…this time? The signs do appear to being pointing to a possible employment of European forces in Lebanon, not least with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and others expressing a preference for “EU countries” or NATO – which is mostly the same thing, especially militarily – to supply troops to any peacekeeping/peace enforcement mission there.
The reason why particularly EU forces might be wanted is that the experience with UNIFIL, the existing UN force there, is not great. As what could be termed a “classic” UN force – blue helmets, white AFVs, no Chapter VII authority, and often drawn from neutral and third world armies – it never had a chance of keeping the PLO or Hezbollah out, and neither did it have a chance of standing up to the Israelis. For their part, the Israelis would obviously like any international force sent to the Litani to be effective. And if it is not effective, it won’t protect the Lebanese from the Israelis either!
Unfortunately, effective international forces for this job are in short supply. The US is out of the question, even if it could spare the troops. British armed forces are frantically overstretched. It seems unlikely to say the least that India would get involved, Pakistan would not be welcome, neither would Turkey for different reasons. Vladimir Putin has said that Russia would support a peace force, but its deployable forces are small, and a dose of the Grozny approach to peacekeeping would do everyone a power of bad. That doesn’t really leave anyone else.
Update below the fold.
If the British army is wildly overcommitted, who will come to the party? The answer is NATO’s Response Force 7, which could sail either under the NATO banner or that of the EU. NRF-7 includes naval and air assets likely to include one carrier and its task group, 40 or so assorted aircraft, and an army brigade. The current force lead is the Franco-German Eurocorps, which by happy accident has just finished a major exercise with the rest of NRF-7 on the Cape Verde islands.
Details can be found here (pdf). There’s one serious problem, though. Take a look at the Land Component order of battle. As well as a multinational HQ with a Spanish general overseeing the French brigade commander, we have the French 110th Infantry Regiment, the French 3éme Hussards tank regiment, the 3rd Belgian Parachute Battalion, the 1st Battalion, 6th Saboya Infantry from Spain, a mixed logistics battalion, a Latvian bomb disposal company…and the German 292nd Jägerbataillon (Light Infantry Battalion), 295th Panzerartillerie (self-propelled artillery battalion), 550th Panzerpionierekompanie (Armoured Engineer Company) and a German military police company.
Is it possible to send German soldiers anywhere near Israel? We may be about to find out. Update: Whether or not it’s possible to send German soldiers there, it looks like it possible to send German secret agents there. According to the Lebanon Daily Star, the Lebanese foreign minister has just been speaking to Peter Witteg, the zuständige leiter at the German foreign ministry, about Germany acting as honest broker to set up a prisoner exchange. Apparently Hezbollah, acting through Nabih Berri as an intermediary, has permitted the Lebanese government to act as an intermediary with Germany acting as an intermediary with Israel in order to gain the mutual release of prisoners. That’s a lot of intermediaries, but it is true that the German secret service has been responsible for setting up past Hezbollah/Israeli exchanges.
It looks like that’s already been agreed on in principle. German foreign policy and defense officials are currently queueing in front of microphones, apparently to prepare the German public by stating that, if asked, and backed by a “strong mandate” (see Scott’s post), “it would be impossible to refuse to help”.
Agh, no! Please tell me no one is willing to sign onto this dog!
If they go in, NATO and Europe get to be the bad guy here. There is no way this is going to be just some little token peacekeeping force – the idea is to send them in to attack Hezbollah, to make Europe defend Israel from Arabs, not the other way around. This is such a monstrously bad plan, I don’t know where to begin. The IDF – with no illusions about human rights or international reputation to uphold – is not able to get rid of Hezbollah. What on Earth can possibly lead anyone to think Europe’s going to be able to do it?
This could work if (and only if) Israel forbade the EU from going into Lebanon. That this plan was floated by the US and backed by Israel dooms it from the very outset. There is no way to avoid being seen to be doing Israel’s dirty work. It could easily be a fiasco so bad as to make the Iraq war look like a good plan.
No, non, nein, nee! A million times no!
Don’t hold it in, Scott.
Perhaps we should have a Montenegrin-independence style AFOE debate on this?
I’m game. I can’t get any work done til they fix my server anyway.
I’d make the basic question simple: Would Europe be going in with the intent to root out Hezbollah?
If yes, how in merry hell do they expect to do that?
If no, will they defend Lebanon against Israel when (and it’s when not if) Hezbollah fires rockets on Israel again?
If yes, are European troops prepared to kill Jews to defend Hezbollah? Is Europe prepared to live with that?
If no, then we’re talking about sending a force to Lebanon without expecting it to keep any peace or serve any function except as target practice for Hezbollah and the butt of Israeli political contempt.
The IDF occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and every year Hezbollah grew stronger. They forced the US and France to withdraw peacekeepers in shame, and eventually managed to force Israel to abandon its security zone. I see nothing about the Eurocorps to suggest it’s going to do any better than the IDF did, especially as Hezbollah is now stronger, better armed, and better trained than when Israel left. Where Hezbollah had many opponents in Lebanon a month ago, it now has none.
If outside forces can’t or won’t got to war with Hezbollah, then the only reason to put troops there is to defend Lebanon from Israel despite provocations from Hezbollah. This amounts to using European forces to give Hezbollah cover.
There is no way to come out of this on top. There’s just no way. While it goes on, Israel and America’s less savory elements get to complain about how Europeans are such dhimmicratic anti-Semites because they’re soft on Hezbollah; and Hezbollah gets to complain that Europe is the lackey of Zionists and so they can run around and blow up buildings in Europe, of which the number one target is likely to be my wife’s office.
On the good side, if it gets the Israelis out to stay, and if they play the game and exchange prisoners, Hezbollah’s immediate goals are largely met, as are Israel’s. And therefore the rocket fire should cease anyway. Deploying it without terms of agreement would be foolish in the extreme.
Interestingly, the Lebanon Daily Star is reporting that Hezbollah has agreed that the Lebanese government can negotiate through a third party for the exchange of prisoners, and the Lebanese foreign minister says this is Germany – the BND has in the past been the instrument of exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel.
In the end, though, the question is what happens once the parties disengage. The answer used to be that restored democracy and economic recovery in Lebanon would gradually secure the authority of the government down south. This is clearly now not going to happen.
While you two are duelling, there is this vague tinfoil hat idea playing in my head.
I do not see any international army firing on Israelis ever, so what would be left is an international army firing on Hezbullah with the consequences Scott mentioned in his last comment.
Is my tinfoil hat too tight or is it possible that somebody somewhere is trying to push Europe into something much bigger?
Ha, yes. As much as part of me — from the sidelines — wants to see Europe take up this role, I think it would be going profoundly against its self-interest. Any time someone gets involved in a conflict, they’ll be the bad guys to someone or other, but the problem goes much deeper than that. The problem is that the “resistance” rhetoric that’s part of Hizbullah’s ideology, the same rhetoric that dominates the popular political consciousness in the Arab world isn’t specifically anti-American. It’s a direct continuation of the old anti-imperialist talk, as you can readily tell from listening to al-Jazeera talk shows. The cookie points that France scored with the Iraq war hasn’t turned them into the good guys in populist parlance. They’ve simply become bad guys who get mentioned a little less. I really don’t know what has moved Chirac to talk about “répression”, but despite the amusing ring that the word has to Anglophone ears, I’m pretty sure that the EU or whoever else can turn into an occupier of Arab lands at the snap of Nasrallah’s fingers.
Alex, it’s possible – just barely – that a large European force would bring a temporary end to the fighting if Israel agreed to negotiate for its soldiers and stopped bombing Lebanon. But unless the result is the end of Hezbollah, Europe is left holding the bag for peace that can only fail.
Guy, I wonder too about the notion that someone might want to draw Europe into a war against Syria and Iran. But events move too quickly and unpredictably for me to think this has all been carefully thought out. More likely, it gets Israel a reprieve – an excuse to not continue in a losing battle in Lebanon while displacing the blame for any future problems onto Europe. That strikes me as a more credible spur-of-moment plan. Although, recent reports that Israel planned this with the US months ago suggests a desire to get everyone into a larger war. I can’t totally discount the prospect, but I try not to consider conspiracy where mere incompetence will explain events.
“If no, will they defend Lebanon against Israel when (and it’s when not if) Hezbollah fires rockets on Israel again?”
Classic.
Umm, if we are going to bother with a “peacekeeping” force (scare quotes very intentional) dontcha think the peacekeeping force should fight Hezbollah when they start firing rockets on Israeli non-combatant/civilian targets? That would be the point of having such a force. No need to protect Lebanon from Israel, the peacekeeping force would be “keeping the peace” by keeping Hezbollah from firing on civilian cities.
Surely the point of the “peacekeeping” force wouldn’t be to keep the “peace” by letting Hezbollah fire rockets on Israel indefinitely. That isn’t keeping the peace. That would be letting Hezbollah indiscriminately kill Israeli civilians for so long as they can get rockets (which is quite possibly forever). And they don’t even have to sneak people in for a suicide attack.
“While it goes on, Israel and America’s less savory elements get to complain about how Europeans are such dhimmicratic anti-Semites because they’re soft on Hezbollah”
Well, thus far you are soft on Hezbollah. It is the simple truth even before there are EU/NATO troops there. If you don’t want people to notice it you should hide it better. Even rhetorically Europeans are soft on Hezbollah. Hezbollah hasn’t had even a fig-leaf of excuse on Israel since 2000. What are they, fighting over Syrian land now?
Fwance would volunteer but there are no african villegers to shoot and rape. Maybe Israel could march their Ethernopians into Southern Lebanon as bait.
So Scott, you have made it clear that you would like to world to surrender to Hezbollah. Ok. Then what? The absence of Israeli rocket fire does not peace make. How about some solutions.
So, Sebastian, you feel that a peacekeeping force should go to Lebanon to fight the enemies that Israel is incapable of defeating? You’ve expressed contempt for Europe as a power before, how do you imagine feeble Europeans are going to manage to destroy a terrorist organization Israel failed to stop after 18 years of trying? Do you think that European peacekeepers who can’t stop Hezbollah from firing rockets will dissuade Israel from striking back in Lebanon in the future? The current bunch of UN peacekeepers certainly hasn’t.
I restate my case: It seems unlikely that European forces can stop Hezbollah if Israel can’t. It seems to me even less likely that they will fight an Israel that strikes back against them. So then, exactly what peace are they supposed to be keeping? You have made no counter argument at all.
Okay Pete, I have a solution: Israel acknowledges that Hamas is the legally elected government of the Palestinian Authority, which it officially recognizes as the negotiating agent for Palestinians under the “Road Map”. It releases Hamas officers in detention, withdraws from Gaza and resumes final settlement talks under the “Road Map”. And maybe makes an official statement that Palestinians have a right to a real state on territory currently occupied by Israel, and that Israel has a legal obligation to compensate Palestinians for territory seized over the years. That would be real progress, progress worth lives, including quite possibly mine.
I’ll stand for sending the IDF, Russia and the combined armies of all of NATO into Lebanon and searching every house in the country for Hezbollah members and arms, if and only if Israel will acknowledge and address in good faith actual, legitimate grievances against it. Anything else is a waste of time, money and lives that will only set the stage for more, probably worse violence later.
On a positive note, no one is going to send in NATO troops unless there is a diplomatic solution that makes their success at least plausible. As a result of the recent mayhem, there’s an unprecedented amount of political willpower converging to contain Hizbullah. Israel and the US obviously want to do it. The Europeans want to do it. The regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia want to do it. The Lebanese, except for the Shi’a want to do it (just because everyone in Lebanon is justifiably angry at Israel right now, doesn’t mean some of them aren’t also justifiably angry at Hizbullah). A competent containment force may provide the missing piece of the puzzle. Or it may not. This is a game of risk. If European politicians don’t want to take that risk, that’s perfectly understandable. If they do, I think that deserves respect.
Scott,
You said:
“Although, recent reports that Israel planned this with the US months ago suggests a desire to get everyone into a larger war.”
Do you care to elaborate on this point? I seriously doubt that anyone–beyond radical elements–wants the US to get involved in another war. It would be close to impossible to open another front for the US’s military without realigning troops, extending combat tours, or bringing back the draft. Also, Israel has always been technically at war with Hezbollah, so this most recent round of Mideast violence was always on the verge of happening anyway.
However, Scott, I do agree with you on the principle points of a EU/NATO peacekeeping force. I too doubt that they could stop Hezbollah from firing rockets, but I do think that they’re presence would stop an Israeli land invasion and might halt Israeli bombings. The peacekeeping force would basically be in the cross-hairs, and hopefully their presence would be enough to keep Israel from counter-attacking. It wouldn’t be fun to be in their position though.
Scott. I asked you for solutions regarding Hezbollah not Hamas. At this point I think they really are two really different problems. Seriously, what is going to stop Hezbollah if not Israeli aggression, if not UN/Nato/EU or whatever forces? Despite what you feel about Israel (many of your beefs justified in my opinion)it is a Democratic state under siege by foreign agents. What to do? Finally, although I disagree with you I offer my condolences as you are obviously wrapped up personally in this. I know people on both sides of the border and the suffering is intolerable.
MacGyver, I doubt most Americans want the US in another war in the Middle East. But, I can see real advantages for Israel, and I no longer consider any level of duplicity beyond the Bush administration. I suspect something like an open-ended bombing campaign against Syria and Iran might be considered feasible. The US Air Force isn’t really engaged in anti-insurgency fighting in Iraq the way they were in the invasion, and I imagine their armories have been refilled.
Michael, I think a lot of those Middle Eastern regimes that are making anti-Hezbollah statements are doing so for reasons other than support for an anti-Hezbollah crusade. Abu Aardvark has been on about that for a while. Hezbollah is a regional force – I don’t think they’ve hit anyone but Israel since the Khobar Towers bombing a decade ago. There’s no reason for the rest of the world to view them as a big immediate threat.
Sorry Scott, I hadn’t seen your front-page post on the matter when I wrote the comment.
“So, Sebastian, you feel that a peacekeeping force should go to Lebanon to fight the enemies that Israel is incapable of defeating? You’ve expressed contempt for Europe as a power before, how do you imagine feeble Europeans are going to manage to destroy a terrorist organization Israel failed to stop after 18 years of trying? Do you think that European peacekeepers who can’t stop Hezbollah from firing rockets will dissuade Israel from striking back in Lebanon in the future? The current bunch of UN peacekeepers certainly hasn’t.”
This is a multi-part problem. I don’t think UN (or other) peacekeepers should go in if their goals allow for Hezbollah to rain rockets on Israel indefinitely. That isn’t keeping the peace. UNIFIL couldn’t dissuade Israel from striking back because UNIFIL wasn’t doing anything to stop the rockets and was almost certainly guilty of covering up assistance of bribed UN soldiers in an Israeli kidnapping. (It also hid evidence such as the kidnappers auto which could have led to the kidnappers). If a European force were to go in with that mandate, they should clearly not bother.
If they are too weak to go in, which may be true, they should not bother.
But if both of the above are true, they should consider not missing an opportunity to be silent when Hezbollah attacks Israel and Israel fights back.
If Hezbollah’s goal were to get Israel out of Lebanon, it has already won. If its goal is to destroy Israel (and that is its stated goal), Israel is allowed to fight back. If Hezbollah uses things like Lebanese airports to supply, Israel is well within its rights to demand that Lebanon cut off the support (already demanded, not acted upon) or such targets are completely lawful to bomb.
I don’t care if Europe doesn’t want to get involved. But if it doesn’t want to get involved, it should quit pretending that it has anything useful to say. An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying.
Would this have been such a big deal if it were just Hezbollah sending rockets to randomly kill civilians in Israel with no Israeli response? Would we be seeing multiple posts from fistfulofeuros and crookedtimber if that was ‘all’ that was going on? That isn’t exactly a hypothetical is it?
Pete, I’ll stand for moving heaven and earth, and I think most Lebanese a lot of the rest of the Middle East will too, if the issues that make Hezbollah popular are addressed. No, I don’t think Hezbollah will disappear for any reason other than force of arms. And, I don’t think any level of force of arms short of the genocidal will make them disappear unless their key issues are taken away from them. I think Lebanese Shi’a will hesitate to actively support Hezbollah if the cause of Palestinian liberation were seen to be making real progress without them.
Hezbollah may well receive lots of support from Syria and Iran, but they are not a Syrian or Iranian invention. Local support is far more important. Addressing Shi’a issues in Lebanese politics would help too, but I have the impression that was happening before the bombing started.
This is the same strategy used against European nationalist terrorism, like the IRA. The IRA declined when at least some of the issues it used to gain support were addressed. I think no other strategy is likely to lead to a real peace in this case either.
Some kind of israeli escalation would have been sorta understandable, if foolsish, but the way they’re actually conducting this campaign is both immoral and deeply foolish. Bombing stuff other than Hezbollah positions, killing lots of civilians…
I don’t care if Europe doesn’t want to get involved. But if it doesn’t want to get involved, it should quit pretending that it has anything useful to say. An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying.
So, in what way is America prepared to get involved? Or should they shut up too?
Most of the official response from Europe has been something on the order of “we deplore Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians, and we deplore Israel’s disproportionate response” so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. My response has been different – I’ve expressed no sympathy for any of the casualties on either side so far. I expected some flack for that, but not for being unequal about it.
But for the record: I feel for all the people who find their lives disrupted and loved ones killed, who are experiencing personal tragedies, because of the decisions of remote politicians and militants. I feel for the Israeli ones and for the Lebanese ones just as I felt for the ones in New York on 9/11, in Iraq during the US invasion and the insurgency that followed, and those in Western Sahara, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Nepal, and in every other corner of the world where political violence takes the lives of people who just want to be left alone.
I note, however, that in this conflict most of those people are in Lebanon.
However, political decisions must be made in fashion that balances the personal tragedies of some against others. I do not believe that sending a peacekeeping force to Lebanon under realistic conditions will do anything but lead to more tragedies later.
Scott,
I think Abu Aardvark makes a good point about the surprising openness of their anti-Hizbullah stance. But I don’t agree that these regimes don’t see Hizbullah as a threat. Nasrallah has a remarkable power to whip up essentially anti-establishment popular sentiments in the public at large through both words and actions. While militant Islamists have not yet managed to mount a strategic challenge to the regimes in either Egypt, Saudi or Jordan, in this day and age that has to be a source of their concern. It’s not clear to me precisely to what degree the basic calculus of Mubarak and the Saudis with respect to Hizbullah has changed, but so far their actions seem to suggest a broader agenda than simply currying favor with the neocons. Note also that the Saudis have a standing alliance with the Hariri people.
“So, in what way is America prepared to get involved? Or should they shut up too?”
Actually America had been surprisingly though appropriately quiet until yesterday.
Those countries which aren’t willing to get involved should indeed pretty much shut up. There isn’t a country around that would let another country’s nationals shoot missiles at their cities.
Sebastian Hoslclaw: An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying
While the firing of Katyusha rockets into population concentrations is a crystal clear war crime, so is the Israeli bombing of hospitals, civilian trucks, residential areas, etc.
The difference is that while about a dozen israeli civilians have been killed, hundreds of lebanese civilians have been killed, and half a million have become refugees of war. Half a million.
Due to the disparity in magnitude between the plight of those two civilian populations, I cannot but conclude that your asking for equal concern about it is either hypocritically partisan or (unconsciously?) racist.
Sebastian, you’re full of it:
Initial statements:
12 July U.S. Blames Syria, Iran For Israeli Soldiers’ Kidnapping12 July France Condemns Israeli Attacks, Hezbollah Kidnapping12 July Angela Merkel: The attacks did not start from the Israeli side, but from Hezbollah’s side.
Further US action:
15 July: US vetoes Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire.20 July: US House of Representatives passes a resolution supporting the attack on Lebanon
That’s the US being quiet? And you malign European countries for making statements?
Those countries which aren’t willing to get involved should indeed pretty much shut up.
So should chickenshit cowards who can’t wait to send other people’s kids to fight their wars which they are not willing to pay for.
“There isn’t a country around that would let another country’s nationals shoot missiles at their cities.”
Hizballah has done the same thing for six years. The soldiers got caught because a local commander fucked up, not because Hizballah statred doing something different. They didn’t need to escalate, and Sharon wouldn’t have, but Olmert felt too weak not to.
Escalation wasn’t illegitimate though. What’s immoral is targeting civilians for no particular reason.
These two threads have been rather tiresome. No one’s said anything interestring, insightsful or informative.
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
Reuters-
Israeli shell hits UN post in S. Lebanon
BEIRUT (Reuters) – An Israeli tank shell hit a position run by U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon on Monday, wounding four Ghanaian soldiers, a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon said.
The four soldiers were evacuated to a UNIFIL hospital at the border town of Naqoura, Milos Strugar said in a statement. The shell also caused extensive damage to the position near the village of Rmeish, he said.
And you malign European countries for making statements?
Nevertheless, the fruits of success are small, the cost of failure is high, the likelihood of failure is very high and our means are limited. Why would we want to become involved in any way?
Furthermore, isn’t our safety increased if Hizbollah is occupied and decimated? Given that a peace force would have to do exactly that, isn’t it better for us to let Israel do the job?
“Furthermore, isn’t our safety increased if Hizbollah is occupied and decimated?”
No.
Surely Blind Freddie can see that Israel and America are setting the scene for Israel to become the regional superpower while America takes care of the rest of the world.
This is not about who fired a few rockets, this is about reshaping the world map. I would prefer not to live in a world run by America and Israel. It would be 1984, Hollywood-style.
“Surely Blind Freddie can see that Israel and America are setting the scene for Israel to become the regional superpower while America takes care of the rest of the world.”
Yessss, our Jewish-American cabal is slowing taking over the world. Before too long we’ll own it all. We will slowly suck the life force of the entire planet and enslave everyone. Wahahahah. Wahahahahaha.
What about a peacekeeping force from China? Don’t laugh, they certainly have the manpower to spare and probably can be trusted to be evenhanded because they don’t much like either side.
David wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
I´m afraid Hisbollah would, sooner or later.
I can´t see them disarming and sooner or later they would “test” us. Just firing a missile from outside the “European zone” for example.
Let´s be realistic here. Any peace-keeping / enforcing force would have to occupy the whole of Southern Lebanon. And crawl into every hole in the ground if they want to ensure that no missiles could be sent to Israel. That would require at least 20.000+ of combat troops. Probably more. Not counting support troops. Plus air support. That in itself is unrealistic.
We could do it, I suppose. But in that case we probably would have to accept high casualty rates sooner or later. Casualty rates the Israeli defense forces don´t want to take today. So why should Europeans accept them?
Not to mention, what would that force do if one / some missiles were fired off just outside their “occupation zone”? Start shelling that position, call in air support?
If the European forces don´t react, they get blamed by the Israelis and the Americans. And probably see Israeli jets heading north sooner or later. If they do react, they might face suicide bombers (and a war). And get blamed for any civilian deaths. The Americans know why they don´t want to send any troops. 🙂
The Israelis couldn´t stop Hisbollah and they probably got better intelligence and have more Arabic speakers than any European military. Unless Hisbollah on their own decides to disarm and European troops are only there to build trust, I don´t see how any European force could succeed.
A European force just would be more cannon fodder for the Bush – Blair dream of changing the Middle East. Blame any casualties on Syria and Iran for example….
Not to mention that any European troops under NATO command would be effectively under the command of an American general. Don´t know how that would play in the Arab world…
Macgyver, I do hope you are kind to your seeing-eye dog. Your grasp of the situation is somewhat limited!
I don’t take that as an insult when it comes from you, big guy.
Wasn’t meant as an insult, MacGyver.
People have got to focus on the big picture and ignore the propaganda. We are heading for big, big trouble but no one is going to come out with banner headlines. We’ll just slide into it and, when it’s too late, people will say,”How come we didn’t notice what the bastards were doing?” Just like WW2.
Only the bastards in this case claim to be on our side!
What about a peacekeeping force from China?
The Chinese love their children, too.
David,
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
The advantage Europeans have over the IDF and the Americans in that region is (relative) credibility and a different, non gung-ho, approach – cf. the way European troops handle things in their sectors of Iraq and Afghanistan. They are more likely to gain the support and cooperation of the local population. Experience with home-grown terrorist groups in Europe shows that there will always be a small group of nutcases that continues no matter what, but also that the effectiveness of such groups and their ability to inflict harm is greatly reduced if you are able to undermine their infrastructure – read: the support provided by non-terrorist others in the form of shelter, food, transport, secrecy etc.
So getting the population on your side is key, and the Europeans could be more succesful in that respect. However, for the time being it seems unrealistic to expect more than just a firm reduction of the number of attacks, unless you get both the Hezbollah leadership and the nutcases on board (for which Israel would at least have to give up the Shebaa farms on the Golan Heights). So some restraint on the part of Israel is required as well – and this should be part of the agreement.
You seem to envision troops who doesn’t patrol the border, but rather southern Lebanon, trying to disarm Hizbakkah. But they won’t go along with that. Are we supposed to go to war with them rather than keep the peace? That’s not gonna happen.
Somebody mentioned China. I think there actually are a few Chinese troops in UNIFIL. Perhaps they should be reinforced?
I’d say cease-fire, move in international troops, talk about disarmament (for which Israel would have to give something in return) – in that order. I.e. more or less the French proposal.
Right, if I can be arrogant enough to “sum up”, we seem to have some consensus that a) an international force might be useful, b) but only in order to secure some sort of negotiated solution, which would c) probably be along the lines of the French/EU proposals.
This brings to mind the old thing about “first, catch your fish”. However, it’s also true that the prospect of a meaningful international commitment might make it easier for the sides to reach agreement.
On the downside, there’s the problem that NATO and the EU are a good working definition of “the West”, and if things go wrong this would have a nasty Huntingtonian look to it.
Well, our intersts are harmed by mideast instability, so it could be a good idea if we have a fish. But I can’t see Hizballah agree to disarmanent. I’ll defer to more informed people, though. Anyone reading this?
It’ll be a good idea if we have a fish – I like that.
More seriously, the only thing that would compensate Hezbollah for its rockets would be a suitably powerful political role in Lebanon. And that would mean opening the giant ship loaded with shipping containers of crates of cans of worms that is the Lebanese National Convention. Based as it is on the fiction that Lebanon does not have a Shia majority…
More seriously, the only thing that would compensate Hezbollah for its rockets would be a suitably powerful political role in Lebanon.
Could be right, but from what I understand Hezbollah’s official goals are 1) Israel leaving those Shebaa farms on the Golan Heights (which Hezbollah claim are Lebanese but which the UN says are Syrian), 2) Israel leaving this world altogether. Goal number 1 could be a serious topic of discussion.
As for the power bit, my impression was that tehy had more or less accepted long ago that the Islamic Republic of Lebanon will have to be installed by democratic means, so I would not start the negotiations with offering them more government power than they have.
Making Lebanon a democracy would give them more power, I’d think, but that’s not viable.
“Are we supposed to go to war with them rather than keep the peace? That’s not gonna happen.”
The whole problem is that you can’t “keep the peace” while they continue using rockets to randomly bomb Israeli cities. The whole formulation “keep the peace” makes no sense in such a situation because there is no peace to keep. All you would be doing in that case is setting up a situation where Hezbollah continues attacking Israel indefinitely and Israel never gets to fight back. Israel might find some reason to object to that.