US Administration Considering Lebanese Troop Deployment?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Jul 26, 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. Another anonymous "an important guy told me so" report. I have no idea whether there's any truth to it. For the sake of the USA I hope it's false.

    ...a well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is in fact considering exactly such a deployment.

    The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations' lack of commitment, any “robust” force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.


    "Could U.S. Troops End Up in Lebanon?"
    Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
    http://harpers.org/sb-source-bush-admin-lebanon-1153936109.html
     
  2. Plan "A" has gone tits skywards then.
     
  3. Christ I sure as hell hope not.
    Rummy?
     
  4. Meanwhile everyone in uniform in the 5-sided wind tunnel on the Potomac who has even the slightest understanding of what this would entail is no doubt either sat with their heads in their hands, or bouncing off the walls, ready to rip the sack off whoever dreamed up this idea (which for my money was probably the same guy who came up with the 2-in-1 barbecue and ammo box).
     
  5. I think this is plan C are D maybe E not B.

    You have five choices as I see it for a ceasefire.

    One status quo with Hizbolla sitting on border with Isreal agitateing situation constantly. Both US and Isreal have said they wont accept this outcome any longer.

    Two increase UN force in area. The problem with this is UN force has been a total failure up tell now and a larger force wont acomplish any more then current force unless ROE are changed and its doubtfull UN is willing to make those changes.

    Three Send a Nato force with better set of ROE. Problem here is no one in europe wants to fight a war in Lebanon.

    Four send Lebanons army to secure border. This is only real longterm option but it risks restarting Lebanons civil war.

    Five Send a US marine division from Iraq to Lebanon. Problem here is Hizbolla would soon wish to be fighting Isreal instead. The very dark humor of marines trained for combat in Iraq instead being sent as peacekeepers to Lebanon when every single marine sent would be looking for payback agianst Hizbolla for 1983 barracks bombing makes me smile though.

    If we look at five options you have to rate there likelyhood on there acceptability to all partys involed.

    One acceptable to Hizbolla and Lebanon not acceptable to Isreal
    Two acceptable to Hizbolla Lebanon and UN not accepable to Isreal.
    Three acceptable to Lebanon and Isreal not acceptable to Europe are Hizbolla
    Four acceptable to Isreal not acceptable to Hizbolla. ???? if it is acceptable are not to Lebanon.
    Five acceptable to Isreal and US not acceptable to Lebanon and Very Very Very Not Acceptable!!! to Hizbolla.

    I consider US offer as more of a bluff to push partys towards option three are four I think everyone on planet can agree that sending US troops back to Lebanon would be a very bad idea.
     
  6. My guess would be that we can expect to see some Italians and Spaniards and Frenchmen on the ground, assuming the Israelis have any faith whatsoever in them, which might be doubtful. The Germans are next up, but, well, Germans, armed, next to Israelis, armed.....? Christ, just think of the risk of one dimwit on one side or the other doing something stupid.
     
  7. Until there is a ceasefire there wont be any peacekeeping force in Lebanon. There wont be one until Israel is good and ready. Meaning they wont be quitting until hizbollah is severely degraded.
     
  8. Well, they had the better part of two decades to sort it out before. How far did that get them?

    My guess is that hitting oil refineries, bridges, power stations and Lebanese infrastructure in general isn't going to help much either.
     
  9. Yanks troops in South Lebanon !
    john
    Shirley this should be in the Naffi.
     
  10. And then you also run into the problem that France, as the past colonial master, might not be all that popular with some of the locals either. I've got no idea what sort of quality Italian and Spanish troops are like, anyone with any past experience working with them like to chip in?

    There's already a fairly lively ongoing debate about this due to things like past from what I read in this article. Personally I fall into the they should send some troops camp since I mean how long can they be held hostage to past generations misdeeds?

    Another idea someone mentioned a while back and that I'd thought of was how about inviting Turkey to donate a large part of the force? They're a predominantly Muslim country yet also have good ties to Israel so that might make them more palatable to the involved parties. Although there is the whole Sunni/Shiite thing and they could be considered a bit too westernised for the extremists.
     
  11. They wouldnt dare..unless they want to chew on more IEDs.
     
  12. USMC division could travel to Lebanon from Iraq via Damascus? :twisted:
     
  13. The big problem is the mandate of any "peace making" force.

    The only basis acceptable to Israel is a force that "disarms" Hizbollah.

    The only nationality in the world which might be willing to disarm Hizbollah by force - i.e. fight Israel's war themselves, might be the USA, who would need to colonise tyhe lebanon and make a better job oof it that Iraq ;)

    The only country which could restrain Hizbollah and be held accountable is - Syria.

    That will put us back to where we were before the Syrians withdrew under US and French pressure..
     
  14. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    The troops are very good, but their politicians will never give them the ROE to do a worthwhile job.



    If Lebanon were purely a Muslim country this might work, but it isn't. Apart from the Shia, you also have a Sunni minority, the Druze and not forgetting that somewhere around 39% of the population are Christian.
     
  15. With reference to AJ's thread about the neo-cons thinking (or lack of it), I've just noticed this :

    Could U.S. Troops End Up in Lebanon? (Harpers.org)

    They cannot be serious 8O I understand that the 82nd is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq later this summer, so this would assume stepping up that timetable but the gut is telling me that it is going to spin out of control. Badly.

    It's 1914 all over again......