I will admit up front that I am no fan of peacekeeping efforts, especially when they are run by the UN. Having deployed twice to Somalia, I witnessed how well the UN plays its role as a King Midas in reverse: it touches something and turns it to feces. Also, I believe that peacekeeping missions contain inherent contradictions and are thus doomed to failure from inception. If you need a force to keep the peace between two (or more) warring sides, there isn’t really a peace to keep, now is there? And if the peacekeeping force doesn’t have the teeth or the will to actually keep the peace, then the whole exercise becomes a farce.
Nothing I have seen or heard since causes me to doubt my assessments. UN peacekeeping efforts constitute a sad tale of woe, of mismanagement, of ineffectiveness and sometimes outright collusion with evildoers.
However, since there are serious discussions underway to field such a force to Lebanon, let’s toss it out here and let all devoted Op-Forians apply some rigorous analysis. Here is how I view the only way an effective force can be sent to Lebanon *if* there is a clear need for such a force and *if* it has an achievable mission.
Size: it needs to be big, big enough to hold the ground and control the ground. It also needs to be able to defend its lines of communication. It needs to be more than an observer force. And no blue helmets and white vehicles, either.
Composition: it needs to be made up of units from countries that have solid military capabilities but do not have a dog in the fight. Given those two criteria, the list grows real short, real fast. Take out the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. Take out any Arab country. Take out Turkey. Take out France (too close to the problem). Take out Russia and China.
I suggest these countries be invited to step up and assume some responsibility: Germany, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Chile, India. Those are responsible nations with professional militaries, and they have some experience with these sorts of efforts.
Command relationships: forget the UN, place command of the force under NATO. If it’s under the UN it becomes hostage to every country in that body and its execrable policies. Perhaps also it might be a good step to embed it in part or in whole with the Lebanese Army: let that be its real mission.
MIssion: stop Syrian interference, disarm Hezbollah, support the Lebanese Army in reasserting the sovereignty of that government.
I don’t think such a force is a good idea at all, but if it has to be done, let be done right, and let it be deployed with a clear mission and the right tools to get it done.
good post. India has been engaged in peacekeeping activities in the past, and have inherited “the British discipline.”
They also have their own struggle with Islamofascists. I think they’d be a good choice.
India is a bad choice for just that reason, plus, they’ve already been in the middle of stuff in South Lebanon under UN auspices before and that did not work out well. (Go find one of the posts on the history of UNFIFIL or whatever its called.)
Any European country is probably “too close to the problem”.
The idea of South Americans might actually work, but why would they want to do that?
If the thing is to be under NATO command, then fine, use NATO countries but use them all. Everybody sends a brigade. Put a company in every town. Find every AK-47 and rocket and take them away from the children. The US can provide logistics for everybody.
Agree with most of the short list. What about Ireland? They are normally neutral. Switzerland?
Agree that the force would have to be large and pretty modern – after all they may have to fight the IDF. Not likely, but a good commander should plan for that scenario.
Agree that UN should not lead – they are emmasculate in the eyes of Arab nations (look how Egypt and Hizb pushed them around). Uncertain about NATO since that is a ‘western’ organization. Possibly a new org – designed just to deal with this problem.
No special markings other than something to unify the effort. Clear ROE that enables them to shoot anyone who aggresses. Going to have to train both Leb army and police like the US is doing in Iraq. Slowly phase in the Lebs as they gain experience and competancy.
This will probably be a 15-20 year effort. Countries need to know this before they sign up.
The key is having the teeth and the will. They would also need to have access to ALL of Lebanon (don’t see that happening). Just securing an area between lines on a map does nothing if forces just build up right outside the lines.
Imbedding and training with the Lebanese army is an excellent idea. that is probably the only way such a force could expect not to be a permanent commitment.
I think Germany and Canada would be good troop sources, but both countries have expressed that they are not interested.
Even if all these obstacles are overcome, but HB just relocates to Syria then no long term objectives are really achieved from Israels standpoint.
Like the Major, I have my doubts. The problem is that they need to be able to use force; once they do that, they become an “occupation” and an enemy of Islam.
Any “peacemaking” force will be a new war, probably low-level for a while, but still….
I’ve got to agree with diane here. Once this hypothetical neutral “peacekeeping” force shoots someone (regardless of the ROE), they’ve chosen a side and will no longer be neutrals.
Also, I believe the Argentines might not be a good choice. Didn’t Hezbollah blow up a couple of places there during the 90′s?
Methinks the list of countries who are capable, willing, and have no agenda for this mission goes to zero pretty quickly.
I wondered why this seemed so familiar. Back in the 1980s when the Army was paying for my Master’s program I ended up doing a term paper on UNAFIL (United Nations Armed Forces in Lebanon?). Pretty much one of those things that was never going to be effective, but they’ve been drawing paychecks for 20 years — I was just amazxed to find out that they’re still there! Somehow, more of the same just seems silly. And fixing a “UN peacekeeping force” ro make it effective is on the order of fixing soup so you can nail it to a wall.
Hmmm … okay, I should preface this by saying that I have never served in the military in any capacity, so my comments are strictly those of an interested bystander. Nevertheless, it seems to me that when two or more groups have been at war with one another, but have just decided to “give peace a chance”, there would be a great deal of mutual, lingering suspicion. Even acts that were taken in all innocence by one side may easily be seen as provocative by another. At such times, it could be very useful to have a neutral “peacekeeping” force separating the former combatants, to eliminate the opportunity for such misinterpretations. I think where most if not all recent peacekeeping operations have gone wrong is that they are inserted into the scene long before the warring parties have decided that they *want* peace. That’s not peacekeeping, that’s just wishful stupidity.
NATO Force = U.S. military. And if it’s going to be going after Hezbollah, that force isn’t a peacekeeping force but rather an extension of Israel’s army. I mean, we should at least call things by their real names.
The problem for the U.S. is that our military forces are already tied down in a growing Iraqi civil war, following an invasion fought mainly to provide Israel with regional security. That didn’t work, so now you want to put U.S. troops in Lebanon and tell them to do Israel’s dirty work?
I have a different idea: Neutrality. The U.S. should tell Israel that it fully supports its national right of self defense, emphasis on the SELF. We should ask Europe, Russia, China, Japan and anyone else who makes arms to join in an embargo on weapons shipments to all belligerents in the area.
Israel’s security is not America’s fundamental interest.
xcgikwmj vmixqrd vyiujtkrg wvjin habz vamrgd vexpjyts