UN in Lebanon

[Scoobie Newbie]

A mission to that region has Jug Fuck written all over it.  If whatever force is not wililng to engage either side when it needs to there is no chance of having any credibility.  If Isreal decideds it doesn't care nothing short of the Brits or Americans could stop the full might of that military.

 

[Journeyman]

Are you saying that an end state in which armed soldiers are separating two armed factions bent on attacking each other is indeed a "solution"?

I have said:

Interim: "....a temporary measure until something more complete and permanent can be established."

merely steps towards peace, with the requirement for peacekeepers or peacemakers based solely upon the political will of the combatants.

[Peacekeeping] presence was to set a condition for subsequent, more permanent peace, through negotiations.

peacekeeping is intended to play a role in solving conflicts - - its utility, and the degree to which it succeeds in its intended role, is completely in the hands of the belligerents

An "interim force" is never intended to be a "solution"

I have spelled out, repeatedly, and quite clearly, that I believe peacekeeping is merely a potential step in solving a conflict....emphasizing that it is no way to be considered a "solution."

That you still respond with the question you did suggests only two possible things, only one of which I had mentioned previously:
a) you're trolling (which I suggested), or
b) your intellect is questionable (which only you mentioned)

Based only on reading previous posts and today's efforts, I'm inclined to attribute your offerings here to "a) trolling." Is anyone surprised?

Hence,

I'm finished with this one

(Hint: responding with yet another question/comment showing you don't understand what has been stated repeatedly only gives credence to "b." Either way, there won't be a response)

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Journeyman,

Are you proposing that a peacekeeping force is an appropriate solution "at this time"?  If not, in this case what are the conditions that you believe need to be in place prior to said deployment?


Matthew.    ???

P.S.  In my opinion, until Hezbollah changes its tune (which isn't going to happen) or is wiped out and is replaced by forces from a Central Lebanese Government who stop apologizing for assymetrical attacks from their land, then putting anyone in the line of fire as a "peacekeeper" seems not only incredibly dangerous for those forces you drop in, but also horribly counterproductive as the status quo (pre-Israeli invasion) is the most dangerous and destabilizing imbalance you could have.

 

[Journeyman]

Cdn Blackshirt. You've answered your own question. PM inbound.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lewis Mackenzie: Levant crisis/dead Canadian UNTSO member--radio interview: "July 26, 2006, Supporting Israel: Guest host Karen Horsman spoke with retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie".
http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[4444]

I mean no disrespect to Journeyman, but it appears that you and Michael are arguing the same point. You've both stated, albeit slightly differently, that peacekeeping forces are in place as either on step towards a solution or to facilitate a permanent solution, and not a solution in and of themselves. If I've missed the core of either of your arguments I apologize, but on reading the posts I couldn't see any significant differences in either argument.

Not looking to enter the argument or anything, just my .02

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I have said:
I have spelled out, repeatedly, and quite clearly, that I believe peacekeeping is merely a potential step in solving a conflict....emphasizing that it is no way to be considered a "solution."

You mentioned that my knowledge came from 'wikipedia" - if that isn't a questioning of my intelligence, I'm not sure what is. Your exact words:

It has nothing to do with the UN, peacekeeping, stability operations, or whatever other buzzwords you choose to misunderstand.

------------
Note: Before you come back with more google/wikipedia wisdom

Anyway, as has been pointed out, we're both saying the same thing whether you realize it or not. Really not sure why you feel the need to be abusive and insulting while you're doing it. Anyway, thanks for confirming my point.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

If you guys wish to sling mud back and forth do it in the privacy of PM's please.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If you guys wish to sling mud back and forth do it in the privacy of PM's please.

Slinging mud?  Surely you jest, it would seem we are in complete agreement that peacekeeping is not intended as a "solution".

Anyway, sorry to bring this off the specific topic of Lebanon. But it is relevant to point out that peacekeeping will be no more of a solution there than it has been anywhere else. As to how effectively it can put the brakes on the proceedings, time will tell. The whole UN bombing incident has certainly cast a pall over these discussions.

 

[tomahawk6]

This pic demonstrates the problem that UNIFIL has created for itself.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The photo's already been posted, without context or description.  Is there a Hezbollah vehicle parked along side the fence?  Who knows...

I would suggest that these photos are more representative - and more than a little hard to miss, even in the worst conditions.  Just ask the 5 Finns killed by indirect fire in 1999...

Again, I'm hardly a fan of the UN or UNIFIL, but really...

 

[Koenigsegg]

I dunno, those bright flags with the globe, and wreath are pretty hard to see...(insert some sort of smily here)

 

[tomahawk6]

UNIFIL press release 20 July.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=UNIFIL+press+release&u=www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr04.pdf&w=unifil+press+release&d=aSK23GP9NLTn&icp=1&.intl=us

UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON
(UNIFIL)
Naqoura,
20 July 2006

PRESS RELEASE

Heavy exchanges of fire continued unabated along the length of the Blue
Line. The IDF and Hezbollah are also engaged in exchanges on the ground in
the general areas of the villages of Marwahin in the western sector, and
Marun al Ras in the central sector. A number of IDF tanks and bulldozers
moved into these two areas inside Lebanese territory yesterday afternoon,
and stayed throughout the night and into this morning. The IDF reportedly
used incendiary shells in the area of Kafr Kila in the eastern sector.

There were 31 incidents of firing close to UN positions during the past 24
hours, with three positions suffered direct hits from the Israeli side. Ten
artillery shells impacted inside UN position of the Ghanaian battalion on the
coast in Ras Naqoura, causing extensive damage. Four artillery shells
impacted inside the patrol base of the Observer Group Lebanon in the Marun
al Ras area, including three direct impacts on the building which caused
extensive damage and cut electricity and communication connections. At the
time of the shelling, there were 36 civilians inside the position, most of whom
were women and children from the village of Marun Al Ras. There were no
casualties. One artillery shell impacted inside the UNIFIL Headquarters
compound in Naqoura, causing extensive damage and danger to the UNIFIL
hospital where the doctors were operating at the time. Splinters of artillery
shells also damaged the boundary wall of the Naqoura camp. Extensive
shelling damage was reported in the Ghanaian battalion position south of
Alma Ash Shab. Hezbollah firing was also reported from the immediate
vicinity of the UN positions in Naqoura and Maroun Al Ras areas at the time
of the incidents.

All UNIFIL positions in the area of operation remain permanently occupied
and maintained by the troops. UNIFIL is still facing serious restrictions in its
freedom of movement, and was able to carry out only a small number of
logistic and humanitarian convoys yesterday, including the supply of water to
the civilian hospital with 1000 people in Tibnin. Doctors at the UNIFIL
hospital in Naqoura performed a limb saving surgery on two children from
the Alma Ash Shab village, who sustained multiple splinter injuries.

Some re-supply convoys to UNIFIL positions are planned for today, but the
ability to move will depend on the situation on the ground. All UN positions in
the close proximity of the Blue Line are facing shortages of basic supplies,
and our ability to re-supply them is vital.

 

[tomahawk6]

Great map of UN positions courtesy of strategypage.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2006727154852.asp

Also an article.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060728.aspx

The UN Takes Sides in Lebanon
July 28, 2006: The UNIFIL Observer outpost that was "accidentally" targeted by Israeli firepower on July 25th, leaving four UN troops dead, was probably a victim of its own chatter. The unarmed observers, with a clear view of the fighting between Hizbollah and the Israelis, were apparently reporting whatever they saw, with other UNIFIL locations, over unencrypted ("in the clear") radio frequencies. This chatter could be picked up by Hizbollah. Since the Israelis have control of the air, and use aircraft and UAVs to gain an information advantage over Hizbollah, this UNIFIL chatter was giving the Hizbollah fighters information they would not otherwise have. That was endangering Israeli soldiers. Then again, the UNIFIL post was right in the middle of a battlefield. There was a furious firefight going on around the UNIFIL position, and the Hizbollah gunmen were using the UNIFIL position for cover from Israeli fire (an old Hizbollah tactic.) The Israeli damage to the UN bunker may well have been accidental.

Then again, Israeli troops have complained to UNIFIL about this sort of loose talk, and inadvertent shelter for enemy troops, before, but such complaints have been brushed aside. The Israelis have caught some UNIFIL actually working for Hizbollah, and many more of the UN troops developed very friendly relations with Hizbollah. There was always a practical reason for this. When UN troops give Hizbollah a hard time, Hizbollah is not bashful about threatening the UN troops with violence. But the UNIFIL/Hizbollah cooperation goes beyond idle chatter. At about the same time the UNIFIL troops were killed, other UNIFIL troops were repairing roads in the area that had been bombed by the Israelis. UNIFIL engineers were making the repairs so UNIFIL vehicles could use the roads again, but UNIFIL was not going to do anything to keep Hizbollah off the newly repaired roads.

The UN is insistent that the Israeli bombing was deliberate. If the UN military officials put themselves in the situation the Israelis were facing, they would have probably given the same orders. That is, if the UN officers cared about their troops. UNIFIL has shown a keen sense of self-preservation during past encounters with Hizbollah. Now the UN is discovering that the Israelis will play for keeps as well. Despite what Israeli and UN diplomats (and their spin doctors) do over the next few weeks, UNIFIL has apparently received the message.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sorry, should have been at "UN Observers To Be Removed" where have re-posted.

See this from Captain's Quarters:

July 28, 2006
UN Acts Late In Removing Observers
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007641.php

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aluc]

http://www.torontosun.ca/Comment/Commentary/2006/07/29/1709669.html



Editorial....What peace is there to keep.


The safe position to take on the Middle East today is that there needs to be an immediate "ceasefire."

A ceasefire maintained by "peackeepers."

Let's examine those two terms.

To begin, here's what a "ceasefire" would mean right now.

It would mean Hezbollah gets to reload.

Believing that a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel right now would bring any real peace to Lebanon, Israel, or the region, is as naive as believing that a United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon would do the same.

There's been a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for almost 30 years.

Anyone notice any peace breaking out there recently?

In reality, any "peacekeeping" force in southern Lebanon, composed of UN, NATO or other forces, would have to be a fighting force capable of keeping Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

That's what the beleaguered Lebanese government failed to do after Israel voluntarily withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. That's why Hezbollah was able to launch a sneak attack on an Israeli military outpost from southern Lebanon, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others. And that, everyone agrees, is what started this latest confrontation.

So, who in the world's up for that job? Canada? Not with our military already stretched to the limit in Afghanistan.

The United States? Great Britain? Australia?

Impossible. Any of those forces acting as peacemakers in southern Lebanon would become prized terrorist targets themselves, perhaps even more so than Israeli soldiers.

The European Union?

How effective have most members of that alliance been in fighting terrorism since 9/11?

The Arab League? The only thing its members might ever conceivably agree on, if they thought for a moment they could actually win, would be to attack Israel. Fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon simply isn't on their radar.

Russia? Japan? China?

Okay, now it's getting silly, isn't it?

So let's hear from those advocating a "peacekeeping" force to maintain a "ceasefire" along the Green Line between southern Lebanon and northern Israel. And be specific.

Whose soldiers would man it? How many? What will be their rules of engagement? Will they be able to shoot first, or only shoot back? What will be their mandate if Hezbollah hides among civilians while attacking them? Will their response have to be "proportionate"? What does that mean -- that you have to take as many casualties as the enemy or stand down? Name a war where that rule has ever applied -- to either side.

Those are the kinds of questions that underlie simplistic calls for a "ceasefire" maintained by "peacekeepers."

That's why Stephen Harper, the first pro-Israel Canadian prime minister since, well, 1993, got it right last week when he said the only way a lasting peace can be achieved is if the nations IN THE REGION want it. And that would mean nations like Syria and Iran (among many others in the Arab/Muslim world) being prepared to fight terrorism instead of supporting and financing it. Needless to say, don't hold your breath.

 

[GAP]

Good article.

Too many people with adgenda's and silly ideas of how things actually work, wander out into the street, join the pedestrians going towards whatever group is anti something and think they are doing something.

They would have been better off at home, reading up on the nature and reasons behind the conflict.

Yeah, I know, that's a lot of work. And that's the trouble, every body wants a drive-thru answer to struggles that have been going on for 2000 years.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I fear if we were involved it would end up being like Somalia.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Possible intervention force contributors:

Analysis: The later the better for an int'l force
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1153292028794

'The likelihood is that, unlike last time, the US will not be playing a central role in staffing such a mission. Its military is fully stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. "As far as boots on the ground, that doesn't seem to be in the cards," said John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, over the weekend.

Instead, the talk is of 10-20,000 troops led by France and/or Turkey, with possible contingents from Germany, Italy, India, Brazil and Pakistan. But with European troops bound to be targeted by Hizbullah and its allies, some commentators are suggesting that any European role should be backed up with forces from the Arab world - from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and/or Jordan...'

Via Captain's Quarters
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007657.php

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Arab troops could be even more unreliable than the current UN force as they might be bribed or openly cooperate with hizbollah. Any force that goes into southern Lebanon will have to be very aggressive to keep out hizbollah and at the same time train up a reliable Lebanese Army. I see Hizbollah moving into Syria and West Bank continuing operations from there.