Posted on 07/25/2006 8:54:12 AM PDT by La Enchiladita
We have a lot of respect for Condoleezza Rice. For the U.S. Secretary of State, who is currently in the midst of a whirlwind Middle East tour, the path of least diplomatic resistance would have been to echo the widespread call for an immediate ceasefire in the war between Hezbollah and Israel. But to her great credit -- and that of her boss, President George W. Bush -- she didn't. Instead, this week, she told Lebanese officials that any ceasefire would have to be part of a broader deal that included Hezbollah's withdrawal from Lebanon's border with Israel, and the deployment of an international force to guard the peace. "The situation on the border cannot return to what it was before July 12," Ms. Rice declared. She's also said she wants to avoid any deal that produces a "false promise" which leads to "a guarantee of future violence."
The idea of a "ceasefire" always sounds appealing on its face. War is hell, after all. But in this case, a ceasefire without conditions would only lead to more war. Hezbollah would claim that its rocket attacks had tamed the mighty Zionists, and cast the stillborn ground war as proof that Israel was afraid of confronting Hezbollah's Jihadis. Rather than discourage future attacks -- Israel's goal in its ongoing campaign -- Hezbollah would be encouraged to send more rockets and terrorists into Israel in the days to come. As Ms. Rice says, such a peace would be a false one.
No war goes on forever. And this one will likely end in a week or two. By that time, we hope, Israel will have destroyed a sufficient quantity of Hezbollah materiel and killed a sufficient number of jihadis to render risible any claim to victory by Hezbollah or its puppetmasters in Tehran and Damascus. We also hope Israeli troops end the operation in full control of the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border, including the villages where Hezbollah's assets are concentrated.
The question is: What then? There is no such thing as a power vacuum in the Middle East. When the Israeli army evacuates Lebanon, Hezbollah will simply reoccupy the territory -- unless a third-party force lays claim. Ideally, that force would be the Lebanese army. But there seems little hope of that: Lebanon's military is weak, and its leadership has been co-opted by Hezbollah sympathizers. Any effort to deploy the army in southern Lebanon could lead to civil war.
So who should be keeping the peace in southern Lebanon? Kofi Annan, naturally, thinks it should be the United Nations. So does Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who claims that any peacekeeping force deployed to his country must fly the UN flag.
But if this job does go to the UN, Israel will have waged its war of self-defence for nothing. The fact is, the United Nations already has a 2,000-strong peacekeeping force in Lebanon called UNIFIL. It's hasn't lifted a finger to stop attacks on Israel. And given the poisonous anti-Israel bias that suffuses the UN, we shouldn't expect any new force deployed under the blue banner to be any different.
The best course -- which has been proposed by the United States and greeted favourably by Israel -- is to deploy a well-armed NATO contingent with a robust combat mandate. This force would not be a doormat-style UN force, but one akin to the allied force currently engaging the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan.
Deploying such a force -- preferably under UN auspices, and preferably including a strong Canadian contingent -- would send exactly the right message to Hezbollah and its bosses in Iran: that the West stands united behind Israel in its fight against militant Islam, and that any unprovoked attack on Israel is an attack on civilized nations everywhere.
© National Post 2006
Let the Euros start their own army.
This commentary, however, proposes for the NATO forces to be "under the auspices of the UN." Not appealing.
Push back Hizb'Allah until they have nowhere to go, then consider stabilization. Otherwise, by rushing international forces onto the scene, you have stagnation at best.
In fact, what other armed forces could be trusted to not attack Israel, besides the U.S. and ....?
If I were Israel, I would only trust the US under US control. The US under NATO control is a different matter. I hope we never again get into that bind.
Johnnie did not read Carnegie's best-seller, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
:-}
And, one of the (many) things I like about FR is that when I am told I am wrong, I have the chance to respond as to why I am right.
;-]
Oy vey smeer, that is even worse...
Australia, maybe... Poland, no. They have been great allies in OIF, however, they have a history ...
ROFL!
I will be the first to admit that Johnnie lives up to the name of MR GRIM....
I have disagreed with Johnnie on a few occasions.
What I love about Johnnie- is that he is a breath of fresh air. Ya always know what he thinks. He takes no prisoners....but he never means harm to anyone for it...
He loves our country. He is not here to win friends.. he is here to defend what is dear to him...
there are times I cringe at his wording of things.. but never a time I would not want JOHNNIE to be the man defending my freedom.....
(along with a few other things......yowza!)
;-)
No, it would not make any sense. If one could get a force with a visceral interest in finishing that job - then yes, but the Israelis are ovbiously the most motivated here.
Nor apparently is he a graduate of kindergarten, as he lacks the social skills required.
Isn't it interesting how we can love our country ... in *different* ways?
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.