Courting Failure in Lebanon
It is as if France and the United States are deliberately trying to undermine any chance of success for the peacekeeping deal they brokered on southern Lebanon.
It was depressing, but not exactly a surprise, that France proposed "doubling" its peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. France was supposed to be the backbone of the new force, which was established by the UN Security Council resolution it negotiated with the United States last week. Yesterday, however, France announced it would make 200 troops available to the UN operation. This is precisely twice the paltry number of troops France has in Lebanon now. UNIFIL, the so-called "interim" force in Lebanon since 1978, is supposed to grow to 15,000 troops under the new UN deal. France was able to play the lead role with the United States in negotiating the resolution last week on the assumption it would make more than a token troop contribution.
Jacques Chirac said France might also make more troops available, but under French command only. You may remember that France insisted that the UN resolution place all peacekeeping troops in southern Lebanon under the UN flag, a recipe for disaster. The French Ministry of Defense, in declining to send troops, seems to understand this, even if Chirac, who personally intervened in the negotiations at the UN, did not.
Not to be outdone, the United States has offered no troops or other significant military assistance. It says American contributions would inflame Hezbollah and attract unwanted attention of Islamic radicals from elsewhere. Maybe. But that does not appear to have stopped the UK, equally vulnerable, and stretched even thinner than the United States. London is making a military base in Cyprus available, and promises air and naval support.
Worse, Washington is not lifting a finger to help recruit nations to contribute to the force. Asked about what Washington would be doing to solicit peacekeeping contributors, the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations said, "This really is the responsibility of the Secretariat."
It is now just a matter of time before the United States, shirking responsibility for the success of the international force in southern Lebanon, denounces the United Nations for another peacekeeping failure.
Blame this. Blame that.
Sounds an awful lot like the Bush administration.
The entire premise of this UN peace deal is ridiculous. Why is it surprising that nobody wants to donate to a resolution that never had a chance to succeed? It was dead on arrival. Disarm Hezbollah?
Yeah right.
Israel tried this and was lambasted as being immoral mosters.
August 18, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jacques Chirac said France might also make more troops available, but under French command only
That is inaccurate. According to Reuters earlier this evening:
French President Jacques Chirac assured U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan by phone that his government might yet send in more soldiers depending on the precise mission and rules of engagement, Chirac's office said.
In the meantime, he said the 1,700 troops serving in its air and naval forces in the region would remain in place for the time being, although not be put under U.N. command.
As I understand it, then, Chirac is leaving open the option of putting more soldiers under UN command, pending a satisfatory clarification of the mission and rules of engagement for the operation.
Worse, Washington is not lifting a finger to help recruit nations to contribute to the force. Asked about what Washington would be doing to solicit peacekeeping contributors, the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations said, "This really is the responsibility of the Secretariat."
I can think of very few things that would do more to undermine the credibility of the international force, or do more to put the lives of the foreign soldiers in jeopardy, than the perception that Washington was taking the lead in recruiting and mobilizing that force. The moment Washington is identified as the chief proponent and organizer of an international force in Lebanon will be the same moment people in the region start to say "what is wrong with this picture?"
I imagine that your average Italian, Finn, Malaysian or Indonesian peacekeeper is praying to his maker, "please, please keep John Bolton out of this, and let Kofi Annan and the Lebanese government take the lead." If these soldiers are seen as deployed at the behest of Bush and Bolton, one might just as well say paint a dangerous sign on their backs that says "US lackey."
You have to come to grips with the fact that the US did not remain neutral in this conflict. It clearly and unambiguously took a side. It only allowed an end to be brought to the conflict when it was clear that its side was not going to achieve its goal. So the US is in no position to start playing "peacekeeper" in Lebanon. Choices have consequences. If you want to preseve a role as honest broker or referee, you have to hold yourself above the fray. If you descend down into the fray, you lose your your peacemaker credits. It also doesn't help US credibility that it has been engaged for a few years now in a "warmaking" effort just a few hundred miles away!
I'm a bit curious as to why you are so eager to insert more American soldiers into another Middle East battlefield. It seems like such an obviously bad idea that it almost makes me question the sincerity of your professed motives.
It is now just a matter of time before the United States, shirking responsibility for the success of the international force in southern Lebanon, denounces the United Nations for another peacekeeping failure.
So, in other words, the French have good reason to believe they are being set up?
August 18, 2006 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can hide behind your 1 rating without issuing a word but it belies the fact that diplomacy is impossible unless both sides are willing to negotiate.
In this case Hezbollah (Iran) has nothing to offer and even if it did the Bush administration wouldn't take the bait.
Fight or flight. That's it.
August 18, 2006 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lee Feinstein
All, I appreciate the comments. First, I did not say the United States should put boots on the ground. What I said is the United States should provide military assistance, just as the UK is. The United States and France proposed this mission. They have a responsibility to make it work, and there are many ways they can do that. As to the United States setting up France, the French are very capable of taking care of themselves. The United States and others on this blog and I (in an op-ed in the Financial Times a week ago Monday) argued, correctly, that the force needed to be under Chapter VII authority and commanded by a militarily capable nation, like France. To say that the United Nations isn't up to this job is not to disparage the UN, whose peacekeepers have performed admirably in such places as El Salvador, Eastern Slavonia, and Macedonia. UN peacekeepers operate effectively in relative peace and quiet. This is not an operation the UN sought, and it is not an operation they relish, and it is not an operation they should be responsible for. As to the role of the United States in recruiting troops. Yes, America's reputation is at a low point thanks to the self-defeating, misguided, and failed policies of the Bush administration. That complicates but does not change the fact that the United States is in a position to rally others to join this force. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave this to the staff of the UN. I leave it to others to rise to Jacques Chirac's defense. But, suffice to say, if Washington pulled this kind of stunt, all of us would denounce it, and with good reason.
August 19, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fight or flight? That's it? Well darn my socks, that's no way to get laid.
Nothing to offer? 9000 short range missiles not to fire. A few hundred longer range missiles not to fire. A whole lot of really well trained soldiers not to cross the border and blow things up.
And what does Israel have to do to have all these things not happen? Not invade the country. Not bomb the crap out of it.
Jesus H. Christ, the US government making things not happen is an art form. Ask farmers who are paid not to grow things, ask New Orleans who also got a whole lot of nothing.
August 19, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US isn't in the position to rally anybody. It has a war in Afghanistan - the one war it needed to fight and still needs to keep nations "rallied" there. It wasted its credibility in Iraq not to mention the lives of 50,000+ Iraqis. It is complicit in the war in Lebanon. No one trusts us and why should they?
Meanwhile, plenty of Americans wish the US government would take care of Americans for a change. And if it busied itself doing that maybe it wouldn't be making so many enemies everywhere else.
August 19, 2006 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check Lee. Here's the thing. The ceasefire is either going to hold or it isn't.
If it don't hold, no one wants to be in the middle of that. Today Israel conducted an absolutely moronic raid on Baalbeck that risks starting the whole thing up again.
If it doesn't start up again, its going to not start up because neither side wants to rock and roll. Basically, there's no percentage in it for either side. For Israel, its been a public relations and political disaster. They got no plans and no tools to do it better, so getting their asses out of there is the best option.
On the other side, Hezbollah is ahead on points and the declared winner. Now, the thing is, a good gambler always knows to quit while he's ahead. Nasrullah can count cards just like the rest of us, he can figure the odds. The longer it goes on, the better chance the house wins. Stop now, he wins. Start it up again? Who knows.
So, barring utter stupidity, no one wants to play.
A UN force is just a ceremonial token to dress up that consensus.
And by the way, its a really really bad idea for the United States to offer peacekeeping troops of any sort. The Lebanese hate you guys.
August 19, 2006 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
the list of requirements is a bit longer: prisoners, overflights, maps of mine fields, and the Sheba'a farms.
In my opinion, the situation is fucked up because Hezbollah was declared a terrorist organization. This posture does not allow to negotiate with them but allows to raise a utterly ridiculous goal of "annihilitating Hezbollah".
And why is it so paramount? I could identify two reasons: to be able to beat crap out of Palestinians and not suffer any consequences, and to be able to bomb crap our of Iran on not suffer any consequences. The actual behavior of Hezbollah so far does not indicate any offensive design beyond pressing for Lebanese causes (rather paltry and easy to negotiate if one is willing) and solidarity with Palestinians (this more or less defines the terrorist status).
About the topic at hand: it appears that UN will not disarm Hezbollah and nobody will "enforce arms embargo". Let me tell you one thing about arms embargo: Saddam basically complied and fat good it did for him, now NOBODY will attempt to obey an arms embargo.
August 19, 2006 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, good point about Saddam. A lot of long term credibility got burnt away...
August 19, 2006 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really naive, Lee.
Here's what most likely really happened. France wanted a ceasefire at any cost, and was willing to hoodwink the UN and perhaps the Seniora government in order to get it done. Israel and the US were willing dupes in the scheme.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, never intended to do anything other than deploy troops in the South. They won't disarm Hizballah and will look the other way at violations of 1701.
This solution was a fig leaf that all parties could live with, since Syrian intervention was precluded as an option.
I blog at http://americanfootprints.com/
August 20, 2006 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, they really hate you:
The reality is that the United States ran extensive diplomatic interference for Israel in the United Nations and international forums.
The United States supported Israel publicly and diplomatically and actively obstructed ceasefire efforts. The US literally consented to or encouraged Lebanese deaths while demanding 'long term solutions.'
Meanwhile, the United States provided emergency deliveries of jet fuel, cluster bombs and precision guided munitions, without which Israel could not have maintained the war or the intensity of the war.
The United States also provided satellite information and intelligence information to Israel with respect to both Iran and Syria, and potentially with respect to Lebanon and targeting in Lebanon.
Finally, going considerably beyond passive support, the United States appears to have been actively encouraging and browbeating Israel to attack Syria.
All of this is extremely well known in both the western and the muslim worlds. It's not like America made any sort of secret of its activities.
So at this point, we can safely assume that America's stock in the region is double digit negatives.
Throw in the ongoing made-in-America nightmare in Iraq, the debacle in Afghanistan, the bungle in Somalia we might be looking at triple digit negatives.
The involvement of the United States in the peacekeeping effort in any way is probably not a good idea. American involvement would not bring credibility to the effort. Quite the opposite.
In practical terms, both Hezbollah and Lebanon are likely to oppose any American involvement.
America's linkage with and affiliation with Israel in this matter is very pronounced. There is no reason to assume that linkage will be stopped when or if America participates in peacekeeping. Moreover, in a dual role of participating in peacekeeping and linking operationally with Israel, there is no reason to suppose that the peacekeeping role would take priority.
Indeed, the experience with Iraq showed us that the United States was willing to use an international inspections system which it participated in to gather intelligence which it later used to target bombings and eventually to invade.
This lesson was not lost on the Muslim world.
So the suspicion, and the likelihood bordering on certainty is, that any US participation in the peacekeeping mission, directly or indirectly, would be also an intelligence gathering operation. The suspicion or likelihood is that such intelligence would then be provided to Israel for use in establishing targets, revising strategic plans and tactics, selecting people for assassinations, and determining who, where and how to bomb.
Given existing American priorities, it would also raise the suspicion that intelligence efforts through peacekeeping would be directed against Syria and Iran, and in particular, encouraging Israel to attack Syria.
Now, whether this is actually true or not (and the odds are that it would be true) is immaterial. The reality is that with double digit negatives, this is exactly how Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria would see American participation, and I can't imagine any way that you would dissuade them from this opinion. America has no credibility whatsoever in the middle east. It has anti-credibility.
Frankly, the United Kingdom is not walking around with a lot of credibility either. But comparing the UK to the US on this front is like comparing a pickpocket to a rampaging pedophile. The UK has not attracted nearly the degree of ire that the US has.
At worst, the UK is seen as a handmaiden and enabler to the US. But the UK was not actively sabotaging peace efforts, was not shipping weapons and jet fuel to Israel, was not trying to incite a war with Syria. The UK is not generally being blamed for the destruction of Iraq, notwithstanding UK participation there. Indeed, the UK's sphere, in and around Basra has been less disastrous than areas of American control. Nor does the UK take a lot of flack for Afghanistan, where it has relatively little to no presence. And its not involved in Somalia.
Even so, England comes to the table with impaired credibility, and its participation in peacekeeping is highly restrained because of that.
The bottom line is that the best thing that the United States could do for the situation is to stay well, well away.
August 20, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a further thought, it occurs to me that what we are seeing with Lee's remarkable assertion that the US should be involved in peacekeeping is a uniquely American phenomenon called 'ahistoricity.'
That is, quite often, American intellectuals and pundits see no connection between what happened last year and this year; what happened last week, and today; what happened this morning, and is happening now.
Only this sort of profound existential disconnect, an American view of the world as random atoms connecting ever randomly, of the impulse of the moment being the only worthwhile reality, could explain the near lunatic assertion from Lee and several other commentators that the United States has or could possibly have a role (much less a dominant leading role) in peacekeeping in this situation.
The problem with American ahistoricity is that it is not universal. Pretty much everyone else has an elaborate sense of history, and a coherent awareness of the American past and present.
I think that it is incumbent upon American thinkers not to be so selectively compartmentalized, but to exhibit a larger awareness.
August 20, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
May I make up another term to describe an American affliction: "absolutionism". Americans routinely absolve ourselves of any wrong doing in any conflict and are outraged that anyone, anywhere would be so impolite as to call to mind any such thing. Bombed your village? That was so yesterday, how tacky of you to recall it.
August 20, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another common American retort is "we saved your asses in WWII so STFU".
August 21, 2006 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless I'm mistaken and I may be, Lee is calling for France to send troops and for the United States to provide money and logistical support. In other words, we would not be attempting to win over hearts and minds ourselves. We'd be asking the French to do so.
There's a good chance that France will send more troops if they are placed under French command. This is a common demand. When the United States stationed vast numbers of soldiers in Europe to be ready for World War III, NATO's structure dealt with the twin needs of the military and civilian issues. Since the US had the most troops and the most military might, NATO's commander was always American. Since this ruffled a few feathers, the civilian side of NATO was always headed by a non-American.
Something similar could be worked out on the ground in Lebanon. Place French officers in command of the troops and have someone culturally appropriate lead aid and reconstruction.
John
For more go to my online journal.
August 21, 2006 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite a few would make the number of Iraqi casualties at least five times as large - and there is no good way to know who is right.
August 22, 2006 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see the Lebanese government strengthen its ties to one of its parties, Hezbollah, and jointly try to influence the actions of the external dealmakers.
What if Hezbollah put a large number (they will never do all) under the command of the Lebanese military to create a unified Lebanese command and military? The political side of the government already has joint workings.
Once France does not have to fear confrontation with a separate Hezbollah militia would they be more willing to partipate?With French command (regularly a US demand) would that solve their public issue?
August 22, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
In view of their performance, wouldn't Hizbollah be more correct in demanding that Lebanese Army troops be placed under their command? At least that way Lebanon might have an army which might be worth something, like defending the nation from outside predation. I can see the plate tectonics shifting in Jerusalem already.
August 22, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuckle. Correct is one thing, strategically the advantage for Hezbollah is joining to remove the militia issue.
Man made tetonic plates are scary. A lot of stored energy there.
August 22, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink