Wednesday, August 02, 2006

NATO to the Lebanon?

Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.

Robert Fisk, in the Independent, raised a new (to me) question regarding a plan to put a NATO force into Lebanon, in lieu of the UN.

Obviously, as Fisk points out, such a force would be regarded as proxy-Israeli, occupying a section of Southern Lebanon as a buffer zone.

If the UN, given the will and confidence to take up this challenge, would be hard pressed to find sufficient committed troops, how could NATO contemplate it?

Can NATO coerce member countries to provide additional troops? Even so, this is just one more front in a type of warfare ‘western’ military forces are not trained to confront and still don’t really understand the dynamics.

As to Fisk’s opening statement, the Lebanon is no easy prize for invaders. The French probably got closest with their peaceful and symbiotic relationship after WWI. Prior to the mid ‘70’s the Lebanon was a prosperous and desirable country.

Rather than floundering and further dislocating the hapless country with UN or NATO forces, perhaps France should be given support to go in and sort this current mess. There is a strong and valuable linkage there.

Of course the Israelis won’t like the idea, but then if they want to ensure their own survival it might just be time to eat crow and start talking about some real and sustainable stability in that part of the Middle East.

The US and Britain won’t like it, but it is also high time they got over their long time obsession with French truculence and arrogance. This is an international crisis and the international community must look to options which will really work.


Sidebar:
Tony Blair's isolation over the Middle East crisis deepened last night after it emerged that Kofi Annan privately told Jack Straw of his anger at Britain's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire.

The dynamics are really getting bizarre. Jack Straw, the Foreign Minister dumped by Blair being the sounding board for Annan. Annan must put a lot of weight in Straw’s continued influence on Blair’s cabinet.

At the same time, it was interesting to see Blair “sidestep the Bush administration's reluctance to tackle global warming” and go and have a chat with the Terminator. Blair snubs Bush for carbon date with Arnie

2 comments:

Reality-Based Educator said...

I don't get Blair. I don't understand why he acts as he does and I don't understand why he is such a staunch supporter of bush policies when it is patently obvious the administration sees him as nothing more than a patsy.

Cartledge said...

From all the analysis I’ve seen, Tony Blair is fixated by power. He is blinded to all else by the proximity of total power. If the EU were more cohesive it might be a toss up, but Washington has his full attention. I guess, in the end, leaders are as vulnerable as the rest to their mental quirks.