You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Report: Obama advisors want NATO troops in West Bank
2008-12-04
This is a Paleo news agency so salt is required. But if true it's going to be a real problem. No way in hell do I want US troops patrolling the West Bank. Let the French do it.
Bethlehem - Ma'an/Agencies - US President-elect Barack Obama is considering a deployment of NATO forces to the West Bank as part of a plan for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, an American newsmagazine reported on Wednesday.

Former US-national security advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski reportedly endorsed the strategy in recent days. Meanwhile, Obama's nominee to head the National Security Council, Gen. James Jones, apparently favors the idea, all according to Newsweek, a weekly American newsmagazine.
Scowcroft and Brzezinski are out of touch hacks who are happy to crush the little people under their feet while playing the 'Big Game'. Zbig, especially, has long been willing to canoodle with bloodthirsty thugs. No thanks.
"A principle that appeared to be out of bounds I think is now in bounds," said Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy from the International Quartet countries.

Israel has long argued that the country cannot deal with Palestine until the Palestinian Authority (PA) manages to control militants. And Palestinians complain that they cannot conciously ask militias to disarm so long as Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But a NATO force, Obama's advisors argue, would bridge the impasse on both sides.

"But then it's not clear how NATO could prevent the Israelis from taking matters into their own hands," according to the Newsweek report, if Palestinian fighters began "picking off" NATO soldiers.
What about OUR response if Paleo hard boyz start potting our soldiers? What would world opinion be if we flatten the house of a Paleo gunnie? Or whack him and his best friends? Or conduct raids to find some mid-level Dogmush?

And suppose we grab a Paleo for good cause -- where do we put him? In an Israeli prison? Gitmo?

How soon would the MSM, aided and abetted by the hard left, start to describe our soldiers in the West Bank as oppressors and occupiers?

And what would we say to the spouse/children/parents of an American soldier gunned down by a Paleo hard boy while on patrol in Bethlehem?

We'll see how smart and realistic Bambi is on this issue: if he goes along with this he's an idiot and a one-term president for sure.
"And should all-out fighting resume--this is, remember, one of the world's most intractable conflicts--NATO could be drawn into the middle," the article goes on to say.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  On behalf of Florida, we don't need any more trash washing up on our beaches, thanks.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2008-12-04 18:46  

#15  V2 of this will be a UN peace-keeping force. Someone will point out that no other member of the UN would send troops there either, for the same reasons.

V3 of this will be a Pan-Arab peace-keeping force, I suppose because the Palestinians will presumably be less willing to shoot at other Arabs. Even the Arabs are too smart to fall for that.
Posted by: buwaya   2008-12-04 15:50  

#14  Oh yeah, lets send lots of practice targets for the nasty little animals to take pot-shots at. Great idea.
Posted by: mojo   2008-12-04 14:05  

#13  This is outside of the NATO charter.
Posted by: Lagom   2008-12-04 13:09  

#12  But DoDo, to the left that's not a bug, but a feature.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2008-12-04 11:52  

#11  Let's also not forget that if U.S. troops actually shoot any palestinians it will have negative consequences in our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere in the muslim world.
Posted by: DoDo   2008-12-04 11:09  

#10  I would take this with a huge mountain of salt.

But if true...
It would be the political equivalent of using a flamethrower to remove a wart on your nose.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-12-04 10:07  

#9  There is now a "Temporary International Presence in Hebron" called by the acronym TIPH which most Israelis refer to as "Two Idiots Patroling Hebron".

It is acknowledged as a farce by both Israelis and Palestinians.
Posted by: mhw   2008-12-04 10:02  

#8  Grunter is right, and I forgot to include that important point in my diatribe. The Widows Ammunition Fund would indeed be busy ...
Posted by: Steve White   2008-12-04 09:49  

#7  "They need to go find Florida. I well remember their hayday. It wasn't that outstanding, believe me."

Ditto, in spades.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-12-04 09:48  

#6  I can see one reason to have NATO forces there. To assist in moving the Paleos into Jordan, in lieu of the Israelis forcing them to leave, prior to reclaiming the West Bank as part of "greater Israel".
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-12-04 09:38  

#5  They would be human shields for a massive Paleo arms upgrade, same as the Lebanon border.
Posted by: Grunter   2008-12-04 08:35  

#4  NATO won't play. I've said for some time that Obama may will try to enfluence the action in Africa through the deployment of US troops under the new AFRICOM/US State (Peace Corps-Lite) structure. Scowcroft, Brzesniki and Kissenger are bitter old men who no longer have any visible or elected public role in international affairs. The need to go find Florida. I well remember their hayday. It wasn't that outstanding, believe me.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-12-04 08:08  

#3  and less than zero benefit.
Posted by: ed   2008-12-04 08:01  

#2  In any case, Iz'rl would have a veto over anything remotely like this, so I can't see it being feasible.

Actually, I think the Israelis are smart enough to allow this. It would be a black hole sucking the life out of the Obama regime for no accomplishment or less than zero benefit. Scowcroft and Jones should be smarter than this, but looking at the policy papers of the Atlantic Council of the United States (think tank they are assoc with), this is just like the self defeating actions they advocate.

It's going to a long four years and we are going to appreciate just what a tough guy Jimmy Carter was.
Posted by: ed   2008-12-04 08:01  

#1  What Steve said, especially in that last annotation.

WTF is it with the head-smackingly dumb s**t that people come up with - including people "who've been there" like Zbig and Brent? The foreign policy field, more or less my home forever, seems to have an amazing abundance of of and tolerance for simply idiotic ideas.

I'm pretty sure Obama's not as smart as many like to believe, I'm positive he's utterly over his head in these matters, but I still don't see anything like this happening. The problems and booby traps are too obvious even for the Clinton III/Beltway Lightweight Brigade to ignore. Plus there's risk (eewwwwww, we don't do risk, even if we ARE "transformational").

In any case, Iz'rl would have a veto over anything remotely like this, so I can't see it being feasible.

Meanwhile, if the new team (or the Iraqis) doesn't manage to screw up Iraq, whatever will we do with the hallucinogenic touchstone assumption that all good things in the MidEast can only proceed from and follow upon a love-fest between Iz'rl and the Paleos? The assertion that has beclowned a thousand think tankers, "intelligence community" analysts, State weenies, and former big-shots will just be left there, writhing on the deck. Not that it will die, or its buffoonish adherents suffer a bit - first principle of idiotic Beltway conventional wisdom foreign policy: no ridiculous claim or idea, however spectacular or undeniable the debunking thereof, can result in a loss of prestige or regard for the clown who authored it. Absolute zero accountability.

Posted by: Verlaine   2008-12-04 03:37  

00:00