The Europeans are talking about 80,000 troops even if the Russians do not help. If the Russians provide 10,000 troops (with the West footing the bill) and the Lebanese army provides 10,000 (which the world powers can arm) we will have a 20-1 ratio which should be able to manage the situation provided the non-Hezbollah factions go along with it (a difficult diplomatic task I know).

We have kept tens of thousands of troops in the Balkans since the late 1990's and we can keep them in Lebanon until a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East has delivered the results required. We do not have to destory Hezbollah for all time. We need to credibly establish that Israel can make the required without worrying that some faction will decide that it is not good enough even if the agreement says it is.

The Israelis will not buy a peace deal unless we can credibly deliver peace (nor should they). That means that we must be able to destroy Hezbollah's ability to operate independently of the Lebanese government. Since an intervention is the only thing that will do that (aside from $15/bbl oil bankrupting their supporters which I wish we could do but is unlikely given Chinese industrialization) it is the only meaningful option.

How do you negotiate a peace deal if the other side cannot control its own actions?

Posted at July 20, 2006 5:16 AM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

My point is that rational discussion is impossible if we start running around saying that people who disagree with us are not sentient and that we should therefore not make such statements regardless of the merits of our cause. This is without even considering the lack of politeness that we demonstrate when we make such remarks about other people.

I happen to agree with you that the Arabs blame the West for a lot of things that Israel does. There are sentient people who disagree with that proposition and to pretend otherwise is not acceptable.

Posted at July 20, 2006 1:23 AM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

The problem with defeating the Iraqi insurgency is that the government there does not have legitimacy and the Iraqi population as a whole never has supported the U.S. invasion and occupation. This would not be a problem in Lebanon if the Lebanese government assembles sufficent support from the non-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon for this exercise. Annan and Blair are right that you can put down a group like Hezbollah with a peacekeeping force once the requisite legitimacy in the country is secured. I admit that securing this legitmiacy will not be easy but that is what diplomacy is for.

There can be no political solution while Hezbollah can defy the political process in Lebanon.

Posted at July 20, 2006 1:02 AM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

At risk of being branded a geek, Matt is partially wrong: the power ring, with enough willpower, can create things that are not green (the only problem being the color yellow as he mentioned). The green stuff also can have properties that would normally go with a different color (the pepperoni might be green but would have all the other charcteristics of pepperoni). The power rings truly are quite worthy of being the weapons for the Green Lanterns who are supposed to be "utterly honest and born with fear."

Posted at July 19, 2006 1:33 PM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

I realize that things will always get heated when the Middle East comes up, but it is not appropriate to describe a group of people one disagrees with as being non-sentient even when the majority of us agree they are wrong.

Posted at July 19, 2006 1:26 PM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

That is why you do not use soldiers from Latvia. The problem Israel has in taking down Hezbollah is that they lack the two things needed to break Hezbollah:

1. the political legitimacy/support in Lebanon to conduct an effective disarmament campaign.

2. The required number of troops for the mission.

The Lebanese army has #1 but not #2. A UN force drawn from those nations with real militaries (The Western powers and Russia for example) could assemble #2 if #1 was present. What having the UN involved gets you is that they can piggyback on any legitimacy the Lebanese government might lend such an endeavor and launch a joint international/Lebanese intervention that has both the liegitmacy and the power to crush Hezbollah's military wing. It is for these reasons that the British/UN plan to resolve this crisis is the only one that has a realistic chance of working

Posted at July 19, 2006 1:23 PM in response to Green Lantern in the Levant

There are women and childsren in every countries prisons sadly. In Israel, however, nothing like that is done without the will of the Israeli government. Negotiations can therefore deal with that problem because the Israeli cabinet can order the release of everybody they should not be holding (even if knocking sense into them is difficult at times). this is not true with Hezbollah because Lebanon cannot control them. This makes negotiations impossible and war unstoppable.

It is this need for actors who can enforce decisions that underlines the entire international system. Westphalia may not stir the hearts of activists, but the nation state is our only hope to end this war. This is why private warfare is forbidden.

Posted at July 18, 2006 4:54 AM in response to Will Bush Provide Middle East Crisis Management?

Hezbollah has violated the most basic of all international laws by setting up shop in Lebanon and using its territory to attack Israel without Lebanon's permission. Such conduct has been forbidden since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and makes them no better than pirates. While Israel could have made a lot of better choices (including how they have dealt with Hamas), nothing justifes ignoring this flagrant violation of the most axiomatic of international laws: the state's monopoly on organized violence.

Posted at July 17, 2006 5:33 PM in response to Will Bush Provide Middle East Crisis Management?

Israel and Egypt agreed to specific things at Camp David. Those promises have been followed to the letter and so the promised goodies flow from that.

Suppose we do cut off aid to Israel. Any peace deal requires the Israelis to stop doing things unilaterally and trust the West with their survival. If we break the promise we made in the 1970's, how do we convince them to trust us on this one when the stakes are so much higher?

Posted at July 17, 2006 5:15 PM in response to Referencing Ivo Again

We give the Israelis money for the same reason that we give the Egyptians money: it was an essential part of the original Camp David Accord and every Congress and administration since Carter has considered it a small price to pay to keep peace between those two countries.

Resolving the issues needed for peace between Egypt and Israel was expensive for both sides. The West decided to dodge this problem by paying the bills (it is certainly cheaper than them fighting).

Any effective peace deal will weaken the Israeli defense posture. Dealing with that problem while treating the Palestinians fairly will cost lots of money that the Israelis do not have. No U.S. government wants our willingness to pay that bill as part of a comprehensive deal questioned. Being a credible ally of Israel means that we can ask them to trust us on this and we would be foolish to throw it away.

Posted at July 17, 2006 11:53 AM in response to Referencing Ivo Again