraq, and a few other countries.  I could be wrong.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

> I was thinking along the lines of Bosnia, where NATO forces actually did raids onto weapons caches, and the like.  The Police would maintain the Civil Laws, but NATO forces would aggressively maintain the military situation



Ooohhh...with Hezbollah's history and the current radical Islam garbage being spouted, I don't envy any country going in to try to do that. Looking at the potential UN recruits, I don't see many that are capable of that much aggression, certainly not India/Turkey, that have been mentioned. The only ones capable of aggressively enforcing the rules might be some NATO countries and maybe Russia, the others have either no will or an interest to one side or the other.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

That is why I am advocating a NATO Force.  I hesitated to voice my distrust of any of the others, although there are a few that could be relied on to maintain a strong disciplined and neutral force, the majority of which would be British Commonwealth Armies not in NATO.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

agreed


----------



## Shadowolf (26 Jul 2006)

I think the question is -  What army wants to be put in front of an aggressive IDF?  I sure as hell dont want to be caught in the middle of IDF's Smash and Bash.  I say let IDF sort it out, then send in the Peacekeepers once they are willing to walk away from Lebanon.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Any Force that goes in, no matter if it is before or after Israel 'kicks butt', will have to be well armed and able to take on any aggressor, including the IDF.  If they are not armed enough to vigorously defend themselves, we will be back to what we have now in the UN Force that is currently at the receiving end of Israeli attacks.  And I mean a Force that will have the abilities to kick Israeli ass if it need be.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

What NATO country other then the Americans and Brits could conceivably kick the IDF's ass?


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> What NATO country other then the Americans and Brits could conceivably kick the IDF's ass?



No country is even considering taking on the IDF.  You are right, they are too good. The focus seems to be the quagmire the whole scenario would lead to (see: Iraq). Israel will not go in again, unless attacked, which means the peacekeepers are not able to do the job. I think Hezbollah would make sure that they are not able to do their job.


----------



## probum non poenitet (26 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> No country is even considering taking on the IDF.  You are right, they are too good.



I've often wondered if it's a case of the Israelis being too good, or their opponents being very weak.
I'd put my money on a NATO brigade over an Israeli one in a knock-down fight, but we'll likely never know the answer to that.

Interesting ideas about the separation force. As George Wallace said, it would have to be effective, and not for show. 
That's why the Israelis are really contemptuous of much of the UN - they see it as mostly ineffective, and Israel wrote the book on "If you're not with us, you're against us."

When it comes to a third-party force in south Lebanon, It think the hardest people to convince will be the Israelis. I am guessing they would rather do it themselves, so they know it would be done aggressively and to Israel's benefit.

On the other hand, if a NATO force actually worked (like IFOR in Bosnia) Israel _*may*_ go for it, but like Gap said: Remember 1983 and what happened to the U.S. and France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

It could be a damned dangerous assignment, but what else is new these days?

It's a terrible thing about the UN troops being killed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2006)

In addition to Ambassador Bell’s comments (Hard questions about a NATO force) and my comments on his piece here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47908/post-417563.html#msg417563 I would offer that:

•	The credible force must have its own good, modern, combat air power – fighters, fighter/bombers, AEW/AWACS and EW assets.  This is essential to provide credibility to both Israel and neighbouring Arab states.  It also raises the thorny question of _interoperability_ which may make (my preferred) *NATO led* force more difficult;

•	The credible force must – as other have already mentioned – have a mandate which allows it to use deadly force against *all comers*: Hezbollah, the IDF or anyone else (Syria, for example) who might decide to mess with it; and

•	Perhaps most difficult, the credible force must have a good intelligence capability, including high level SIGINT services.  This might make a NATO only force a better option as NATO nations are reluctant enough to share intelligence with each other but many will refuse to provide intelligence to non-NATO force members.  The commander needs three levels of intelligence –

o	His own strategic and tactical intelligence to help him plan and conduct his own operations in support of his mission,

o	Intelligence which he can – must – share, equally, with Israel and Lebanon showing (most (some?) of) what he knows about the going-on in his area of responsibility;

o	Information which he can share with the UN – which means information which must be UNCLAS and which he must expect to read in the press the next day – about the situation in the area.


----------



## probum non poenitet (26 Jul 2006)

Edward (and everyone else)

if you were in charge, how wide would you make the 'buffer zone?'

Tricky question considering how little real estate there is over there.
I believe the Israelis used about 20 km, which is a decent chunk of Lebanon.

What about civil administration, etc.?


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

So what we are looking for is a handful of countries with modern, well equipped forces whose soldiers have no vested interests in the region and:

- like to help old ladies across the street;
- will sit down for long chats with both sides over coffee, tea or slivovitz according to local custom;
- are just as willing to kill Jews as Arabs;
- will not have any qualms about killing armed women and children;
- never kill innocents by accident or design;
- willingly accept punishment for such killings happen;
- be deliberative;
- be able to deliberate before the other side fires;
- are disciplined enough so that they will only follow orders;
- have the moral clarity to know when those orders shouldn't be followed;
- perform according to all these expectations and come back home to spouse and kids and carry on with daily life as if nothing has happened;
- be compassionate but unfeeling;
- be prepared to do it all over again in a few months time;
- repeat as necessary.

Should be easy enough to find.

The only real answer is to get those that have a vested interest in the area to get a grip on the situation, control their own turf, and come to an understanding with their neighbours.  Historically that only seems to happen after enough people have seen enough blood and treasure wasted that they decide that any alternative might be better.

Lebanon has to get to grips with the South.  Their civil war isn't over as tired as they might be.  If they don't want to be held responsible for the actions of the people in the south then they can act against them or else cut them off and declare the territory south of the Litani to not be Lebanese and in fact an independent country.  Hizbollah claims it is a government.  Let it be held responsible as a government for its actions.  Perhaps Syria would like to claim the land in order to support the tens of thousands of its citizens that live there "because the money is good".  Then Syria could be held responsible for Hezbollah's actions.

For Lebanon they have to control it or disown it completely.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So what we are looking for is a handful of countries with modern, well equipped forces whose soldiers have no vested interests in the region and:
> - like to help old ladies across the street;
> - will sit down for long chats with both sides over coffee, tea or slivovitz according to local custom;
> - are just as willing to kill Jews as Arabs;
> ...



Batman comes to mind...maybe a few other action heros might qualify


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Edward (and everyone else)
> 
> if you were in charge, how wide would you make the 'buffer zone?'
> 
> ...



It seems to me that before deciding on how much and on issues like civil administration one must clarify the aim.

The UN’s aim, I think, should be consistent with its own Resolutions and it should, therefore, require that Hezbollah (in Lebanon) be disbanded.  In practical terms, it seems to me, that means that a UN Resolution which would guide a NATO (led) force should require it to expel Hezbollah from the areas it (the force) controls.  It (the force) should do this on behalf of the Government of Lebanon.

It seems to me that, as a minimum, the NATO (led) force needs to have military control over everything South (and East?) of the Litani River.  This might mean a 'hockey stick' shaped zone stretching along the Syrian and Israeli borders from about the level of Baalbeck in the North-East to the Mediterranean with the Litani, proper, as the North and West boundary – that’s about 1/3 of Lebanon.

I believe the NATO led force should serve alongside and protect/support a Lebanese civil administration – including Lebanese police and para-military forces.  Later in the mandate (which might be the work of decades) a retrained and re-equipped Lebanese Army might join the NATO led force and, eventually, replace it.

It would appear to me that this might be a two division task:  One division along the Eastern (Syrian) side and the other in the South (facing the Israelis).  There are obvious requirements for light, highly mobile, recce units; motorized or lorried  infantry in semi-fixed positions (à la Afghanistan 2006); and mobile ‘heavy’ armoured/infantry reserves – the whole supported by artillery, army aviation, fast air, etc, etc, etc.  Maybe 35,000+ soldiers and aviators for 25+ years!

It might even be a bigger task if the force could be expanded into the Golan Heights to ‘serve and protect’ a Syrian civil administration in that disputed region – satisfying Syria’s requirement to regain sovereignty over the area and Israel’s requirement to ‘secure’ the area against forces which can/will attack Israel, proper.  Maybe 50,000+/- people for 25 years?

Is there a useful alternative?

We can, with some justification, wash our hands of the place and leave the Israelis to their own devices.  The likely outcome, within a decade is a nuclear exchange; Israel is probably destroyed but the Arabs and Iranians probably do get to revisit the medieval era – because that’s all that will be left of their societies.  I’m not sure our 21st century liberal morality will (or should) tolerate that solution.  That doesn’t seem, to me, to be an acceptable alternative.

The UN has, clearly, failed and failed again and continues to fail in the Middle East.  It is now part of the problem not part of the solution.  Another failing UN force is not a useful alternative.

That brings us back to the Sharron solution: a big fence – including a 35,000+ person/25+ year human ‘fence’ (à la the _Pearsonian_ peacekeeping ‘thin blue line’ model – but ‘thick’ enough to give real effect to a UN mandate to make South Lebanon (and the Golan Heights?) ‘secure’).  The bill is high but: Are there any acceptable, useful (in our interests) alternatives?

This is a WAG of the highest (lowest?) order.  I haven't been in the region for decades.


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> I've often wondered if it's a case of the Israelis being too good, or their opponents being very weak.



Considering that as late as the Yom Kippur War, a sizeable chunk of Israeli armoured divisions were made up of up-gunned Sherman tanks rescued from scrap heaps, I would think its the former.


----------



## rz350 (26 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> Considering that as late as the Yom Kippur War, a sizeable chunk of Israeli armoured divisions were made up of up-gunned Sherman tanks rescued from scrap heaps, I would think its the former.


Israel has 75 F-16s and 21 F-15's Using Sparrows.

Compare to USAF with 396 F-15's and 2507 F-16's(the number of F-16's is very large, as it includes sold off stock and in-operational ones. I cant find an active number) Using AIM-120 AMRAAM's now
or to the Russian Invantory of 52 Su-33 (carrier version of su-27) 452 Su-27 455 MiG-29 11 Su-35 Super Flanker. (this is a operational, active number) Using the R-77 "AMRAAMSKI" (I believe they've retrofit them to nearly their entire inventory)


----------



## enfield (26 Jul 2006)

Despite expectations, it appears France and Germany vetoed a NATO role at the Rome Meetings. It's difficult to consider a useful force without significant US, ABCA, or European involvement. 

I think its obvious that such a multinational force would not fight the IDF. As well, I don't believe this multinational force is envisioned as fighting a fully active Hezbollah. The intent seems to be to let Israel do their business - and much of the hard work - and neutralize the militant elements of Hezbollah. Israel will not trust someone else to do this job, and it's doubtful they will leave before the job is done - this is Israel's national security, and they've never been fond of sub-contracting. When Hezbollah is neutralized, the multi-national force will bolster Lebanese capabilities and provide a security guarantee (as long as it remains effective, otherwise they're just a speed bump), keep Israel from invading again, and allow Lebanon to develop properly.

I see a multinational force being utilized to back up, assist, and possibly train the Lebanese Army and security forces and be a preventative security measure to assist Beirut in administrating the South. Realistically, I predict the usual mass of 2nd and 3rd world soldiers with a smattering of Western troops as trainers and maybe some specialist troops. Its obvious most Western countries don't want to take on an Islamic insurgency, especially against an enemy like Hezbollah.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Enfield said:
			
		

> Despite expectations, it appears France and Germany vetoed a NATO role at the Rome Meetings. It's difficult to consider a useful force without significant US, ABCA, or European involvement.


I would say that these would be the top candidates to do the job.  They have the equipment, training, and most of all, the discipline to do the job right the first time.



			
				Enfield said:
			
		

> I think its obvious that such a multinational force would not fight the IDF. As well, I don't believe this multinational force is envisioned as fighting a fully active Hezbollah. The intent seems to be to let Israel do their business - and much of the hard work - and neutralize the militant elements of Hezbollah. Israel will not trust someone else to do this job, and it's doubtful they will leave before the job is done - this is Israel's national security, and they've never been fond of sub-contracting. When Hezbollah is neutralized, the multi-national force will bolster Lebanese capabilities and provide a security guarantee (as long as it remains effective, otherwise they're just a speed bump), keep Israel from invading again, and allow Lebanon to develop properly.


I disagree.  This multinational force must be prepared and equipped to take on the IDF or any other threat in the Region.  If they don't have the will or ability, then they will be neutered just as the UN was.  The IDF will walk all over them politically and militarily.  The Hezbollah will do the same.  They have to be the "biggest, meanest kid on the block".



			
				Enfield said:
			
		

> I see a multinational force being utilized to back up, assist, and possibly train the Lebanese Army and security forces and be a preventative security measure to assist Beirut in administrating the South. Realistically, I predict the usual mass of 2nd and 3rd world soldiers with a smattering of Western troops as trainers and maybe some specialist troops. Its obvious most Western countries don't want to take on an Islamic insurgency, especially against an enemy like Hezbollah.


This is not what we are proposing, but a renaming of an ineffective UN style deployment.  Your first sentence is a worth cause, but all that follows is bound to lead to failure.  Even the training of the Lebanese Army and Security Forces should be a secondary thought.  They should be left to 'manage' Lebanese territory outside the zone.  Inside the zone would be the job of the Lebanese Civil Police Forces, in cooperation with the NATO/Coalition Forces.

Any idea that this is to be a Peacekeeping Force should be thrown out the window.  This will be an 'Occupying Force', with 'real teeth', that will ensure Lebanese sovereignty of that zone, but keep both Hezbollah and IDF out.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jul 2006)

Isn't the discussion kind of moot?  I think Israel is going to do it, solo.


----------



## CanadaPhil (26 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Isn't the discussion kind of moot?  I think Israel is going to do it, solo.



Yeah.... Sad but true.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2006)

The US has taken the leash off Israel, there will be no ceasefire until Israel wants one. The current fighting is very much unfinished business. Hizbollah needs to be destroyed and driven out of Lebanon. Only then can the Lebanese government establish control over its territory.There will be no more peacekeepers in Lebanon,I suspect.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Jul 2006)

I'm just curious as to what the ROE's will be like.  Say for instance Hezbollah sneaks through the buffer zone and launches an attack on Israel, or they launch a few rockets over the buffer zone, then what?

What if Israel wants to retaliate?  Is NATO to draw their guns on the incoming IDF, or are they to step aside and say "go get em!"?

I can only imagine the kind of international incident that would come about should NATO and IDF forces clash...


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I'm just curious as to what the ROE's will be like.  Say for instance Hezbollah sneaks through the buffer zone and launches an attack on Israel, or they launch a few rockets over the buffer zone, then what?


Have you read any of this topic yet?  I have proposed "A VERY AGGRESSIVE" ROE's.  That would not permit any Hezbollah to be in the 'zone' period.  They would be hunted down and driven out.  If they came in, as you suggest, they would be engaged and driven out.  Time for you to read some history of what happened before you were a wet dream.  Back in the 1950's and 1960's when Pearson was one of the promoters of Military Peacekeepers, it was because they were trained 'Soldiers' capable of effectively defending themselves.


			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> What if Israel wants to retaliate?  Is NATO to draw their guns on the incoming IDF, or are they to step aside and say "go get em!"?


Go back to Post # 1 and read what we have already discussed.



			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I can only imagine the kind of international incident that would come about should NATO and IDF forces clash...


Again, go back to Post #1 and read this whole Topic......You are way outside your lanes.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Jul 2006)

> Have you read any of this topic yet?



Much of it yes.



> I have proposed "A VERY AGGRESSIVE" ROE's.



But unfortunately, you are not responsible for issuing said ROE's so it's all just speculation on your part.  But your right.  I was very vague with my post.  It should have read "I wonder what the *ACTUAL * ROE's will be like given the nature of the proposed mission.



> That would not permit any Hezbollah to be in the 'zone' period. They would be hunted down and driven out.



Yes, I read that, and that's all fine and dandy, but that could take years.  It won't happen over night, and there is a chance that Hezbollah might be able to get a few more shots off at Israel before they are "hunted down and driven out"...

Israel has never been one to sit and take it up the perverbial ass while someone attacked them.



> If they came in, as you suggest, they would be engaged and driven out.



Your initial ROE's were refering to a time where they are already driven out.  I am not.  I am refering to the long, hard fight that will most certainly endure to get them out, and what will happen as they take a few more shots at Israel before they are finally evicted from the area.

Your ROE's for Israel are fine and dandy and all (kicking IDF *** as you put it if they try to advance into the buffer zone) but, although I agree with them, they are the actual "wet dream"....



> Time for you to read some history of what happened before you were a wet dream.



Was that really necessairy?

You could have just deleted my comments like you did before  :


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

For someone with no operational experience vs someone with 30+ yrs, you seem pretty definitive.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (26 Jul 2006)

I knew someone would eventually say that.   I respect Georges experience very much.  I am still entitled to my own opinion.

His initial ROE's made a lot of sense, but they didn't take into account an IDF attack should Hezbollah get in a few more cheap shots on the way out.

Then he mentioned kicking the IDF's a** if they try to attack on the second page.  Now you're talking about sending a force to battle on both fronts.  I don't need 30+ years of experience to see that. 

This is why I said I wonder what the ROE's would be like (where I admit I was vague.  I should have said I wonder what the *actual* ROE's would be like given that very situation)

George blew off the handle.  I don't want to get into a pissing contest with anyone so I am ending my participation in this thread here.  If anyone has anything to say to me, PM it to me because I am not going to reply here.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Similar to most people here, prior to going into a theatre, we trained, we mocked trained, brutally. We listened to the salts,(they love feeding guppies) and we developed some pretty strong ideas of what it was going to be like, how we were going to react, what the enemy was like, and all that sugar plum stuff. 

That all lasted about 5 minutes in country. Everything I thought was going to happen, never did, all kinds of stuff I had never even considered became a top priority. The ROE's we were taught, seemed to change overnight. Different time - different place. Probably, but that does not change the fact that feets on the ground is never how you envisioned it. 

The same thing applies to Battle Plans...they become obsolete about 5 minutes after contact. Oh, the overall goal may be achieved, but that stupid other guy and his friends keep screwing it up...go figure 

my 1cent...I need the other one


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

What do they say GAP, no plan survives first contact.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> What do they say GAP, no plan survives first contact.



no truer words  ;D

I read a lot of different threads here and you can generally spot people who have had feet on the ground. They are generally more willing to wait it out and see what happens. The trouble with going in definitive, some people find it difficult to say, "oops, wrong foot" before it's too late. We had a few young officers come in full of P*&^ and vinegar, knowing all the answers, wouldn't listen to their NCO's. poor fellows.


----------



## exsemjingo (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> My vote is for TURKEY & FRANCE.
> 
> I think that Turkey is an obvious choice. They are part of NATO, have relatively well equipped forces, have diplomatic relations with both Israel and Lebanon, and are a majority Muslim nation.
> 
> PS: I don't think that Canada should touch this thing with a 50 ft. pole. Thankfully, PM Harper agrees.



Too bad you were not being sarcastic.  Turkey has not been a helpful ally lately, despite being part of NATO.  Since they did not even let the Americans use their bases for the invasion of Iraq, there is no way that they would commit troops to help Israel on behalf of the Americans.  France also should be willing to commit troops, but they are too busy thumbing their noses at the Americans to actually help when needed.  This kind of non-sense used to be funny, except that when push came to shove and the Americans needed help in Iraq (among other places), France was nowhere to be found.  Did they forget WWII?  Vietnam also?  
Finnally, Canada should definitely be involved in any outside support of Israel.  Our PM does not want to commit troops for pragmatic reasons, not ideological ones.  If our military were up to snuff (that is, had it been funded properly by previous governments ), we might even have been leaders in this.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Jul 2006)

Here's the crux of this, in my opinion. I'll use a scenario to illustrate it: A Hezbollah combat unit enters the restricted zone armed with small arms and, say, a mortar with ammo. The NATO forces in the area spot the unauthorized movement and send out the rection force. A firefight ensues and the Hezbollah unit is destroyed. The local grapevine goes to work and several days later, a VBIED detonates at the gate of the NATO FOB. 

This is the problem dealing with a non-governmental terrorist organization. The command and control is not like a well defined military organization. I know, Hezbollah has a military wing that has commanders and so forth. But they also rely on lone wolves that don't need someone to tell them what to do. Until both sides agree to a cease fire that will stick, NATO, the EU, UN, or whoever, needs to stay the heck out. It's a recipe for disaster.

The solution to this problem isn't in Lebanon. It's in Damascus and Teheran. Peace enforcement has a dim chance of succeeding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2006)

There is an interesting piece in today’s _Globe and Mail_ (which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) which piques my slightly cynical interest.  Here it is:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wmideast0727/BNStory/Front  





> Israel says world has given it a green light
> 
> *HUSSEIN DAKROUB
> Associated Press*
> ...



I have highlighted the important bits.

I’m inclined to agree with Haim Ramon; I think the Rome conference was a set-up: a way to get the _Euros_ off the hook and to hang Israel out to dry.

The Euros are terrified of being required to either:

•	Take sides – which a NATO _peacekeeping_ force would surely require them to do; or

•	Take risks – which would be abundant should NATO be obliged to stand between Israel and the terrorists.

There is no stomach in most of Europe for anything which even appears to suggest that Israel is, in any way, _right_.  Establishing a NATO force to keep Hezbollah away from Israel – to keep it from firing missiles, indiscriminately, at Israeli cities, towns and villages – admits that Israel was, is justified in invading Lebanon with the intention of _disbanding_ (fatally disbanding) Hezbollah – as the UN asked.  This feeling is strongest in the continental _big four_: France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Those four all wept crocodile tears and called for an immediate cease-fire – secure in the knowledge that Ms. Rice (supported by Peter McKay) would not agree.  They all agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist gang – our enemy – and they all agree that it needs to be _disbanded_, preferably fatally.  They just don’t want to be involved lest their own populations (Arab/Islamic immigrants and _guest workers_ and the _traditional_, home grown anti-Semites) take to the streets or, worse, take to the polling stations in the next round of elections. (See, e.g: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.romeconf/index.html )

I don’t think they let Koffi Anan in on the joke.  He is still, loyally and faithfully, parroting the UN General Assembly’s (solid) majority opinion: Israel is a cruel, evil, racist, warmongering bully which kills babies and kittens, too.

I think the Euros’ goal is to ensure that before they commit _peacekeepers_ to Lebanon there will be a peace to keep – a _peace of the dead_, the dead being Hezbollah members and their friends and neighbours, too.


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

Edward...did you think they were going to do anything else?


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Too bad you were not being sarcastic.  Turkey has not been a helpful ally lately, despite being part of NATO.  Since they did not even let the Americans use their bases for the invasion of Iraq, there is no way that they would commit troops to help Israel on behalf of the Americans.  France also should be willing to commit troops, but they are too busy thumbing their noses at the Americans to actually help when needed.  This kind of non-sense used to be funny, except that when push came to shove and the Americans needed help in Iraq (among other places), France was nowhere to be found.  Did they forget WWII?  Vietnam also?



We are NOT in Iraq. What does that make us?? 

BTW, Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has NOTHING to do with NATO.

Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so?? 

Turkey was NOT being threatened by Iraq. And as a democracy, their people had the RIGHT to say that they did not want the US 4th Armoured Division to be allowed to launch a northern ground assault from their soil. 



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> .......... If our military were up to snuff (that is, had it been funded properly by previous governments ), we might even have been leaders in this.



You honestly want our country to be leader in this?? 

The nation is foaming at the mouth over the deaths of 8 dual-citizens, and tragically, an  observer who was left in place by the UN instead of being withdrawn?? 

Our people will not stand for us putting boots on the ground in this quagmire.

The point I was trying to make is that the nations with the greatest recent historical ties with Lebanon are the ones who should be KEEPING or MAKING the piece. Obviously that would be the French and the Ottomans(Turks). Because if they are NOT willing, why the hell should anyone else be??


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

apparent FACT

http://www.answers.com/topic/canada-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction

Specifically:

"From the 1960s to 1984, there were American nuclear weapons in Canada. These were placed under dual-key rules whereby both Canadian and American authorities had to authorize a launch. Pierre Trudeau, Pearson's successor as prime minister, was opposed to these missiles, and in 1971, declared Canada a non-nuclear country. The missiles were moved out of Canada. 

The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. The rockets were held by detachments of the United States Air Force at the Canadian Voodoo bases, and would have been released to Canada if conflict threatened. These were removed in 1984, when the F-18 Hornet entered squadron service and the Voodoo was retired."


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2006)

> Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so??



Quagmire's bang on:

Canada had access to nuclear weapons for (amongst other things) the Honest John SSM, the CF-104, the Voodoos, and the Bomarc SAM and could call on nuclear fires from any NATO ally in the event of war in Europe.  I once had a CO who had "nuclear strike" as a qualification on his MPRR (he'd flown CF-104s in Germany) - which is clear enough, I should think.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

;D


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

LOL.

Well obviously you knew I was talking about the 4th INFANTRY Division. Just mind gaps while typing. Geez.  

I was also talking about ground to ground ballistic nuclear missiles. 

And yes, I know we had nuclear tipped Anti-AIRCRAFT missiles. I think pretty much every major NATO power did at one time. The Bomarc was part of Diefenbaker's whole BS rationale for the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, using the argument that MANNED aircraft interceptors were now obsolete.

Again, the point I was just trying to make was that TURKEY has honoured its NATO commitments, and then some. They made themselves target number ONE on the Soviets nuclear hit list.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> I was also talking about ground to ground ballistic nuclear missiles.



Which is what an Honest John is - an SSM - as I said.



> Again, the point I was just trying to make was that TURKEY has honoured its NATO commitments, and then some.



As did we back then.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_John


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2006)

> They had a range between 5.5 km (3.4 miles) and 24.8 km (15.4 miles).



Sure didn't leave a lot of safety room did they?


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

LMAO  

So I guess we can assume there were none stationed in oh..... Chatham, Ontario??

Again, I WAS TALKING ABOUT LONG RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!. Geez, what is the point of this??

I know CANADA HAS ALWAYS DONE its share.

AGAIN, I was only commenting on what I thought was an unjustified attack on Turkey's NATO commitment.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jul 2006)

Okay, further hijack.  
What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?   ???


----------



## exsemjingo (28 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> 1.  We are NOT in Iraq. What does that make us??
> 2.  BTW, Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has NOTHING to do with NATO.
> 3. Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so??
> 4. Turkey was NOT being threatened by Iraq. And as a democracy, their people had the RIGHT to say that they did not want the US 4th Armoured Division to be allowed to launch a northern ground assault from their soil.
> ...



1. Canada has not withdrawn it's troops in Iraq serving with American units.  Some have argued that Canada's role in Afghanistan frees up Americans to fight in Iraq.  Such arguments are correct.
2.  Most countries part of the international force are also NATO members.  It is not officially a NATO mission, but the mission is far from having nothing to do with the organization.
3.  I think so, at Cold Lake, but that is classified so this is strictly speculation.  Besides, if one has a missile that can hit Russia from Canada, that missile can hit Russia from the United States too.  Geography and such...
4.  The Americans were not being threatened either, but their interests were.  The people of a country do not make those kind of decisions; the ruling government does.  Executive branch, and all that.  As far as democracy in Turkey goes, it is an okay example, but not exactly stellar.
5.  Bad example.  See other threads on there forums for the reluctance of the Canadian public in general.
6.  Because Israel's enemies are our enemies, and because should Israel fall WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, further hijack.
> What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?   ???



Short answers: Yep and Yep.

Take a look at how far south the original radar picket was (Pinetree predated DEW and was concurrent with the manned bomber threat).

http://www.pinetreeline.org/boundary/canada1.html

Back to regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jul 2006)

Thanks, Kirkhill.  So, basically all those shot down Russian bombers with live nukes would have landed all through northern Canada.  Fun.


----------



## Donut (28 Jul 2006)

I think the plan was for all those shot down soviet bombers to be glowing dust, honestly.  If the dust landed here, that was still better then a bomb in anyone's books.  

FWIW, I'm freakin' glad Chretien isn't in office anymore, how often did he volunteer us for a "potential UN deployment" to that region?  <Shudder>

NOW back to your regularly scheduled program.


----------



## CanadaPhil (28 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, further hijack.
> What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?   ???



Yep..thats it....Remember we are talking 50's & 60's here.

Bear in mind that these weapons were VERY LOW yield, but the idea was that ANYTHING flying in a radius of a few miles of the blast would be  toast.

This was the whole concept behind the Bomarc missile system that Canada deployed for a short time. I believe the Bomarc system along with the publics negative attitudes towards us fielding nukes of any type was a major reason the Diefenbacker government fell to Lester Pearson's Liberals.

PS. Sorry for adding to the hijack posts.   

This thread has really gotten off topic now. I did hear today that there is going to be some meeting on Monday, where some major players are apparently going to be signalling their willingness to contribute troops to a peacekeeping or peacemaking forces. Maybe this thread can be properly revived then.


----------



## CanadaPhil (28 Jul 2006)

Me again.

Here is a very short video clip addressing the subject of International Peacekeeping forces from the other perspective.

I found it rather humorous.


http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1208


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> Me again.
> Here is a very short video clip addressing the subject of International Peacekeeping forces from the other perspective.
> I found it rather humorous.
> http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1208



Lebanon's version of Jack Layton -- spouting out both ends


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> I found it rather humorous.


Within 60 seconds, going from "Lebanon is peaceful" to "international peacekeepers should be deployed on the Israeli side of the border to defend Israel" to "every weapon in Lebabon should be pointed at Israel because of its aggression." _Someone's_ been boycotting his meds  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jul 2006)

That's just great that whack job is a "leader" over there.  Seemed to me he was just making it up as he went along.  Try not to loose your turban, buddy.  
I love the expression on the interviewers face!  It's like "hoo, this one has jumped the rails, why isn't the producer going to commercial?"


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2006)

It appears that support – from the US which is the only _support_ which matters to anyone – is increasing for some sort of an international peacekeeping force to do something (_control_? _patrol and report_ or _monitor/report_ on goings on) in South Lebanon.

Noting a path where there are few angelic footprints I rush in  : as follows:

•	A force which does anything less than *control*, on behalf of the sovereign government of Lebanon – which, in its turn, must require the force to rid South Lebanon of Hezbollah and _fellow travelers_, will do more harm than good.  A resurrected, rearmed and emboldened Hezbollah will require Israel to invade again – this time in considerable strength – with potentially dreadful consequences;*

•	Such a force should be NATO led or, maybe even better, a small coalition of countries might be assembled to ‘lead’ the operation.  Whatever the _leadership_, the force must be 100% credible to both sides.  It must be and must be seen to be –

	Ready, willing and able to disband Hezbollah, quickly and by deadly force if necessary,

	Ready, willing and able to take on the IDF in combat and win,

	Scrupulously fair – to everyone.  This involves being _open_ to the global media and it will likely involve sharing some secret intelligence with both Israel and Lebanon, and

	Supportive of the people of South Lebanon and of the agencies helping them to rebuild their shattered lives and homes;

•	Such a force must have credible naval, land and air components in order to _deter_ Israel and it must have good intelligence and SOF elements to chase down and _disband_ Hezbollah;

•	Such a force must have a long mandate – maybe five or ten years, right off the bat; and

•	The force must have a good logistics tail and adequate funding.

OK, the question is: who?

First, as I have said before, I believe that none of the five permanent members of the UNSC (America, Britain, China, France and Russia) should play any leadership role.  They have too much _baggage_ on this whole issue.  Some are distrusted because of the roles they have played in this and other recent Middle east conflicts, others because of their active support of one side or the other and still others for their colonial pasts in the region.  The ‘big five’ should also provide few, if any troops on the ground in Lebanon, _per se_ – although perhaps naval and (Cyprus based?) air forces would be acceptable.  The big five can/should provide third line logistics support and billions and billions of dollars and Euros (and whatever real money they can get for their rubles and yuan).

Second, all forces must be _acceptable_ to Israel and Lebanon (which means, _ de facto_ Syria and/or the Arab League).

Thus far only Turkey seems well positioned to lead such a force – it is a Muslim NATO member with (not overly close) ties to Israel and the Arabs.

Some Muslim nations – those with credible armed forces – should be invited to join.  The list is short, I think:

•	Pakistan – but only if India is also invited;

•	Malaysia;

•	Jordan – but it might not be _acceptable_ to Syria as the two have a long _history_ which includes the murder of King Abdullah’s grandfather (also Abdullah); and

•	The Emirates – in a small role.

There are several other useful non-NATO members which might be persuaded to contribute, including, for example:

•	Australia;

•	Brazil;

•	Chile;

•	Fiji – its army has extensive experience in the region but it would need equipment and training;

•	New Zealand;

•	Japan; and

•	Singapore.

Canada _*might*_ have an important exemplary role to play as a force providing nation: to encourage the other smaller and sometimes already heavily committed nations like Australia and the Netherlands to participate.

Canada’s land forces are already over-committed so we should resist any and all efforts to require even one ‘pure green suit’ but we might provide a ship or two, some combat and recce aircraft and/or, perhaps, some SIGINT resources.

Canada _might_, also, provide some of the political leadership and management for the operation.

----------

* I have posited before, here in Army.ca, that I believe that one possible, indeed _likely_ outcome of the Middle East imbroglio is that it will result in a nuclear war, probably started with a _terror_ attack on Israel (using an old _team pack_ or nuke or a repackaged nuclear artillery shell – both of which have been reported,  *but not proven* to have gone missing in the former USSR) and degenerating quickly into a full scale chemical/nuclear exchange.  The end effect with be a _victory_ of sorts for those Arabs who want, _inter alia_, to return to the medieval era:

•	Israel will, most likely, be _driven into the sea_ – tens of thousands will be killed, millions will flee to (mostly) America, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand; and

•	All that will be left of part of North Africa and all of the Middle East and Iran will be a smoldering ruin – the survivors will be damned lucky if they can build and sustain a medieval society, a return to the dark ages is more probable.


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2006)

Sounds about right. The end solution may ultimately be the best solution, if only because it is the most abhorrant. If it did happen, it may be the lesson the rest of the world needs to appreciate what these rogue states are capable of. Not likely, but...  :


----------



## chanman (31 Jul 2006)

re. the 'big five' - I don't think the PRC has much in the way of baggage in the area, but neither do they have much experience in the way of running a large, long-term peacekeeping force.

Don't JSDF still have those heavily restrictive ROE's?  

The countries with the least baggage in the area also seem to have the least incentive to go there to begin with - it is hard to envision the Japanese or Singaporean governments or populace taking enough interest in the region to tolerate casualties.

And you also forgot to mention the S. Koreans in the list; was the omission deliberate?


----------



## exsemjingo (31 Jul 2006)

I must respectfully say, Edward Campbell, that your plan cannot happen.  Ideally it would, but the situation is far from Ideal.  India and Pakistan will not make peace for the sake of the situation in the middle east.  Secondly, the Pakistani army is already spread too thin to secure it's border with Afghanistan.
It is true that divisions between the 5 permanent members of the UN security council have once again rendered that organization impotent, but at the same time it is true that no other nation but the United States has enough resources and influence to enter the area and make a difference.  There will be no international force without American participation, since they are the strongest advocates of Israel outside of Israel.
Sadly, outside the conflict propper, which is between Israel and Hezbollah, there lies a second level between Israel, Iran Syria and Lebanon, and outside of that, a third level between the United States, Russia, and an handful of European nations between.
The battle lines have been drawn on this conflict, and they go all the way out.


----------



## Red 6 (1 Aug 2006)

I'm not sure on the ROE for the Japanese, but I doubt they'll want to put boots on the ground in Lebanon in any event. In my opinion, NATO is the only grouping that has what it would take to make any cease fire work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2006)

There is one huge problem with a NATO only force: Turkey is the only Muslim nation in the alliance and it is not seen as being especially _Arab friendly_, in fact, I hear – *rumours*, that Lebanon, speaking for the Arab League or maybe just Syria, might not accept a NATO only force.

The huge problems with a NATO led (with a UNSC mandate) force are:

•	Political leadership – at least NATO foreign ministers and heads-of-governments, if need be can reach consensus, most of the time; and

•	Operational interoperability.

The problem for the world is that anything _’less’_ than the force I outlined on 31 Jul 06 (above – or below depending on how you decide to view these pages) has no chance of doing any good, for anyone except Hezbollah, and may do real, serious deadly harm for the whole region.

chanman: I said _’for example’_ to avoid proving an exhaustive list – South Korea is, of course, a credible player and, in my personal opinion, is more likely that Japan or Singapore to step up to the plate for this – if the _official_ US (Congreess, mostly) will stop muttering about withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula.

exsemjingo:  I agree with you that the prospects of getting this _right_ are slim.  When, as is most likely the case, we get it _wrong_ then we step much, much closer to my pessimistic outcome – a genocidal, wide spread but mercifully short nuclear/chemical war in the Middle East and environs in which millions die and tens of millions more are reduce to savagery.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2006)

As I said in an earlier post, the only Troops I would serious consider in this situation are NATO or British Commonwealth Armies.  They are well paid and less likely to be tempted into any form of corruption.  They are well disciplined and well equipped.  Most of them are multi-ethnic, although most have few Muslims or Jews.  They would have the Training and skills and equipment to deal with most, if not all, aggressive acts from either side.  They would also have a lot more Political and Military clout from outside the Region.

My fears with any other nations, is the fact that many are underpaid, poorly quipped, and poorly trained and disciplined.  This would be a disaster waiting to happen.  Examples of the failure of such a Force are readily available in Africa.  

With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US has been left in the role of World Super Power and Policeman.  I don't see any way that the US would be left out of this Force.  Perhaps the UK could be exempt, but I doubt the Force would have the strength and "respect" it would need to enforce any Cease Fire or Peace, without US involvement.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Aug 2006)

The problem being that no one in the ME believes the West.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2006)

There is extensive coverage on the Lebanon situation and, especially, Canadians’ reactions to it in today’s _Globe and Mail_ at:

•	Only 32% back PM on Mideast 
BRIAN LAGHI 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060801.wpoll01/BNStory/Front 

•	Harper's stand on the Middle East leaves majority of Quebeckers cold
Poll shows no gains for Tories in province
DANIEL LEBLANC 
	http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.QUEBEC01/TPStory

•	Israel to push farther into Lebanon
KARIN LAUB (Associated Press)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060801.wmideast0801/BNStory/International

It appears that Prime Minister Harper’s position is markedly unpopular.  John Ibbitson suggests that Canadians are surprisingly united in their majority positions re:

•	“Canada should remain neutral in the conflict” and

•	“Canada should participate in any peacekeeping force that is sent to the region”.

(See: *Shades of red in a pro-neutral country*
Canadians unified in opinion on our role in Mideast conflict, JOHN IBBITSON writes at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.IBBITSON01/TPStory/TPComment/?query= )

This *might* make it more likely that the government will agree to some meaningful military role for Canada in a South Lebanon _peacekeeping_ force – no matter how poorly constructed.  The government should see a need to change public perceptions about its position.  It needs to state that it is taking a principled stand, against terrorism and against violence but *not* a stand borrowed from George W Bush.

Canadians positions are apparently firm despite:

•	Farewell to arms for Hezbollah is unlikely, experts say
PATRICK MARTIN 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTFAREWELL01/TPStory

•	Hospital in Israel ducking for cover under rain of rockets
CAROLYNNE WHEELER 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTNORTH01/TPStory

In addition, it appears that Liberal MP and leadership contender Michael Ignatieff agrees (partially) with me.  He is quoted as follows (my emphasis added):



> Mr. Ignatieff's solutions are based on a fear that the violence is escalating out of control and that any further action by Israel is a victory for Hezbollah. He draws a very distressing picture of where he believes this battle could end.
> 
> "In this terrible struggle, Israel cannot win," he writes, arguing that Hezbollah wants to engage Israel into a "wider conflict which would result in its ultimate destruction."
> 
> ...



(See: *Ignatieff criticizes Harper, suggests immediate ceasefire*
JANE TABER 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.IGNATIEFF01/TPStory


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Aug 2006)

If the population is up in arms of Afghanistan, this blowup has the makings of making the Afghan mission a cake walk compared to what is in store for those gearing up to go.  And yes I know quite well that A Stan is VERY difficult.


----------



## warrickdll (1 Aug 2006)

Noting that everyone's expressed goal here has been the destruction of Hezbollah, I see no benefit from an international force being deployed.

The IDF is fully equipped, perfectly situated, morally invested, locally experienced, and already has the intelligence capabilities. No international force could cause more destruction to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon than the IDF. 

Will anyone be more pleased to see civilians pulled from the wreckage knowing that is was a coalition aircraft rather than an IDF one that dropped the bomb?

What would be in it for any country to patrol southern Lebanon for Israel? Without being able to influence the funding, supply, or backing of Hezbollah, Hezbollah will not be completely destroyed. 

And the IDF, aside from activities within its own borders, has no other commitments. Since Israel is as well equipped as anyone else to do the task, we should let it take care of its own problems.

The best option is for the west is to show that, while it regrets the civilian casualties, it is no longer going to play this game by the rules of the terrorists (or their supporters). Nothing does this more than backing Israel's right to invade any country that harbours terrorists that attack it.

We are now finally on the right course by holding Hezbollah and Lebanon responsible for their own inhumanity. Any attempt to put in an international force, without at least having local support for the destruction of Hezbollah, only muddies the message.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Aug 2006)

I have to go with Iterator on this one. 

In fact it seems that the EU and the US are going along with him as well. 

Despite the obvious hew and cry from the "war is never a solution" crowd it seems that the only way to let this play out is to let the IDF smash the **** out of the place. IMHO. Tragic as the outcome will be for many Lebanese.

Mr Ignatieff is not living up to his rather admirable credentials when he claims that the destruction of Hezbollah will radicalize the Arab nation. (It isn't already?). I get rather sick and tired of listening to these "What will happen in the Arab street..." prognostications. Of course the Arab street hates the Israelis, from their perspective how could one not hate the Israelis. 

 But Egypt and Jordan long ago gave up on trying to defeat Israel, even if Hezbollah gets in a 'lucky punch' and sets the IDF back on its heels I doubt those two would pile on. As for Syria, what a joke. The Syrian Army is large but inefficient and I think Mr Assad will not gamble his political capital. The Saudis and the Gulf States could care less. 

So let them chatter in the market place, I doubt their leadership will ante up, in any event. 

Somewhere in all the pseudo news I heard a quote of an old Lebanese guy the other day... "This war is not between Israel and Lebanon it is between Israel and Iran, they have no other place to have (i.e. the war) than in the Lebanon." Since repeated to one degree or another many times since I am sure. 

When Mr. Ignatieff says that Iran may give Hezbollah the green light to escalate to longer range, heavier weapons, he might be right. His next statement that Iran may not 'get it' is non-sequitur. I don't think Israel cares whether Iran gets it or not, if Hezbollah escalates Israel will strike Iran if it sees fit. Everything so far indicates that Israel is dead serious on this and will achieve its military objectives regardless of the political fallout. And Israel has big nasty friends. Iran will get a right proper pasting I am sure.

If that happens, I see no reason why hands in Cairo, Amman or even Riyadh would not be rubbed in glee (surreptitiously, I grant). I think we in the west are only just coming to an understanding of what the Shia/Sunni split means. I think additionally we have very little idea of the dynamics of the Arab/Persian relationship. By acting in such a radical fashion Iran is setting itself up for a fall that many in the Arab world could very easily live with. 

So why put in a peackeeping force? All it does is prolong the misery. Let the Israelis at it hammer and tongs. Hezbollah gets eviscerated, Lebanon will eventually get rebuilt, if Iran steps in they will not be allowed to succeed (I'll bet you the warload of an Ohio SSBN on that one!) 

All's well that ends well? Well that might be a bit cynical, but at least it will send Ahmenajad and his clients back to the drawing board for a few years.

Mr Ignatieff is pandering to our western decency, it may be cold or not, I think the only way to do it now is let it play out by force of arms.(God help me but I probably earned seat in hell for that...)

So there, there's a reasonably opinionated, non-PC rant, I await attack. (However good natured it might be...)

0.02


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2006)

I would agree wholeheartedly. The one exception is that the Arab nations would be doing more than rubbing their hands should Iran take a tumble. They have been pushing the Arab world envelope ever since the Shah fell, and exporting their brand of extremism in a variety of ways and names.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Aug 2006)

I too agree with the idea that they just have to fight it out among themselves.  As far as western opinion, I seem to recall a simile with regards to what opinions are like...
I got this as an email.  So of course, if it is on the internet, it must be true  :

Israel and Jerusalem facts
1. Israel became a state in 1312 BC, two millennia before   Islam..

2. Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 
1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood;

3. After conquering the land in 1272 BC, Jews ruled it for a thousand 
years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years;

4. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never 
the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule, 
(east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to 
visit it;

5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is 
it mentioned in the Qur'an;

6. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it;

7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between 
the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem;

8. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to 
cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever 
setting eyes on an Israeli soldier;

9. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to 
flee as the result of violence and pogroms;

10. Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million 
Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries;

11. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees 
were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. 
Of 100 million refugees following world war 2, they are the only group 
to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish 
refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no 
larger than New Jersey;

12. There are 22 Arab countries, not counting Palestine. There is only 
one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost 
every one of them;

13. Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of 
Israel. Israel ceded most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the 
Palestinian authority, and even provided it with arms;

14. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized 
and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and 
Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths;

15. Out of 175 United Nations security council resolutions up to 1990, 
97 were against Israel; out of 690 general assembly resolutions, 429 
were against Israel;

16. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in 
the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan 
systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the mount of 
olives, an d it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws 
preventing Jews from accessing the temple mount and western wall.

No doubt there is much to argue about in the above mentioned.  If even most of it is true, however, it would seem as though the Israelis have the most legitimate claim on the area.  
DISCLAIMER:  Posted for discussion, not being held out as confirmed fact   :warstory:


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2006)

Look's like France is angling to be in charge of the proposed peacekeeping force. I dont see France disarming Hizbollah. I dont see the French as being neutral. If it were a German led mission I would feel better.


----------



## exsemjingo (2 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 6. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it;
> 
> DISCLAIMER:  Posted for discussion, not being held out as confirmed fact   :warstory:



Oops, King David took over an existing city named Jebus and either at that time or later it came to be known as Jerusalem.  Check your bibles, or go look at one in the library.
E-mail circlings are irrelevant on this issue, even for discussion.  I mean, Al-Jazera has generated a lot of discussion too, despite being one-sided nonsense.

Update on an earlier post:  NATO has recently taken command of the mission in Afghanistan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Aug 2006)

France can have it.  Thank God we are in A Stan.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Aug 2006)

I love these things, heh... Yeah, I'm bored... 8)



> 2. Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood


  Which is why the British mandate prior to 1948 was called Palestine... :



> 3. After conquering the land in 1272 BC, Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years


  Aside from the Egyptians, Romans, Byzantines, Muslims, Crusaders, Ottoman Turks and British...



> 4. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule,
> (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it


  See above.



> King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it;


  Not correct.  Jerusalem was founded about 2000 years before King David.



> 7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem;


  Muslims originally prayed facing Jerusalem, before the Kaaba was built in Mecca.  It is still the third of three holy Muslim cities, the other two being Mecca and Medina.



> 11. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries.  Of 100 million refugees following world war 2, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country nolarger than New Jersey;


  For political reasons.  It was felt that after the expulsion of the Palestinians that to integrate was to grant the Jews control over Palestine.



> 12. There are 22 Arab countries, not counting Palestine. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost
> every one of them;


  Israel "started" the 1956 and 1967 wars, along with the intervention(s) in Lebanon.



> 13. Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction ofIsrael. Israel ceded most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the
> Palestinian authority, and even provided it with arms;


  Except for "settlements" occupied by rabid racists.  Arms??

I could go on, but you get the idea.  There are two sides to this conflict and this is the type of hyperbole and false history that simply makes matters worse.  



> Look's like France is angling to be in charge of the proposed peacekeeping force. I dont see France disarming Hizbollah. I dont see the French as being neutral. If it were a German led mission I would feel better.



There is much angst in Germany at the idea of firing on the IDF - even in theory - and I don't trust them (at all) to be either robust or decisive.    France has a history in the region and was the target of Islamic extremists in the 1982 Beirut bombings.  They may not have an axe to grind, but their military's effective and I have no doubt that they can "take care of business", despite my traditional hesitation regarding the French government's motives.  2eme REP would give Hezbollah a good run for its money.

Quagmire:  watch and shoot.  The political pressure for Canada to contribute will only begin once a mission's defined - and there will be significant pressure.  We're hardly out of it yet.

TR


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Aug 2006)

I was going to ask if Steve has made a decsion one way or the other.  Don't get me wrong If they send me I am there but  boy that place is a poweder keg,


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Aug 2006)

> Don't get me wrong If they send me I am there but  boy that place is a poweder keg,



+1


----------



## exsemjingo (2 Aug 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Except for "settlements" occupied by rabid racists.  Arms??
> 
> I could go on, but you get the idea.  There are two sides to this conflict and this is the type of hyperbole and false history that simply makes matters worse.



Don't distacne yourself too far from this.  It is true that there are two sides, but you are on one of them.  What would you say if Canada sent troops as part of an international force?
There is a difference between neutrality and objectivity.  That difference is credibility, and Hezbollah's side has none.
To that, some will reply "but Exsemjingo, we can disparage Israel without having to support Hezbollah; we're just liberals here."  The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.
There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.
Otherwise, do not confuse our allies with our mutual enemies.


----------



## GAP (2 Aug 2006)

> Israel "started" the 1956 and 1967 wars, along with the intervention(s) in Lebanon.



Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel?


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Aug 2006)

I am glad to see we as of now, are not getting involved in any force that will deal with this. 

Personally I don't want to see any force coming into Israel. Why? I beleive that its about time that the IDF lay a serious boot stomping on these clowns and remind them why they shouldn't mess with them. It seems that Israel has been making concessions over and over again to accomadate the palestinians. But the terrorist attacks continued.

You reap what you sew. I also hope the punks over here screaming "death to Israel" get charged with a hate crime IAW our new hate crime laws.

However take note that Hezbollah (in its many names) is a recognized terrorist regime according to our federal government.


----------



## paracowboy (3 Aug 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> their military's effective


BWAAAHAHAHAHA!



> 2eme REP would give Hezbollah a good run for its money


oh, okay. I thought you meant the actual French military. Yeah, the Legion would settle some hash. (Hmm...hash...Lebanon...there's a joke in there, somewhere.)


----------



## probum non poenitet (3 Aug 2006)

" Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel? " (Gap's question)

Actually, it's very interesting how that one came to be ...

Britain, France, and Israel did a secret deal to capture/liberate/repo/enslave/whatever Suez.
Secret diplomacy ... how fun.

Anyway, oversimplifying as I do, here's the thing in a nutshell:

1. Newly-independent Egypt notices large canal in middle of country belongs to someone else. They take it without saying please.
2. Britain rather put out by lack of manners.
3. 'Arab street' rather impressed by *****-slapping of former colonizer.
4. Sir Anthony Eden, British PM and close pal of Churchill decides to take back British territory. Bloody fuzzy wuzzies.
5. France, having just got its arse stomped at a place called Dien Bien Somethingorother, and suffering from post-modernist-existentialist ennui, decides it would be stylish to join the British 'Beau Geste.'
6. Ike, having already had a big war, decides that another one is a bad idea and goes golfing instead. Brits disappointed, French too stylish to let on, but crying inside.
7. The USSR, not wanting to miss out on the opportunity to bring the world closer to Armaggedon, decide to provide lots of Soviet arms to Egypt.
8. Israel watches this crisis, and realizes that due to a chunk of water it didn't give a motzah ball about two months ago, its most dangerous neighbour is now getting more free hardware than Svend Robinson at a Home Depot.
9. British and French populations not too happy about looming war, seeing as they'd just recovered from the last two, and memories were too fresh to think war was 'jolly good fun.'
10. Eden rather surprised to see diplomatic house of cards falling around him ... what to do, what to do.
11. Israel decides to assist by proposing to start war for Britain and France, hoping that the Europeans will then _*strike down with great vengeance and furious anger * _ on Nasser and the Egyptians.
12. Three-way secret pact signed. Brits burn it. Israelis bury it. French leak it years later, but only when it is stylish.
13. Israel attacks Suez. Brits and French 'help'. World calls bullshit. Ike continues to golf. Soviets disappointed world hasn't ended in nuclear exchange, but still hopeful.
14. Egypt and its new Soviet arsenal gets its arse handed to them by Israelis armed with three Sherman tanks, two pointed sticks, and a surplus chainsaw.
15. British and French governments under huge pressure from home. Something about a twenty year limit between world wars.
16. For the first time in human history, all sides realize at the same time that the war they are in was a really thick idea. Britain, France, Israel, and Egypt orchestrate the world's first group surrender. Italy, though not involved, switches sides.
17. Lester Pearson invents Canada.
18. The 1990s - French release secret diplomacy that proves three democracies lied to their populations to start a war, but unfortunately news breaks the same night as Gilligan's Island reunion and OJ verdict, so nobody notices.

That may seem somewhat flippant and biased, but that hasn't stopped me before!  :dontpanic:

If you don't believe me ... get thee to a library.

_*I am not a licensed therapist_


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Aug 2006)

> It is true that there are two sides, you are on one of them



Hardly.  You haven't read many of my posts have you?  A rather nasty accusation based on a single post.  I've been on the receiving end of Islamic fundamentalist fire - have you?



> What would you say if Canada sent troops as part of an international force?



Roger out, as always.  I'm a professional and will put rounds into whomever I'm told to.  However, it is my impression that such a force would be required to act as a buffer in S. Lebanon _between_ the two warring parties.  This requires a veneer of impartiality and if that requires engaging both the IDF and Hezbollah, then so be it.  What are YOU going to say if the CF is forced - as it well could - to put 25mm holes in an Israeli APC to enforce a buffer zone?



> The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.


 :

The problem I've had with this entire discussion (and God knows why I've managed get sucked in again: boredom's a terrible thing) is that there is a singular failure to display even a semblance of rational objectivity.  Any (and I mean _any_) criticism of Israel immediately results in the poster being branded as pro-Hezbollah, much as you have just done, and in wild assumptions of one's political stance.  I don't happen to regard Israel as an "ally", for valid historical and strategic reasons.  Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but there it is.  You're dangerously close to engaging in an ad hominum attack, which seems to be the SOP for these threads recently.



> There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.



Which is a typical reaction here; any criticism of Israel (and mine's been extremely mild - poke holes in my post above if you can) is immediately branded as "pro-terrorist" or, worse, anti-Semitic.  So, I'm pointing it out - you're wrong.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel?



Yup, which was hardly an act of war against _Israel_.  The Israeli invasion was conducted on the urging of France to provide a pretext for the Anglo-French military action against Nasser, although Israel - at the time - argued that it was responding to attacks by armed militants across the frontier.  See - for a very short history:  

http://www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html

and probum non poenitet's excellent post.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> BWAAAHAHAHAHA!
> oh, okay. I thought you meant the actual French military. Yeah, the Legion would settle some hash. (Hmm...hash...Lebanon...there's a joke in there, somewhere.)



Hey, I've served with both up close and personal and I've got little time for either.  The Germans were friggin' _useless_ in the sandbox; at least the French had some backbone.


----------



## paracowboy (3 Aug 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The Germans were friggin' _useless_ in the sandbox;


damn skippy! An understrength section of Canucks providing security for a platoon of Germans because the were all skeert.  :



> at least the French had some backbone


really? You sure they were French Army, and not Legion? We never got anything but excuses and snide comments from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' (to quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time).



> Italy, though not involved, switches sides.


I hurt. That caused me pain. I laughed too much, too hard, and activated the herniation in my back.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> damn skippy! An understrength section of Canucks providing security for a platoon of Germans because the were all skeert.  :
> really?
> 
> You sure they were French Army, and not Legion? We never got anything but excuses and snide comments from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' (to quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time).



My problem with the French is that they did their own thing and you never knew their motives.  They could be obstructionist, obnoxious and underhanded and their defence minister is a real piece of work (I had to be physically restrained from assaulting a French peer who'd gone too far).

However, operationally and planning-wise, they were right more often than not and were never afraid to engage (when it suited them) - unlike some others, it didn't take dynamite to move the French QRF.  Their OPP was very good and they had a huge variety of experience, much of it in Africa fighting wars we've never heard of.  Our French COS loathed our German brigadier and he was absolutely correct 99% of the time.

Personally, I don't have time for most European armies (Scandanavians aside) and think we should stay home if it isn't an ABCA-led mission.  FWIW.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Aug 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 1. Hardly.  You haven't read many of my posts have you?  A rather nasty accusation based on a single post.  I've been on the receiving end of Islamic fundamentalist fire - have you?
> 
> Roger out, as always.  I'm a professional and will put rounds into whomever I'm told to.  However, it is my impression that such a force would be required to act as a buffer in S. Lebanon _between_ the two warring parties.  This requires a veneer of impartiality and if that requires engaging both the IDF and Hezbollah, then so be it.
> 2. What are YOU going to say if the CF is forced - as it well could - to put 25mm holes in an Israeli APC to enforce a buffer zone?
> ...



1. Your posts mean nothing to the real situation.  Your Prime Minister has supported Israel.  Hezbollah has not read your posts.  Neither has Russia, nor Iran.

2. I would say F***, and if necessary, renounce my uniform.  But that will not happen this time, since the PM is not blinded by the inane rhetoric that says both sides are equal.  France and Russia are critical of Israel only to oppose the U.S.  Open your eyes, and you will see that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran and Syria.  Get one level closer and sympathize with the Lebanese, and the blame remains on Iran.
How could Canada take any other side than Israel's?

3.  If you are bored, go play a video game or something.  You cannot remain in a surreal detached state and talk about this issue with any credibility.  Forget about my sensibilities, and think about your government.  If you voted the other way, think about your nation's allies who founded and defended Israel.  As far as ad Hominum attacks, don't worry, I won't lob a rocket your way.  However, those whom you want to see as equal squabblers would, and have, sent rockets Israel's way.  Give them time, and they'll come your way too.

4.  Those on the front lines have no choice in the matter.  You loose points when you pretend that you can both walk away from the issue, and offer insight.  The blatantly opportunistic (Liberal), and downright idiotic (NDP), opinions in this country have been given at the very least equal airtime.  Do not throw around the term anti-semitic as if it were only rhetorical excess.  If you actually were anti-semitic, I would be far harsher.

Finally, you have to actually say where and how I am wrong.  You cannot just say it helps your point and pretend that it counts.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Aug 2006)

I'm only gonna address point 2
If your not commited to your uniform and this country then take it off now and quit if you are actually a member.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Aug 2006)

Quagmire, address the whole point if you wish to address it.  If you do not believe in anything, you do not believe in the uniform either.
Once again, if the hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation arose where Canada committed armed troops to shoot Israelis (as has never existed under any UN mission in the region), I would stick to my guns.
I want to respect you, so please respect me in turn and read my whole point, and take it as I mean it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Aug 2006)

> Once again, if the hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation arose where Canada committed armed troops to shoot Israelis (as has never existed under any UN mission in the region), I would stick to my guns.



And what do you anticipate a buffer force might be required to do, since you're such an expert (and a judgmental one at that)?  Its hardly ridiculous.  Do you know, for instance, that there's a debate in Germany right now about the propriety of participating in an international force simply because German soldiers _might_ be forced to engage the IDF (an unthinkable thing in Germany, for obvious reasons)...?  Would you refuse to deploy simply because you _might_ be forced to engage the IDF in support of a UN mandate?    If so, you're in the wrong business if you're serving.

Quagmire's exactly right.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Aug 2006)

is this guy for real ?


----------



## probum non poenitet (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> 1. Your posts mean nothing to the real situation.  Your Prime Minister has supported Israel.  Hezbollah has not read your posts.  Neither has Russia, nor Iran.
> 
> 2. I would say F***, and if necessary, renounce my uniform.  But that will not happen this time, since the PM is not blinded by the inane rhetoric that says both sides are equal.  France and Russia are critical of Israel only to oppose the U.S.  Open your eyes, and you will see that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran and Syria.  Get one level closer and sympathize with the Lebanese, and the blame remains on Iran.
> How could Canada take any other side than Israel's?
> ...



T. Rux's point seems to have escaped you ... not that "both sides are equal" but "Israel isn't perfect." Further to his point that any statement moderately critical of Israel results in a charged and often illogical emotional response - you have illustrated his point perfectly.

Calling down his experience as irrelevant ... uhhhh ... whoa, dude ... out of order.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Aug 2006)

When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.  The U.N. was caught in the crossfire in this war, and unfortunately suffered casualties.  As of yet, there has not been any unified stance on the part of the U.N. security council.
The Americans have given tacit support to Israel, Canada has said we support Israel, and Britian has given qualified support for Israel.  Russia remains antagonistic to oppose the Americans.  Opposition parties in this country have only been critical of what our commander-in-chief has said to score political points.  They remain safe in the knowledge that Canada will never take a side against Israel.
If soldiers are merely tools, why debate anything at all?
Since soldiers are not tools, but actually stand for something, I will answer rhetorical excess with absolute answers.  If Canada were fool-hardy enough to take sides against Israel and actually start shooting their soldiers (which is unprecedented in our history), then your concern would be with our enemies taking over, not with my loyalties.
No one can stand firm unless they mean it.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> There is a difference between neutrality and objectivity.  That difference is credibility, and Hezbollah's side has none.



Actually, Hezbollah seems to have alot of credibility in the Islamic world which is quite important to us if we are to win the "hearts and minds".  Despite their political goal of the destruction of Israel (which isn't really a key factor since a a Shi'a guerrilla force isn't going to push the IDF into the sea anytime soon), you tend to earn the support of Joe Blow Arab when you are fighting the modern military force that just happened to knock out your house/bridge/power and kill some of your fellow citizens.  Hence my problem with the latest offensive; it seems to be giving more credibility to the bad guys and undercutting our efforts in the big picture. 



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> To that, some will reply "but Exsemjingo, we can disparage Israel without having to support Hezbollah; we're just liberals here."  The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.
> There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.



You can look through my posts, but it probably wouldn't help.  I'm sensing the "infallible Israel" type here, so you'd probably see what you want to see in anything critical of Israel's actions.


----------



## probum non poenitet (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.



Unlike all of us wimps actually serving.  :
When you are old enough, you can finish training in the army, do a tour, come back and tell us what you've learned.

In the meantime, you may want to check who the commander-in-chief of Canada is. 

Roger, out to you ...


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> If Canada were fool-hardy enough to take sides against Israel and actually start shooting their soldiers (which is unprecedented in our history), then your concern would be with our enemies taking over, not with my loyalties.
> No one can stand firm unless they mean it.



So you advocate an international force to go in and keep Hezbollah at bay and do nothing against Israeli transgressions?  Wow, what a way to encourage Hezbollah to respect such a force as impartial.  I personally know people who have served in the region and dealt with IDF transgressions, so don't try and convince me that a deployed force is needed simply to keep Hezbollah at bay....



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.



Are you sure about that?  Since when did standing up for Israel and standing up for Canada become synonymous?  A friendly democracy, sure; common enemies in militant islamists, yes.  But this doesn't blindly bind us to them (nor our policies and/or strategy).

As for "meaning it", take it somewhere else.  When your profile says more than "not much, yet" you can procede to tell everyone around here about what truly standing up for Canada is....


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Aug 2006)

Should I get called, I would learn when to keep my opinions quiet. 
 I have just finished saying in an above post how I would not be blindly obedient, and I get accused of that exactly that.
Mark my words, Israel would have done better to have consulted it's allies before attacking, but that is really overstepping my bounds.  I am in no way eager to see our troops sent to their deaths, but if it did come to that (as others besides me have suggested), I know which side I would want to be on.
That the human cost in this mess has been enormous goes without saying, but the blame lies where it lies.
If anyone disagrees with what I have already said, and is willing to engage in discussion as to why, go ahead.  If anyone wants me to hush up and end all conversation, I'm doing so now, but what I've said remains.


----------



## warrickdll (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Once again, if the hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation arose where Canada committed armed troops to shoot Israelis (as has never existed under any UN mission in the region), I would stick to my guns.




Ahhhhh... Peacekeeping...  :


From http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-4.html:


> Captain Johnson didn't think that:
> 
> . . . they would actually try to come through a joint Marine-lebanese checkpoint like that. But once it developed, I was very concerned that if the tanks were allowed to move forward, there was a very dangerous situation, because the road they were on . . . went right through the heart of the
> 
> ...



The high watermark of this topic was here:


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2006)

Infanteer what transgressions are Israel guilty of ?
Anyway the problem we see in Lebanon is a state that does not control its own territory coupled with a strong terror organization with the stated mission of destroying Israel. The Government of Lebanon and Hizbollah are operating at cross purposes. Essentially the terror group has co-opted the elected government of Lebanon. 

Ahmadinejad the other day came out in favor of a ceasefire at the same time rejecting an international peacekeeping force. This comment I found to be instructive.



> "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site Thursday."



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1154525799132


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo,

I'm going to suggest you reel in your neck a bit. Cut the loudmouth bravado and keep your discussion intelligent and succinct. If you can't do that, take a breather. Before one is forced on you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2006)

I am posting this in two threads: _All eyes on Ignatieff_ and _ What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??_ (_pace_, Mods) because, despite the fact that Bob Rae has raised the most money and that some pundits note that Martha Hall Findlay is the _dark horse_ who might be the late vote compromise at a convention, Ignatieff is still the front runner  in the Liberal leadership race and he _*might*_ be prime minister of Canada in a few years; what he thinks and suggests, therefore, should matter.

Here is what he says, as quoted in today’s _Globe and Mail_ (reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) (*my emphasis added*):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060803.IGNATIEFF03/TPStory/


> Ignatieff details ceasefire proposal
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
> ...



I think there are three points worthy of note:

•	Ignatieff proposes that Canada should join whatever peacekeeping force is authorized;

•	Ignatieff does not propose that the aim should be to _disband_ Hezbollah – rather he suggests that it will be sufficient to _” prevent missiles and military technology from entering Lebanon, where it would be used to assault Israel”_; and

•	Ignatieff proposes that Canada act, in part, as a surrogate for the US.

The views of the politically active (and generous – in money, skill and time) Jewish community are reported to be of concern to the Liberal Party’s brain-trust.  Some fear that important Jewish community leaders/members will, at best sit on their hands (and wallets) in the next election or, worse (for the Liberals) actively support the Conservatives.  The larger and generally loyally Liberal Arab/Islamic communities are, I hear, regarded as less important because they are less politically active, less wealthy/generous and their active support is also seen as a disadvantage.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Anyway the problem we see in Lebanon is a state that does not control its own territory coupled with a strong terror organization with the stated mission of destroying Israel. The Government of Lebanon and Hizbollah are operating at cross purposes. Essentially the terror group has co-opted the elected government of Lebanon.



And therein lies the problem. Either the "security force" moves in and clears out Hezbollah on their own after the Israelis and Lebanese Army withdraw from southern Lebanon and the Bekka valley, or they essentially take over all of Lebanon except the parts controlled by Hezbollah and seal off those areas (Israel can seal off the southern border). I don't suppose anyone see a problem with either solution? While technically either on is "possible", I don't think we have the political will to take on this problem, nor in fact would it be a long term solution so long as Hezbollah's sponsor state (Iran) remains active and unconstrained.

While taking out Hezbollah and to a lesser extent Hamas would offer a short term solution, in essence it is like arresting Mafia "soldiers" or Hells Angels "prospects" without  going after the Godfather or "Patched" members. Israel is doing this because this is the immediate threat, and because their own resources are probably insufficient to accomplish more.

As a side observation, what we see as objectionable behaviour by Israel is a possible forcast of what our own societies might evolve into under a relentless threat: hard, uncompromising and uncaring of the opinions of others. Going even farther, it may be plausible to see our societies tipping into some sort of autocracy like Francoist Spain in an attempt to stem the spread of home grown terrorist attacks and mobilize the State on a total war footing to deal with the problems in South West Asia (particularly if we are trying an incrimentalist solution but discover the hydra heads are growing exponentially faster than we are able to cut them off).


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2006)

Unless Hizbollah is out of business any international force could be caught between the IDF and Hizbollah in the future. Here's a likely scenario: Hizbollah obtains long range rockets and begin to rocket Israel's cities. Politically the PM can do nothing but order military operations to stop the rocket attacks. Ground and air operations with a peacekeeping force caught in the middle is a recipe for an international incident. 

The solution is for NATO to train the Lebanese Army so as to be able to take control of its own territory and prevent its territory from becoming a haven for terrorism. Not easy but its the best solution.


----------



## HDE (3 Aug 2006)

I can't really see a scenario where Hezbollah would quietly accede to any demand to disengage from attacking Israel.  As others have pointed out that's their main claim to exist   I think their role as a sort of social service agency, hospitals, housing, etc. is a real farce; they launch attacks from the middle of the population they claim to be helping knowing full well the consequences.  Where's the humanity in that?


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Mark my words, Israel would have done better to have consulted it's allies before attacking, but that is really overstepping my bounds.



As a quick aside, countries do not just 'start wars' without their allies knowing about it.  The normal action is to discretely meet with trusted individuals representating 'allied' countries to let them know what they intend to do (although they usually dont say 'how' they intend to do it).  In addition, even if they dont tell certain foreign countries of their intentions, there are observers from many nations present in Israel who can watch a tank compound as easily as teh next person and can tell when something unusual is happening, giving alert notice to their home governments.  Further, in these situations, Israel would have informed their 'allies' discretely that they intended to take action.  The difference is that the people being given 'early warning' are not the type of people who go running to the newspapers with the information in hand trying to make a big political scoop (those type of people are not 'trusted individuals').


----------



## exsemjingo (10 Aug 2006)

Could be, but we'll never know directly. 
 Indirectly, it does not look like any international force will be able to step forward any time soon.  The UN is not coming quickly, and there is not even concensus in NATO as far as support for Israel.  If the United States and Britian, maybe even with Canada, contributed, it would stretch their respective forces to the limit and alienate their European trade partners.
That's what makes this thing so frustrating.

That is, unless Israel does not really want an international force...


----------



## time expired (12 Aug 2006)

One thing I have noticed on this thread is the higher the rank the higher the standard of of writing
and as an ex OR I am suitably impressed ,however dumb ideas are still dumb no matter what language
they are couched in.In Canadian military one can do ones time in the sandbox,or not, and come back to 
Canada and ponder on the stupidity of the world in general, in other words your fallback position is pretty
secure. Not that I am anyway belittling these efforts, far from it I have nothing but admiration for 
your efforts.However consider for a moment the mindset of an Isreali soldier, civilian,politician,6 million
murdered for believing in the humanity of a civilized country and now surrounded by 50 million people
who have sworn to eliminate you as people and a state and let no opputunity go by to prove they mean
it,a fallback position does not exist for them one serious loss would finish them.So what would we do if
Canada was such a position I am sure that most of who read these threads would do just what the 
Isrealis are doing right now  smash  any threat as soon as it raises its ugly head and keep smashing 
until the threat begins to realize there is no future in armed confrontation with Isreal ,eg Egypt and 
Jordan. So Isreal is doing what she must,just as we did in WW2,and all the discusion and rationalizing
is so much B:S:Another point that everyone seems to forget is that since the the rise of radical islam
the West ,that means us, has become the target, after all Isreal is the" cancer of western democracy
in the heart of Isam",and any victory for islam is a defeat for the West, us.Simplistic but there it is.So
where do I stand on who should stand and protect Hisbolla from Isreali retribution certainly not Canada, I say give war a chance,heresy I know,and at least give the Isrealis the chance to write down Hisbolla to 
the extent that the Lebonese have at least a small chance of establishing some control in the south.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Aug 2006)

The usual suspects are offering troops Malaysia,Turkey,France and Italy. Maybe Ireland and New Zealand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060812/ap_on_re_eu/mideast_fighting_un_force


----------



## Centurian1985 (13 Aug 2006)

Never worked with Malaysians before. Are they competent?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2006)

Two weeks ago I offered some thoughts, including, maybe, a naval role for Canadfa.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> It appears that support – from the US which is the only _support_ which matters to anyone – is increasing for some sort of an international peacekeeping force to do something (_control_? _patrol and report_ or _monitor/report_ on goings on) in South Lebanon.
> 
> Noting a path where there are few angelic footprints I rush in  : as follows:
> 
> ...



This would give our NBP folks some new work.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060815.wcanisra0815/BNStory/Front  





> Canada asked to patrol coast of Lebanon
> 
> *JEFF SALLOT*
> 
> ...


----------



## ab9321 (15 Aug 2006)

Great idea having Canadian warships patrol the coast of Lebanon; however, I think most shipments of missiles and such from Syria and Iran would come overland on Lebanon's eastern border.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Aug 2006)

I can see this tying in with the now-quiet boarding party thread.  I would love to see the Navy doing weapons interdiction, and I think Canada would be well suited to it, as long as they had decent ROE, and could actually board by force if necessary.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Aug 2006)

*EU To Provide 7,000 Troops To UN Force In Lebanon * 

European nations pledged up to 7,000 troops to form the core of a beefed-up peacekeeping mission in Lebanon capable of enforcing the fragile truce between Israel and Hezbollah, officials said.

More details at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060825/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflict_060825215223

Some of the possible troop contributions are as quoted from the article:

In Brussels though, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said the total European contribution would be "something between 5,600 and 6,900" soldiers, as well as air and naval assets.

…France, which currently commands UNIFIL, committed itself late Thursday to a total deployment of 2,000 soldiers

Italy is expected to supply up to 3,000 soldiers, which would make it the biggest contributor to the force.

Spain was said to be ready to send 1,000 to 1,200 soldiers, substantially more than the 800 initially cited in media reports. 

Polish Foreign Minister Anna Fotyga said that Poland would boost the number of its troops in the UN force in Lebanon by 300 to a total of around 500. 

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his country would provide 300 soldiers by late September or early October, with the possibility of adding nearly 100 more later. 

Finland pledged 250 soldiers. 

Britain's Europe Minister Geoff Hoon said that while his country's military -- heavily deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was too stretched to send ground troops, it might supply "specialised" units. 

Greece is offering a frigate, helicopter and special forces while other countries, notably Portugal and Latvia, have indicated they could send soldiers, but no details were given Friday. 

Germany, wary of potential confrontations with Israel because of its Nazi past, is prepared to offer naval units, not troops, as is Sweden. 

Russia, which is not an EU member, said Friday it was still considering the possibility of sending troops. 

Annan said Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia had offered to participate in UNIFIL -- though Israel has opposed contributions from those Muslim countries because of an absence of diplomatic relations.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2006)

We can already predict the result of the UN's intervention:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=435



> *Prediction: Israel Kills Several UN Soldiers While Targetting Syrian Weapons Shipments Into Lebanon*
> Filed under: Politics-International, Crystal Ball — TrustOnlyMulder @ 4:56 am
> 
> Shortly after Israel announces that it will break the ceasefire to destroy weapons shipments coming into Lebanon from Syria, the UN acts quickly to put itself between Israeli weapons and Syrian weapons (*but does nothing to stop the imports themselves*)
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2006)

UNIFIL will be continuing its tradition of not living up to their mandate. The French and Italians wont be disarming hizbollah, nor will they even try to block arms from flowing back into Lebanon bound for hizbollah. Round 2 is probably less than a year away.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1154526027721


----------



## aesop081 (9 Sep 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> UNIFIL will be continuing its tradition of not living up to their mandate. The French and Italians wont be disarming hizbollah, nor will they even try to block arms from flowing back into Lebanon bound for hizbollah. Round 2 is probably less than a year away.
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1154526027721



I think alot of people realized ( maybe others on this board ) that this was just an operational pause in the fighting.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2006)

Next time there may be 10000 UNIFIL human shields and the Lebanese Army to drive through on their way to hit Hizbollah. What a nightmare for the troops on the ground.


----------

