Peace Force for Lebanon

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by drain_sniffer, Jul 24, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. To be honest - as the US will not get involved in this - i don't think a NATO or EU force (with combat experience) is viable without a UK contingent. I am struggling to think who is spare though apart from a couple of light role battalions and a few regional brigade HQs.
  2. A NATO peace-keeping force would certainly be an improvement. The Canadians are stepping up their involvement with NATO these days, I bet we could expect them to be involved. Hopefully we can get other counties to step up so that the overstretched US and UK forces don't have to be primary contributors.
  3. I was having this discussion over the weekend (on shift, not at home!) and we came to the conclusion the any US or UK troops in a NATO/EU Peace Keeping operation would be unacceptable to the Lebanese and the Arab world in general as we'd be seen to be pro-Israeli and therefore Impartial.
    The Paella eating surrender monkeys in Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq a bit quick for my liking, let them do it.
  4. untallguy

    untallguy Old-Salt Reviewer Book Reviewer

    All of this makes sense but I can't help but feel that UK plc will be in on this one for all the usual reasons:

    1. El presidente Blair will want to appear the grand statesman (and maybe divert attention from Levy and Prescott, have another reason to hold Brown back etc) and, in games like this, you only get to look good if you have champions in the arena - "with the Royal Blankshires now deployed in theatre, it is imperative that we ensure that the ceasefire works...".

    2. UN always wants UK troops on board for this sort of thing - "we want you to come because you're such professionals...".

    3. It allows HMG/MOD/CDS et al to demonstrate that we have enough troops - "overstretch? What overstretch? If we were overstretched, we couldn't deploy another 800 soldiers, 15 aircraft and 3 ships".

    I fear that I may be drowning in my own cynicism but this seems to be a likely response.
  5. Its a trap...

    The only people who could reasonably be a true peace keeping force is the USA.

    If the aim is to keep hizbollah down , then the US can cut out the middlemen and deliver their PDMs themselves. Putting Germans, Frenchmen Poles or Ukranians in this role puts them in an impossible position.

    If the aim is really to establish peace, then only the USA can restrain Israel. Most of the fighting is being waged by Israel.
  6. Well that trick seems to be working extremely well in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

    Very true. I suggest immediate and full sanctions to be placed on Israel. That should quickly get the Zionists attention without having to put a single foreign troop into Lebanon.
  7. France is the former colonial power in Lebanon, has professional and well equipped forces and is not overstretched right now (Afghanistan, Balkans and Ivory Coast are their current contingency deployments). They should take the lead in this. Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece can surely contribute as well. Not sure the Germans would be particularly welcome, though.
  8. Agree that the french would be ideal due to fact that the 2 star commander of UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) and all of his principle staff officers are french they have the lead on this. Bear in mind that there already two battalions of Infantry serving in UNIFIL (Ind Bat, GhanBat and a polish Logbat) as well as a chinese demining Bn. There are / were plenty of UN troops (approx 2000) who have been there for a while just not been very effective.
  9. UNIFIL has been so successful in preventing Hizbollah from operating from southern Lebanon. I would much rather see the Lebanese Army take control of southern Lebanon and keep Hizbollah OUT. A country that doesnt control its own border wont be a country for long.
  10. Maybe a chance for them to kiss and make up :roll:
  11. Well that's the USA (and the UK, for that matter) completely fcuked then :oops:
  12. UNIFIL has a mandate determined by the UNSC. If UNIFIL is not acting according to the wishes of the UNSC, or is failing in its purpose, then the UNSC is responsible for strengthening the mandate, the force itself, or replacing it with something more robust.

    Don't blame UNIFIL or the wider UN, blame the members of the UNSC who are either preventing or prevaricating (and have for many years) on UNIFIL's purpose and responsibility.

    How's the control on the border with Mexico going Larry?
  13. Andy we have finally taken steps to secure our border -finally. UNIFIL like other UN peacekeeping ops is a failure. Their presence did not stop Hizbollah cross border raids. A peacekeeping force would merely be held hostage by Hizbollah far better to keep the UN and NATO out of Lebanon. Lebanon has to be responsible for their borders and if they cant/wont prevent Hizbollah from operating from its territory then it must pay a price.
  14. Tomahawk - not sure i agree with the broad statement that UN peacekeeping ops are a failure.
    Look at UNDOF just next door to UNIFIL and you'll see that that is a success.............