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

[zipperhead_cop]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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."

He argues in his piece that the weekend bombing by Israel on the Lebanese town of Qana, in which 57 people died, is a "victory for Hezbollah" because it helps to "radicalize the Arab world and cause Israel to lose its remaining international support."

Mr. Ignatieff says that Hezbollah not only has political clout now, having won seats in the election, but it also has the backing of Iran and Syria. These countries, he writes, are providing it with military clout.

"If Iran flashes a green light, Hezbollah could launch long-range, heavy payload weapons on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem," he writes. "Israel has warned Iran that if it encourages Hezbollah to escalate, what happened to Beirut will happen to Tehran. But Israel cannot be sure that Tehran will get the message.

"If anyone miscalculates, the struggle risks turning into a full-scale conflict between states with unforeseeable, yet devastating consequences," he writes.

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

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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]

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,