So I was thinking on the whole issue of who gets left without a chair if and when Kofi guilts us out enough so that we twist Israeli arms to stops the music – who, in other words, gets to play “peacekeeper,” separating whatever’s left of “the heroic Lebanese resistance” from the IDF. The idea itself is one of those typically optimistic, mostly unrealistic UN diplomacy simplifications: We’ll just stop the shooting now, and then a force of Blue Helmets another force of Blue Helmets will come at some point to be named later. And then that will happen. And then…
And then…
And then they’ll hunker down with the homies from Hezballah until the Lebanese Army is ready to take over security responsibilities! Because it’s obvious that all the UN really needs to do is to ask Hezballah to disarm. Just, you know: Ask them. Nicely. Like the UN did in 2004. And they’ll say, “Oh. You were serious about that? Here. But be careful with that, the safety’s off.”
But who will do the do?
The US? Don’t think so. We’re busy just now, and in any case people suspect that we’ll “play favorites” between any allied local democracies and their counterposing terrorist militias – I know, I know: But that’s the way some people think – and anyways the shine has lately gone off separating Islamist terrorists from their potential victims. Not that we won’t do it anymore, just that it’s not new for us.
The Brits? Over-subscribed what between keeping the lid on southern Iraq and putting postage paid to a “resurgent Taliban.” Who mostly seem to be resurging themselves right into the grave, but it isn’t like those terrorists are going to shoot themselves, now, is it?
Germany? France? I don’t see it happening from them either. Germany doesn’t have a national interest card to play, and in any case shaking off 60 years of post-war pacifism by potentially pointing muzzles at the survivors of the Holocaust and their descendents might be, what? Too much, too soon?
“Cheese-eating-surrender-monkey” slurs aside, France actually has a very capable and professional army, and they’re closely linked to parts of Lebanon culturally. Unfortunately, those links are to the wrong parts of Lebanon’s cultural milieu and have imperialist antecedents. The Lebanese Christians with whom the French enjoy toasting remembrances of glories past are politically antithetical to the southern Shi’a, and it is amongst the latter any peacekeeping force would have to live, kill and probably also die a fair bit.
Which does tend to put one off one’s petit dejeuner: Beirut’s ancien reputation as a “Paris of the Middle East” not withstanding, there are far better cafe’s in France these days. Plus, the French army has made a bit of noise in Africa of late and would probably welcome the chance to jump back on the sidelines. The better to snipe at whatever it is the US does or doesn’t do.
Which, you know: Win-win.
The rest of Europe that has the will probably doesn’t have the capacity unless you cross the streams between the UN and NATO, but that brings the US back into the play, which nobody really wants. Including NATO.
Russia is still rooting around in Chechnya, so they’re busy and anyway it’s doubtful that Israel, who spent the last 60 or so years of her existence doing battle with Soviet-sponsored client states in the region will intuitively trust the folks who came up with the word “pogrom.”
In the interests of brevity I believe we can safely skip past the African Union for now, and pretty much close our eyes across the rest of the Middle East and Asia. India has a potent military, but they’ve got their own problems with Islamist terror on their borders – who doesn’t? – while Central and South America probably can’t afford it: This will be a multi-year responsibility. Ditto for Canada, who’s supposed to be good at this sort of thing, but who is already busy here and there and has quite a military hole to dig out of, even if they could muster the political will. The Diggers are great fighters, and good on ya’ mates, but I believe the world has asked them for quite enough for a bit, not to mention the fact that the endemic paucity of Swan’s lager, VB, Emu or XXXX in the prospective DMZ makes Aussies a poor choice for long-time peacekeeping. The boys get grumpy after a bit. You wouldn’t like them when they’re grumpy.
So who has a large enough force, just sort of sitting around, not doing anything? Well…
The Peoples’ Republic of China does. They’ve been spending a lot of money modernizing recently, haven’t really had the chance to practice any of their military doctrine since getting thumped by the PAVN back in 1979 – I don’t count crushing unarmed protesters under tank treads. Furthermore, they’re looking to be taken seriously as players on the world stage, a station worthy of their huge population and growing economic status. Even better, as charter members of the non-aligned movement, they haven’t ever been on anyone’s side but their own and so no one could accuse them of playing favorites. Sure, they’ve taken some heat for repressing their Islamic Uighur minority, but I doubt that many in the Hezbollah rank and file can pronounce Uighur, far less find their “Autonomous Region” on a map, and in any case, a bit of alien culture even-handedness combined with a keep-all-sides-guessing reputation for gloves-off brutality might be just the ticket.
If it all works out for the best, China emerges with a burnished reputation as a serious and mature player on the world stage, and the rest of us will owe her one. Things go quickly south, and who knows, maybe those cross-straits saber-rattlers get a wake up call. Me, I’d like to get a look at their running, shooting and passing game. For reasons of my own.
Whoever it ends up being, if it was me, and I was them, I’d stall for time. Every day goes by means fewer potential shooters, sidling up alongside you, cheek-by-unshaven jowl.
Diplomacy takes time.
Now look heah, Captain Lex, if that really is your name–
[Sorry, sir. I've been wanting to open a comment this way since you brought up Strangelove.]
Your China suggestion is interesting, but makes me uneasy for a number of reasons. One is the vague sense that, given that we would want this to work out for the best, we don’t want to owe her one. Also that encouraging China to exert military influence far from her borders might just be a precedent we’d come to regret.
This may be a ridiculous alternative, so feel free to heap scorn on it, but what about Turkey? An ally, when all is said and done, with a very large army; a democracy, if you grant the very tight constraints within which the Turkish military allows it to operate; Muslim, yet on fairly cordial terms with Israel. More prosaically, the logistics are much simpler for them to maintain a presence there.
Oh, I was mostly being tongue in cheek on China – not a good idea for the reasons you point out, and they probably wouldn’t much be interested. It’s as much as anything to demonstrate how very hard this is going to be.
The Turks have many advantages, but unfortunately stir imperial memories of their own, and while the army has done a good job (depending upon your point of view) of keeping the Islamist parties in their box, they are still a force to be reckoned with in Turkish society. I don’t know how keen the military would be to step up to the plate against Hezbollah, which, let’s face it: Is where the trouble would likely come from.
Hard.
Foregoing shows just how hard it will be and how long it will take for any Cease Fire to take effect. Truly this doesn’t bother me. I’m sick and quite tired of the warfare in this part of the world and am one of those who think that Israel may be making the problem smaller with every passing day.
I say we put the old “draft” system into use… each U.N. country’s name in one bucket and slips with a number of troops in another (maybe Class A, Class AA and Class AAA buckets to reflect military size?)… and you pull countries and then pull how many troops they have to commit until the agreed upon number of troops is reached… straight lotto… or some variation thereof… no favoritism… no “not from our Army”… a truly international force… and those countries unABLE to commit troops cough up an extra share of the expense… If we want peace in our world, maybe it’s time the whole world had to ante up??
What Bill said
Okay, I am confused.
First we equip (sell) Israel with all manner of things that buzz, swoosh, bang or boom..and throw in some Intel as well; then we provide “relief” (read dollars) to the very country the stuff we sold lands on.
Anybody read “Catch-22″ lately?
“Cheese-eating-surrender-monkey” completely broke me up. Great tag.
I’ve been thinking about China recently too, and I’m not so sure that getting China involved is such a bad idea…what you said about seeing “their running, shooting and passing game” outside of local area exercises isn’t a bad idea. And so what if we owe her one? Payment could be at a time of our choosing. I think pushing them into the game would certainly shake up the dynamics in the area. Maybe that’s what it needs. Certainly it would be interesting to see how China reacts to being the potential target in the area. Also would be interesting to see how China reacted to the invitation to join the party. Put up or shut up, maybe?
Worth more than an idle thought, I believe.
Brian
Bomberguy. Don’t be confused. This “Catch-22″ is a way to keep the pot boiling. Ameliorate the down-side of war so the losers can say, “It wasn’t that bad. Maybe again next year?”, and you get more war. It’s simple. As for me, I’m going to pour mayself two fingers of jack Daniels. Again.
Diggers are indeed rather busy at the moment, at to be honest I’m not sure that’s a position I’d like our guys thrown into.
If you look at the map at http://counterterrorismblog.org/
posted by Bill Roggio on July 25, showing locations of current UN forces, China is already there, close to the west coast. And if I’m not mistaken, one of the four UN guys killed was Chinese. Just some more thoughts.
You’re missing the obvious answer. If nobody can/wants to get between Israel and Hizballah, don’t. Let Israel continue what they’re doing until Hizballah lays down their weapons (or drops them due to exsanguination, either works for me). US policy can consist of stating that any action to further spread the conflict would be frowned upon, and while our ability to rebuild a country is somewhat occupied our capacity to break things is much larger and mostly untapped.
Once all is quiet on the northern front the US can take the troops currently in the Balkans; where the Europeans have a higher interest and larger capability, it being in their own back yard and all; and place them between Lebanon and Syria so that the Lebanese can finally rebuild their country.
We don’t need many troops there, just enough that Syria can’t get to Lebanon without attacking them, see previous point about breaking things for what happens next. It’s worked on the Korean peninsula for 50 years.