| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| The pros and cons of an int'l force in Lebanon |
| 2006-07-29 |
| LT.-GEN. (RET.) YA'ALON and Maj.-Gen. (Res.) Amidror Discussions about security arrangements in Lebanon at the end of the war have included the proposal to station an international force in that country. Yet the UN has a very bad name in terms of confronting strong forces in areas where it is stationed. The only logical basis for an international presence is the creation of a force whose primary mission will be assisting the Lebanese army in disarming Hizbullah (as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 1559). Such a force should be deployed close to Beirut, at Lebanese-Syrian border crossing, and deep in the Bekaa Valley. An international force has no role in southern Lebanon along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel is deployed along its northern border to defend itself and prevent the strengthening of Hizbullah, should it try to move southward. To complement this deployment, there should be an agreement prohibiting the building of fortifications in southern Lebanon - as in the agreement between Israel and Egypt. In addition, the UN should establish a supervisory force like UNSCOM to deal with locating and clearing out Hizbullah's arms caches and preventing the building of new ones. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #5 Lebanon's only pragmatic hope to protect its so-called, alleged "sovereignty", "independence" and "Islam/Diversity-based pluralism" is either under the national umbrella of the IDF, or a US/Brit-led UNCOM capable of military action against terror groups attempting to forcibly establish themselves outside of the democratic process. Else, Lebanon is incapable of being an organz nation-state and should be partitioned-given to those whom can best protect its borders and serve its ethnic groups. The Syrians and now Iranians know this, and want Lebanon for themselves. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-07-29 21:19 |
| #4 "I doubt many countries would be keen to put their forces in such a situation." Gee, I know how to handle that one, bernardz - let the Israelis do it. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-07-29 20:01 |
| #3 The UN should establish a supervisory force like UNSCOM to deal with locating and clearing out Hizbullah's arms caches and preventing the building of new ones. The UN carried out this role reasonably well in Iraq and there is no reason it cannot do so in Lebanon. UNSCOM inspectors were never armed and operated in a strictly controlled and very safe envirnoment. Saddam had crime well under control, I'll give him that, but nothing more. Pistol toting Iraqi "minders" accompanied all UNSCOM inspection trips and most interviews were video taped by the Iraqis. I might be wrong, but I don't think ANYONE would volunteer for an UNSCOM type mission to that particular region. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-07-29 19:42 |
| #2 Any international force would have to be an actual military force with orders to wipe out any military or terrorist activities in the region. This nonsense of delploying helpless observers or terrorist collaborators is worse than useless. |
| Posted by: Oldcat 2006-07-29 13:58 |
| #1 Any international force is likely to become a target for radicial muslims groups, like Hizbullah, simply for what they are! I doubt many countries would be keen to put their forces in such a situation. |
| Posted by: bernardz 2006-07-29 13:37 |