Realism about an International Peace Force for the Middle East
One of the few points of agreement coming out of today’s Rome conference on the Israel-Lebanon war is to send an international peace force under UN auspices. That’s good --- but only if done right. If not the Israel-Lebanon crisis risks being worsened, not improved. And broader global reverberations may again discredit peace operations in ways that have fallout for future crises just like Somalia and Bosnia did for Rwanda.
The key is to recognize that this is not a peacekeeping situation. There is not yet a peace to be kept. It instead will be a peace enforcing force. That requires a very different and much more difficult strategy. Peacekeeping works when the parties to a conflict have agreed to the terms of peace or solid ceasefire and invite an international force in as a third party to provide reassurance that the peace will be kept. Peacekeeping forces can keep to neutrality and impartiality and rules of engagement of using force only for self-protection. That’s the kind of operation the UN has run well over the years, indeed for which it won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize.
But that’s not even close to the situation in Lebanon. There’s not agreement on ending the Israel-Lebanon conflict – when, how, who, what terms. And then there’s the intra-Lebanon issue of the Lebanese Army and central government imposing its authority on Hizbollah and its militia. This is going to require peace enforcement. That has much more robust requisites for rules of engagement that allow the use of force to enforce the mandate. It also will require more than patched-together military forces, jerry-rigged logistical structures and other military capacities.
If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right. And if there’s not the will to do it right, then let’s not pretend there is and get real about strategies that have a real shot at managing this crisis and not further poisoning the well of international action on future ones.
Your conclusion rests on:
There’s not agreement on ending the Israel-Lebanon conflict – when, how, who, what terms.
I believe the answer to your four (rhetorical) questions are as follows.
WHEN: After Israel has finished demonstrating its determination to do whatever it takes to avoid being subjected to rocket attacks etc from territory it withdraws from and Hezbollah has finished demonstrating that bombing Lebanese infrastructure and invading south Lebanon to crush Hezbollah is not what it takes. Then and only then will attention turn to what it actually takes - Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital.
HOW: As you point out, the mechanism don't matter if there is no agreement. Likewise the detailed diplomatic and other machinery doesn't matter if there is agreement.
WHO: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanese Government - ie Syria, Iran and US are not critical. Parallel negotiations concerning Gaza and West Bank will also involve PLO. Provision of an international force will also involve the providers but since no international force is practical in the absence of an agreement and the point of such a force is to be comprised of troops not aligned to the parties in conflict they are not stakeholders in reaching agreement.
TERMS: Basically as stated by Hezbollah. Exchange of prisoners and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory (including the area Israel claims is Syrian rather than Lebanese). Once those are achieved Hezbollah loses its basis for operating as a "national resistance" and Lebanese government authority can be established in the south protected from further Israeli prisoner taking and occupation by an international force rather than by a Hezbollah force.
There is no difficulty about reaching this sort of agreement since Israel has no vital interest in continuing to hold Lebanese prisoners 6 years after retreating from south Lebanon or in holding an insignificant strip of Lebanese territory just to annoy Syria by pretending it is Syrian.
However parallel agreements concerning Gaza and the West Bank are the real problem. The important breakthrough is Israel having accepted the need for a robust international force on its borders. Previously Israel has opposed any such force because, for all the propaganda about existential threats, it has always been Israel hoping to expand into "Greater Israel" and not wanting any obstacle to such expansion. Israeli acceptance of an international force paves the way for a transition from Israeli occupation to such an international force in the West Bank with removal of Israeli settlers. That is the only realistic basis for a durable peace. Unfortunately for the Lebanese it has to be presented to the world as a triumph for Israel and the US but the real agreement is that Israel has to withdraw from the West Bank because it has tried everything else and conclusively demonstrated by its absurd antics in Lebanon that a viable Palestinian State is what it takes.
July 26, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to agree with Olmert's plan, which was announed today (7/26).
A mile-wide "neutral zone" should be maintained by an international force, likely NATO, so that international players are given a chance to negotiate peace with Hezbollah.
Yes people, this inherently legitimizes Israel's offensive but we simply cannot keep lamenting on their immorality; it does nothing in terms of finding peace.
With NATO forces maintaining the neutral zone several things happen:
1)The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon stops.
2)Hezbollah forces will not simply sneak back into the devastated zone around the border because there will be NATO forces controlling the area.
3)This respite will allow ample time for negotiations. A "cooling off period" if you will.
4)This will end, at least in the short term, civilian casualities.
It may not be the ideal option but it seems to be the best and most realistic avenue available right now.
July 26, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
"One of the few points of agreement coming out of today’s Rome conference on the Israel-Lebanon war is to send an international peace force under UN auspices. That’s good..."
Whats good about it? There was a UN peace force there before fighting broke out. They apparently did bupkis. If there is to be a peace force it needs to be effective. UN forces in Lebanon, Rwanda, and the Balkans among other places have demonstrated failure in this roll repeatedly.
July 26, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree more, Larry, with making the distinction that this is a mission for peace enforcers, not peace keepers. It must be understood that peace enforcers, sooner or later, will kill people and break things.
In the Balkans, different countries had different Rules of Engagement. Peace keepers often are ordered only to return fire, but peace enforcers can open fire fairly freely on anything that might be a threat to themselves or the people they are protecting. The French detachments were especially aggressive, and the assorted groups quickly learned not to show weapons in the French sectors, much less threaten with them or use them. France, incidentally, has a significant presence in Chad, on the Darfur border.
It's interesting that Turkey and Egyptian troops have been mentioned, given the ongoing Turkish desire to join the EU as well as NATO. I regard the Turkish Army as quite competent, and still remember their performance in the Korean War -- about the only group that continuously resisted as POWs. Might there be a EU incentive for the Turks?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 26, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Turkey part of NATO now?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 26, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
NATO, but not the EU. To get its participation in a NATO force, the EU might be pressured for admission.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 26, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . jerry-rigged . . .
Not to be too persnicketty, but this something -- it's not even neo- -- logism really annoys me.
Now, you can get away with "jerry-built" -- that's just a dialectical monstrosity.
But "jerry-rigged"? Shiver me timbers! Never!
The proper word is "jury-rigged." "Jury" as used, here, is a nautical term of art meaning something intended for temporary use. "Rigged" is, also, a nautical term meaning built or fitted.
July 26, 2006 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The UN mission (UNIFIL) was an observation mission, not a peacekeeping force. They operated under a straightjacket of rules that prevented them from anything more than minimal self-defense.
The sliver of good news is that all sides (with the possible exception of Hezbollah) would like to see a more robust enforcement of a demilitarized zone. Despite your reservations, it should be noted that the UN peacekeeping missions have been overall successful (see Cyprus for an example).
July 27, 2006 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody remember the following item from UNIFIL's Greatest Hits...?
July 27, 2006 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does your song quote imply that you admire guys that fight to their mutual death over silly points of honor?
July 27, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Who's Larry?
July 27, 2006 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Reporting by Newsweek suggests that Turkey has its own plans for their troops. But on the brighter side, you can still blame Israel.....
July 27, 2006 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. Bruce.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 27, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the Newsweek cite. Nevertheless, I don't see a single news media story as grounds not to explore possibilities in a rapidly changing situation. Perhaps Turkish responses deserve their own thread.
No one, at least that I have seen, has made any estimates of the size and composition of an international peace enforcement unit in the buffer zone. Turkey does not have a small military, and may be able to staff both activities should it desire.
Obviously, should Turkish-Iraqi combat break out, the situation becomes even more confused. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 27, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that an international force is a good idea. Nevertheless, if only one party disagrees with the idea, either that force is structured and authorized for peace enforcement, or it will be a useless distraction.
Even if the buffer is covered by peace enforcers, the problem still remains what to do if Hezbollah continues to fire rockets from Lebanon. From a strictly military standpoint, there is only a choice among undesirable options.
Incidentally, does anyone know the status of the Israeli system to shoot down artillery rockets? I did see some recent US tests, but, from the limited description, it would seem only to be able to protect point targets.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 27, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool -- I thought we were missing a comment somewhere.
July 27, 2006 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Mostly snark, intended for those who generally approach Israel as the only party to the overall conflict with any influence over its circumstances.
July 27, 2006 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. Some feedback, then, that since it was in a post to me, I wondered if it was directed to me. In general, I don't find snark, as opposed to humor, to be conducive to discussion.
I would ask you, and others, with this belief to examine if you are doing your own cause good? To be honest, I've had to stop myself from blaming Israel in some reports I first hear of in a snarky way. Believe it or not, I am trying to be neutral, but I also do honestly disagree with some of the Israeli (as well as Hezbollah) positions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 27, 2006 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In thory Hezbollah doesn't get a direct vote, as they aren't a sovereign nation. The two parties responsible for inviting the troops are Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah as a political party has to deal with its nation's government before it can make international claims.
As far as return fire goes, I think it would be overkill. In the past, debris from shot-down rockets cased more damage than the rocket itself, and the Hezbollah/Hamas rockets (pardon my cynicism here) have more value in the fear and anxiety they inspire in relation to their low damage yield.
I think Israel instead needs to work harder at portraying Hezbollah as heartless cynics who are trying to encourage the deaths of their countrymen, to implant the idea that they WANT Israelis to kill innocent bystanders. If Israel was truly cynical and heartless, they could even start a Rove-like smear campaign suggesting that Hezbollah even bew up and shot Lebanese in hopes that the IDF would be blamed. Note that I'm not saying that this would be right, just that if they want to achieve their goals that this is what they ought to do.
I would hope that the mandate would set up a DMZ, an area of (X) kilometers on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border where military equipment of a certain nature is forbidden. UN inspectors would have the authority to inspect suspected violations (rockets being smuggled in, for example), and any violation is reported to the all sides. Defense forces from both nations may patrol the frontier (police and customs included), but only with personal arms and only if they keep the peacekeeping troops notified.
July 27, 2006 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me assume it is the 9M28F. The total round, casing, motor, and warhead weighs 56.5 kilograms/124.3 pounds. Of that weight, the warhead proper is 21.0kg/46.2 pounds, about a third of the total. It's 2.27 meters long; I have a couple of diameter figures but it's not clear if they include the fins. Figure 6-10 inches.
So, you have a thin wall around the rocket propellant, and a third of the weight in explosive. There's not a lot of wreckage to be left. Also, there's no proven technique to shoot them down, although there are experimental systems -- they are simply a lot smaller than missiles.
When one hits, which can be anywhere within a radius of a kilometer, the danger zone will vary with the exact warhead and what it hits, but fragments out to 400 meters are certainly reasonable. The crater will be much smaller.
I disagree about appropriate return fire. By appropriate, I mean that it is being fired from an area not surrounded by civilians, and an orchard has been mentioned. In that case, the standard US response to an enemy artillery fire would be 4-6 155mm shells, which, with the AN/TPQ-36 or -37 radar coupled to howitzers, can have shells in the air before the rocket hits.
A battery of 155s will almost certainly kill the crew, but it covers a large enough area that you don't want to do it in a populated area. I have a reference librarian trying to find a specific article in Field Artillery Magazine describing how a similar threat, in populated areas in Iraq, is met with ground and helicopter patrols with much grater accuracy. Hopefully, she will find it in the next day or two; my saved copy is on a crashed disk.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 27, 2006 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has still not got more than a couple of miles into south Lebanon before having to mobilize 30,000 more troops. No other countries are offering to send a force to actually fight Hezbollah.
The proposals for an international force are proposals for an international force that will not have to fight Hezbollah because it will be acceptable to Hezbollah.
Consequently this discussion about military technology for stopping rocket attacks is completely irrelevant and unrealistic.
A realistic discussion would be about the political terms on which Hezbollah will agree to cease firing. I have already posted about that, with no replies. Is the concept of Israel not winning but having to accept terms rather than dictate them so completely unintelligible?
July 28, 2006 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You objected to
You may be surprised that I do not completely disagree with you. My discussion of military technology -- or the lack thereof -- was addressing certain parallel issues to policy. First, there are some significant misperceptions on the weapons being used by Hezbollah, ahd the capabities -- or lack thereof -- to intercept the rockets. Second, while I believe some of Israel's military actions border on war crimes, I wanted to make the point that some do not -- and, as a part of that, that Israeli censorship may well be one of Israel's worst enemies. While there appear to be highly questionable actions, there also seem to be some activities quite acceptable under the conventional Laws of Land Warfare. Neither side has clean hands, but it is fair to bring out this background.
As you note here, one of the prerequisites of a when requires Israel satisfying itself that it has either done something that gets it interim relief, completely fails to crush Hezbollah, or, more likely, something inbetween that satisfies domestic actors. The feasibility and infeasibility of some military actions will enter into that internal political debate. No, I don't believe it is possible to utterly stop weapons as simple and easily transported as the ones in use by Hezbollah. Yes, I do believe it is possible to force an interim reduction, with enough consequences of further efforts that certain Israeli moderates may restrain the superhawks. A seriously armed international peace enforcement unit is part of this solution, in that it will stop some actions on both sides, or brand one or the other side the most severe continuing problem.
And I am describing certain aspects of the military situation and responses that increasingly demand an international force. While the military technology and tactics is in no way a total solution, ignoring it ignores some major pressures that can lead to international involvement.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 28, 2006 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I give you an initial analysis of your proposal, but disagree that the military aspects are irrelevant. There are aspects of the military tactics and technology that bear directly on the justification and mission of an international force, part of what we agree is a sine qua non for the broader political settlement.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 28, 2006 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Although I understand where you are coming from, I still maintain that there is no possibility of an international force with terms of engagement that include getting shot at by either Israel or Hezbollah and consequently the means and rules of engagement they should use for shooting back are simply not relevant. More details are in a response to your related posting in a separate topic.
BTW I agree that the extent to which Israel is violating the laws of land warfare is somewhat exaggerated. That is consistent with my view that the whole operation is primarily aimed at showing resoluteness to domestic public opinion. eg The attack on Beirut airport could easily have destroyed the terminals to impose a "heavy price" but apparantly only cratered runways which can be fixed more cheaply when hostilities end. Its obvious that if civilians were being deliberately targeted rather than callously disregarded the death toll would be tens of thousands (as in 1982) rather than hundreds.
The crime of waging an aggressive war that kills hundreds of innocent civilians remains however a rather serious one.
Attacks aimed primarily at influencing domestic public opinion are waging aggressive war by any definition.
July 28, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help but remember (well, I was just starting to read) a case where the UN did do peace enforcement, or, as some put it, a police action where the bad guys had very, very big guns: the Korean War. Obviously, the Korean peninsula is still a tense place, with occasional minor military conflict, but the UN intervention did stop the bulk of the combat. Of course, that was a major war. As an aside, the performance of the Turkish and French units there, both candidates for the multinational force, was superb.
NATO did do true peace enforcement in the Balkans. Multinational peace enforcement hasn't happened in many places, although there have been some successes with a single First World power taking out the major opposition. (British in Sierra Leone, French in Ivory Coast and arguably Chad).
I'm not suggesting that a peace enforcement deployment can be politically or militarily viable in this situation, but I would not rule it out completely. Another variant, which might help worldwide decisionmaking, is to have a no-fly zone over the general border area, and intelligence coming from independent sensor platforms (UAV, aircraft, satellite). Israel, as far as I can tell, is doing strict censorship because they can. As details leak out, I would generally say they help Israel's position. Assuming the tactics on the airport and bridges are confirmed, those are quite appropriate responses.
My biggest concern with Israeli targeting was of the national power grid, and firing on UN forces and possibly refugees. The first was clearly deliberate, although I'm willing to listen about the latter two. Mistakes happen in war.
Better intelligence also can document Hezbollah war crimes, such as firing from densely populated areas. This may be a little tangential, but I did find one link -- I think there's another -- about the New US tactics to minimize civilian casualties against Iraqi rocket fire. Again needing confirmation, if Hezbollah is firing from an unpopulated area such as an orchard, conventional counterfire is proportionate.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 28, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink