[O]ne must understand that when France suggested it wanted to broker peace in Lebanon, it did not necessarily mean “broker” or “peace” or “Lebanon” in the way we might understand those words. The same is true when France further suggested it wanted to “lead” a “strong” “multinational” “force” there.
But I digress.)
Anyway, Italy has pledged 3,000 troops but there is still no chain of command established or a clear mission or rules of engagement or anything that would make the UN force a, well, military force. Already, UN spokespeople have ruled out that the reinforced UNIFIL will disarm Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government also has said it will not do and which is (sort of) called for by the same UNSC Resolution 1701.
Other than Israel and the sea, southern Lebanon borders Syria. Since Syria is the main supplier of Hezbollah's weapons, one might imagine that UNIFIL would take an interest in patrolling along the Syrian border, on the Lebanese side, of course. And so UNIFIL might take such an interest, if indeed a new UNIFIL actually ever sets foot there.
Syria has no interest at all in any new UNIFIL, however pusillanimous it may be, in stepping onto Lebanese soil, and SyrianIndeed, as the recent declaration made by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem during his brief visit to Lebanon indicated, the prospect of a wider regional war is something these regimes actually welcome. For the strong showing that Hizbullah has made, the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure notwithstanding, is encouragement enough for these regimes, with their minds and hearts still stuck in the 1980s, to revive the old dream of defeating Israel militarily through involvement in a war of attrition and thus achieving military glory that will boost their credentials both at home and abroad. With the US caught in the Iraqi quagmire and its power seemingly neutralized as a result, this prospect might appear more and more tempting with each passing day.
Add to these things that Syria has continued to resupply Hezbollah with weapons since the ceasefire went into effect (as confirmed by Israeli surveillance aircraft, the announcement of which has been studiously ignored by Western media) - well then, it shall come as no surprise that Assad,
... was quoted Wednesday as rejecting the deployment of UN troops along the Lebanon-Syria border, saying such a move would create animosity between the two countries.
"This is an infringement on Lebanese sovereignty and a hostile position," Assad told Dubai Television. The TV station's anchor quoted Assad without showing video of the interview, which would air later Wednesday.
Assad also urged the Lebanese government to adhere to its responsibilities and not embark on anything that could sabotage relations with Syria.
Does it not bring a tear to your eye that Syrian dictator President Assad is so concerned about Lebanese sovereignty? I mean, it's not like Syria ever occupied Lebanon or did something truly dastardly like, say, assassinating Lebanon's prime minister.
Fer shur Assad doesn't want Lebanon to do anything that "could sabotage relations with Syria," since Assad & Co. consider Lebanon to be a Syrian satrapy - so the Lebanese better not get any silly ideas such as actually being a self-determining people. And most of all they may not disarm Hezbollah, Syria's only real means, at present, of fighting Israel.
Now, the questions are whether the new, reinforced UNIFIL will, (a) ever be formed and if so, (b) will it defy Assad and deploy along the Syrian-Lebanese border anyway, because otherwise it cannot minimally fulfill UNSC 1701's mandate wishes.
I look at the point Donald Makes (plus a second statement that sort of contradicts the first.
This is a track back:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/assad-un-stay-out-of-bekaa.html
Can't say this wasnt predictable. The whole time the UN and the Euros were spouting off about a ceasefire and MNF, it should have been readily obvious that their 'solution' was a flat out lie.
Nobody wants to be in Lebanon. Europe couldnt sack up and go into the Balkans, who in their right mind actually believed a significant number of blue helmets would be dropped into Southern Lebanon and told to keep Hezbollah in line?! The entire vision is just insanity. I would believe Charlemagnes ghost led an army to conquer the region before i believe that.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to try to disarm the group that just turned back an entire Israeli army. How does that make any sense? Thats equivalent to Elliot Ness and the Untouchables being shot up by Al Capone's gang and then turning their arrest over to Barney Fife. Yeh, why dont you blue helmets take care of that? Sure.
Assad is posturing in his pathetic way. He is basically drawing a line that nobody was going to cross anyway, classic bully tactic. There was and is no way any MNF is going to be located, much less interdict the Syrian border. Look at the size of it! Are 15,000 (supposedly) peacekeepers going to be searching pickup trucks and donkey trails along Lebanon's entire border indefinately? NO. I dont recall anybody even floating the idea. The MNF at best was to sit in Southern Lebanon as UNIFIL always has and let Hezbollah shoot rockets over their heads, thats their job.
No nation is going to send their troops to shoot at Hezbollah if they start a war, or to disarm them, or to interdict their supplies. Nobody is prepared to do that.
The fact is this entire scheme is a sham, and its a disgrace that we even entertain it as a serious proposal. This is phonier than the partitioning of Czechoslovokia, phonier than the post WW2 'elections' in Eastern Europe, this is false, fake, a scam, a joke, a total waste of time and insult to the intellects of serious people. It should be called out as such at every turn. Why werent these questions asked before the deal was agreed to? Oh, theyll be worked out later.. NO THEY WONT YOU LYING DOGS, YOU KNOW THEY WONT.
Hizbollah did not turn back the Israeli army.
It was a speed bump. It slowd down the Israeli army.
If you think of the war as a recon in force and a spoiling attack then the hizzies might not even have been much of a speed bump.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/jabbing.html
I can't argue with Mark point for point. But this came at a time of triumph for the French and others over American (or Bush's) unilateralism. I remain kind of shocked that there doesn't even appear to be more than a token effort to make the case for an international approach. (No offense intended to Italy)
France made the second Iraq war possible. I fear that it has made a second nuclear war more possible as well.
"I remain kind of shocked that there doesn't even appear to be more than a token effort to make the case for an international approach."
I'm all for the international approach, but I flatly refuse to be drawn into discussion of inititives I know to be preposterous, much less accept them. Is that true diplomacy? Is it really any different than accepting Iran's proposal that they under no circumstance will agree to the UNs conditions, but they might be coerced into talking about them? Thats called negotiating in bad faith, and I dont view that as a true international approach.
I'm a pragmatic guy, furiously pragmatic. When I see a proposal that is so full of holes to make the entire enterprise pointless, I think that it needs to be pointed out. Loudly. I (and many others) believe that what is being taken for diplomacy in modern times is really just putting problems off, and that is rarely a good idea. This current conflict every party agrees just puts a temporary lid on the boiling pot. In what kind of agreement do all sides agree publicly to be a sham?
If Hezbollah 'must' be disarmed for their to be peace, the initiative must have some realistic mechanism for disarming Hezbollah. Or else the goal must be changed. Thats all there is to it.
Interesting times indeed.
Mr. Simon - I always thought your theory was implausible. It assumed too much of everything on the part of the Israelis... cunning, military might, strategic foresight, an iron grip on their own press... etc., etc.
But it looks increasingly like this war isn't actually over.
And if there's a pause while the Euro's and the UN show themselves to be limpdicks once again...
Who's it benefit?
I'm thinking the Israelis were having a bad few weeks, and Hizballah a few good. Think they can keep it up?
Donald,
I asked a question re: Assad closing the border.
Re: your response -
The question I have is this:
wouldn't commercial traffic be a good cover for rocket and other war material resupply?
If he is only moving war material doesn't that make it easier to interdict?
#6 Wastelandlive,
It is now my official opinion (until I change it) that the stated objective (strategic destruction of Hizbollah) was not the immediate objective. Had that been the objective (as I had assumed) a plan as I described in my original speculation would have worked out nicely to lure Syria into the war. You can see how their border with Lebanon is more important than their Golan border with Israel.
The immediate objectives were two. A spoiling attack to disrupt Iran's 22 August plans. A recon in force to shake down the Israeli Army and gather comms and operational intel from Hizbollah.
A third objective (requiring immediate action) with longer range results is the creation of 100,000 to 200,000 people with no jobs, no place to live, nothing to eat, and no sanitary facilities. All dependent on Iran/Hizbollah.
It is impossible to say how well an army performed unless you know its objectives.
Cross posted from another WoC thread:
The #1 weapon of America in this war is the financial blockade.
Joe calls it the Cash Flow Jihad. So do I.
The press and analysts seem to be missing the importance of this aspect since it takes time to work.
A key tenet of liberalism is that people are fundamentally good, and that if they behave badly it is because they have a legitimate grievance or had a difficult childhood. The 'answer' in such situations is process ... negotiations, incentives, etc, and if necessary appeasement so we can have more time to understand them and discover what they really need.
Of course these folks believe "War is not the answer." They're not even asking the right question.
It takes a long time for folks like that to recognise (_admit_, even) that at least some people are indeed just plain bad. The Kellogg-Briand pact was the pinnacle of such thinking the last time around -- 78 years ago this Sunday.
Even after it was violated within three years, and after Manchuria, Ethiopia, the Rheinland, the Saar, the Spanish civil war, Sudetenland, and Munich ... an entire class of leadership and elite were unwilling or unable to understand what was happening for it challenged the most fundamental tenet of their being.
The '00s will probably be seen in a similar context when folks look back two generations from now. As with Spain we are now most probably in the proxy war phase. Liberals cannot keep retreating from evil forever, but they will try. Here as in Israel.
And, as then, we will get to a point at which if they do not step aside they will have to be swept away. Survival will depend on it. Here as in Israel.
For those of you, like me, who might be a little light in the early twentieth-century history department, the Kellog-Briand Pact did not involve Tony the Tiger. From Wikipedia:
Who knew? We outlawed war in 1928. Sixty-two nations ultimately signed the pact.
"A key tenet of liberalism is that people are fundamentally good" -- not sure I believe that, I always thought that liberalism believed in the perfectability of the human spirit.
Disarming Hezbollah ain't happening, and patrolling the Syrian border is also a pipe-dream. Pushing Hezbollah past the Litani might still be in the cards, especially if all of the players keep acting as corrupt and inept as they always do. We'll see.