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

[Kirkhill]

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]

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.

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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".

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]

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

 

[CanadaPhil]

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

Yeah.... Sad but true.

 

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Lost_Warrior]

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]

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]

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

 

[GAP]

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]

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]

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.