Posted on 08/18/2006 8:28:00 AM PDT by knighthawk
The charm of any United Nations Security Council resolution lies in the preamble, which invariably begins by "recalling" all previous resolutions on the same subject. Those previous resolutions have been entirely ignored, therefore necessitating the current resolution. Hence, newly minted Resolution 1701: Before mandating the return of south Lebanon to Lebanese government control, it lists the seven Security Council resolutions going back 28 years that have demanded the same thing. We are to believe, however, that this time the UN means it. Yet, the fact that responsibility for implementation is given to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's office - not known for integrity, competence or neutrality - betrays a certain unseriousness about the enterprise from the very beginning.
Now, it is true that had Israel succeeded militarily in its strategic objectives, there would have been no need for any resolution. Israel would unilaterally have cleaned out south Lebanon and would be dictating terms.
But that did not happen. The first Israel-Hezbollah war ended in a tie, and in this kind of warfare, tie goes to the terrorist. Yet there is no doubt that had Israel been permitted to proceed with the expanded offensive it began two days before the ceasefire, Israel would eventually have destroyed Hezbollah in the south, albeit at great cost to itself, Lebanon and Israel's patron, the United States. Which is why the war was called off.
Having obviated that possibility with the ceasefire, the U.S. is left with certain responsibilities. Secretary of State Rice gave assurances that this resolution would not be a dead letter; that it had enough Chapter 7 (i.e., legally enforceable) language to give it teeth; that there would indeed be a buffer zone below the Litani River; that there would be a robust international force with robust rules of engagement.
Yet within days, these assurances are already fraying. Hezbollah has declared that it will not disarm. The Siniora government in Beirut has acquiesced to a don't ask-don't tell deal in which Hezbollah retains its entire south-of-the-Litani infrastructure - bunkers, weapons, fighters - with the cosmetic proviso that none will be displayed very openly. No strutting, but everything remains in place awaiting the order to restart the war when the time is right.
That arrangement is essentially a return to the status quo ante - precisely what the U.S. had said it would not permit because that would represent a strategic disaster for the forces of democracy and moderation in the region.
We are headed for a complete repudiation of the bottom-line American position. The stakes are high. Not so much for Israel, which in the end will take care of itself. By the now-inevitable Round Two, Israel will have rejected the failed Olmert-led exercise in hesitancy and will have new leadership, new tactics and new equipment. (For example, expensive new plating for its tanks, which were so vulnerable to advanced Iranian antitank weaponry).
What is most at stake, from the American perspective, is Lebanon. Lebanon was the most encouraging achievement of the democratization project launched with great risk with the invasion of Iraq.
The Beirut Spring, the liberation from Syrian rule and the election of a pro-Western government marked the high point (together with the first Iraqi election that inspired the events in Lebanon) of the Bush doctrine.
Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have been working assiduously to reverse that great advance. Hezbollah insinuated itself into the government. The investigation of Syria for the murder of Rafiq Hariri has stalled. And now with the psychological success of the war with Israel, Hezbollah may soon become the dominant force in all of Lebanon. In the south, the Lebanese Army will be taking orders from Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just returning to being a "state within a state." It is becoming the state, with the Siniora government reduced to acting as its front.
That is why ensuring that Hezbollah is cut down to size by a robust international force with very strict enforcement of its disarmament is so critical. For all its boasts, Hezbollah has suffered grievously militarily, with enormous losses of fighters, materiel and infrastructure. Now is its moment of maximum weakness. That moment will not last long. Resupply and rebuilding have already begun.
This is no time for the U.S. ambassador to the UN to be saying, when asked about the creation of an international force, that "this really is a responsibility of the secretariat." Maybe officially, but if we are not working frantically behind the scenes to make sure that this preposterously inappropriate body actually gets real troops in quickly, armed with the right equipment and the right mandate, the moment will be lost. And with it, Lebanon.
Ping
Common sense ping
Does anyone doubt that if elections were held in Lebanon today, Nasralah would be elected to head the government and Hezbollah would get far more than their present 14 seats? Such is the fallacy of thinking that democracy will be the cure for Islamofascism. It will provide the cloak of legitimacy to these thugs, as it does in Gaza.
I'm shocked.
Wonder if a bribe would move Kofi to disarm the Hezbo's?
"That is why ensuring that Hezbollah is cut down to size by a robust international force with very strict enforcement of its disarmament is so critical."
That's not happening. The entire diplomatic exercise was precisely in order to *prevent* Israel from cutting Hezbollah down to size.
Very astute. I reckon you'd perhaps agree with those who call for immediate takeout of Iran, and the sooner the better...?
nope.
You think Nasrallah is going to get any christian, druze, or sunni votes, even after the Israelis actions? Many of them support what Israel was doing. They despise Syria and Hezbollah and what they have been doing to Lebannon.
The MSM has been beating this perception into everyones head since the war began. The MSM has refused to do any interviews with anyone other than the pro-syrian stooges in the government left over from the last election before Syria was kicked out during the Cedar revolution, and Shiites. It's as one-sided as it gets and not the true picture of politics in Lebannon.
I usually agree with Krauthammer and my fellow FReepers, but not on this thread. Charles writes this:
"Yet there is no doubt that had Israel been permitted to proceed with the expanded offensive it began two days before the ceasefire, Israel would eventually have destroyed Hezbollah in the south, albeit at great cost to itself, Lebanon and Israel's patron, the United States. Which is why the war was called off."
I believe Olmert ordered the expanded offensive only because he knew the resolution was coming in just a couple of days and there were widespread Israeli calls for his removal due to his failure to adequately prosecute this war. It was cynical butt-covering that cost Israeli lives and gained nothing that he is not now giving away.
It is not anyone's responsibility to guarantee Israel's security except for the Israelis'. They have gone soft, they were unprepared for this war, they elected a corrupt Jimmy Carter wannabe to lead them, and they got what they earned: defeat. They need to either shape up or ship out. Without a bold, skilled, and remorseless IDF, then the whole Zionist project of Israel as a Jewish nation located on that land has no rational basis.
It is their destiny at stake. They need to step up.
Condi at State after 2004 election
= change in Bush "diplomatic" strategy
= Condi's Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, the former senior foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's 2004 election campaign
= zero progress on North Korea, zero progress on Iran, and a politically correct military strategy in Iraq (Sadr's militia should have been obliterated before any parliamentary elections).
I'm glad you said that. The US gave Israel diplomatic cover for weeks, and shipped the weapons the Israelis asked for. Israel chose to screw around with an ineffective air campaign, because Olmert didn't want to take the casualties from a ground offensive.
The failure to destroy Hezbollah is on Israel, not on the US.
"Condi's Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, the former senior foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's 2004 election campaign"
And, of course, a proud CFR member.
"That is why ensuring that Hezbollah is cut down to size by a robust international force with very strict enforcement of its disarmament is so critical."
It would seem that the best "robust international force" would be the Israelis backed by the US, Austrialia, and Britan.
There is a fantastic article on this very subject in today's Haaretz. And you know the writer knows what they're talking about because they start out by referring to Victor Davis Hanson, and end up agreeing with yer ol' pal, FReeper rogue yam.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751470.html
Excerpt:
The failure of the Second War in Lebanon is the failure of the new culture of war. Though the PM, the minister of defense and the chief of staff are among its most profound representatives, they are not to be solely blamed for its result. The IDF's plan for war and its current power structure, mainly formulated during the terms of the previous chief of staff and defense minister, teach us that Olmert Peretz, and Halutz represent a profound social and cultural problem in our society.
Burden of enforcing ceasefire rests with any Lebonese who don't want to die in Israeli carpet bombing and artilary barrages during round two-
Nowhere else.
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.