France considers only symbolic force for UN

Reuters UK ^ | Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:45 PM BST | Crispian Balmer

[rightgrafix]

PARIS (Reuters) - France is considering providing only a symbolic force for the United Nations contingent in Lebanon, and not the thousands of troops UN officials had hoped, Le Monde newspaper said on Thursday.

If true, such a move could seriously delay the UN mission, seen as vital to securing peace between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas, or even scupper the whole operation.

Quoting U.N. and diplomatic sources, Le Monde said France might send just a dozen officers and around 200 personnel from an engineering division for the beefed-up UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

President Jacques Chirac's office said the military options "were still under review".

A French diplomatic source said France had always highlighted the dangers of such a mission and said the conditions for the operation had to be clarified.

The source added there was no turnaround in the French position and no misunderstanding with the United Nations.

French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Wednesday that France was willing to lead the UN force until at least February, so long as it was given a clear mandate.

However, she declined to say how many troops France would commit to UNIFIL, which is eventually expected to consist of 15,000 soldiers, up from 2,000 at present.

[rightgrafix]

Try not to hurl.

[Lurker]

Here's the banner:

L

[Kozak]

It just means less white flags to ship.

[BenLurkin]

[SE Mom]

Not surprising- they're only symbolic for France, too...

[13Sisters76]

Let me try to understand this...:

Will this be the SAME UN "force" that transported Hezbollah and Hamas fighters and weapons in their ambulances?

[conservativecorner]

Lest we forget the Italians:

Italy says UN force will not disarm Hizbullah

Italian soldiers in a planned UN Force for Lebanon will not be expected to disarm Hizbullah but to help the Lebanese army impose its authority, said Italy's foreign minister in a magazine interview.



"It is wrong to say that our soldiers are going to disarm Hizbullah," Massimo D'Alema told L'Espresso in an interview made available to Reuters a day ahead of publication on Friday. A UN-brokered truce on Monday halted a 34-day war between the Jewish state and the Iranian-backed group in which more than

1,100 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, were killed. (Reuters)



(08.17.06, 15:10)

[samtheman]

Israel lost. Syria won. Iran won. Terrorism won.

But the war's not a total loss. We at least get one more opportunity to laugh at the French.

[SMARTY]

You should consider that all the French are really capable of is 'symbolic' force.

Interesting...After the French track record in Algeria, no one a with real concern for peace in the area should want to see a French uniform anywhere near an Arab.

French brutality finally united the Algerians and forced them into their rabid nationalism. It is probably the cornerstone of most Muslim hatred for the west, if any one wants to calculate when modern Anti Western politics emerged in the area. (Middle Eastern anti-Semitism aside)

[dingoMcgill]

It just means that of the 15000 man Lebanese force rushing as we speak to vacated IDF positions, 14999.75 will be Hezbola.

You did a great job Condi !!!

[NonValueAdded]

Once again, France's perfidy ensures a bad outcome. There is no way - NO WAY - that France should continue to lead UNIFIL. What the hell was the Administration thinking when they joined in with France on the "cease fire"??? Talk about a waving red flag with bells, whistles and an ear-splitting siren. [expletives deleted]

Despite the MSM spin, I know our leaders are not that stupid, so there had to be some really, really bad stuff going down over there. My guess is that the missing WMD are in fact not missing and the Hezzies made it clear through back channels of what their death throes might be. That is the only rational explanation for this cluster ... er, flop of a cease fire.

To paraphrase Hackman's Brill character, "Israel, if you're still around in 2 years I'll be very impressed."

[ritewingwarrior]

The real question is, What will the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL do when the Hezzies start firing Katusha's over their heads into Israel? They have already said they won't confront them, so what is really the point. Olmert is an idiot.

[catpuppy]

France considers only symbolic force for UN

A new world record for France: Surrender in advance.

[mcar]

France is considering providing only a symbolic force for the United Nations contingent in Lebanon...

No kidding?

[Diddle E. Squat]

[Rummyfan]

Prediction: UNIFIL will not materialize and this whole UN scheme will fall flat on its face (which it should!).

The French know that any force they put in there will have bullseyes on them.

[duckman]

Hey France, I have a symbol for you.

[finnigan2]

Why should France commit troops to Lebanon? They managed to get to pretend they were one of the word's heavy hitters by getting their name linked to the US as a deal broker, they got to preen and strut at the UN and to get a few brownie points with their old ex colonies and to boast that they still are a world power.
They got what they wanted out of the situation and from committing troops onward it would be all downside.
Besides, if the UN force turns out to be ineffectual because it hasn't sufficient troops, it fits their own aims of weakening Israel and hog tying any future US action to the UN where they know they can stall it indefinitely.
I'm afraid that Olmerts lack of resolve has seriously damaged Israel's reputation and emboldened it's enemies while Rice, who it appears has been listening to her State Dept. appeasement advisor's, has undermined her credibility and damaged the President with her bad advice to accept the deal.
This situation was a golden opportunity for Bush to implement his "preemptive" policy by using Isreal's foray into Lebanon as a way to go after Hezbollah's backers in Syria and Iran. Adroitly managed, Syria and Iran could have been drawn into the Lebanese conflict and provided an excuse for the US to intervene.
All wasted now.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the MSM have made it politically impossible for Bush to go after Iran after completely undermining his efforts in Iraq. From now on he will avoid any future Middle East initiatives and, short of a nuclear attack by Iran on US or Israel, will leave any future actions in that region to the next President to deal with.

[mkjessup]

Perhaps the French NAVY could help out in Lebanon instead?

Oops. That's another non-starter.

The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the steam powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it's predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation.

There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification.

The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.

The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because of cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.

So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British.

From "How Not To Build An Aircraft Carrier"
- James Dunnigan - December 7, 2003

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2003127.asp

[gaspar]

"Why should France commit troops to Lebanon?" For eleven centuries France served as the protector of Christians in the Holy Land. Following World War I France ruled the Lebanon Mandate until 1941. And following World War II it served as the protector of a multi-religious state until the close of the Six Day War in 1967. Then, tragically, France began its slow, long withdrawal from the region. It attempted to use a feckless diplomacy to retain its former grandeur in Lebanon and Syria, but its unwillingness to shed French blood to ensure French interests was only too obvious. Today the French are seen as the poseurs they are. Thus, the presence of 100 French troops in Lebanon, or 1,000, or 10,000 is seen for what it is. Being and nothingness.