The idea of international forces juxtaposing themselves between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite militias is gathering steam in Washington, Jerusalem, Beirut and at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

As U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice undertakes her first stab at shuttle diplomacy, she appears to have endorsed the notion first placed on the table by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan for some form of "stabilization force" to act as peacekeepers with muscles in the war-torn region.

The concept of imposing peace by force if needed has already found support among European leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy envoy.

However, as Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow and director for security studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out in a paper titled, "An International Stabilization Force for Lebanon: Problems and Prospects," such a force is "liable to face major obstacles and incur substantial risks that could jeopardize its prospects for success.

For this reason, it is essential to consider what past experiences and Lebanon, the Middle East, and elsewhere teach about peacekeeping and peace enforcement options, the sort of challenges such a force could encounter, and the kind of mandate and capabilities required to meet the challenges."

Much will be said of UNIFIL -- the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon established in March, 1978. Sadly for that force, it will be looked at as the example not to follow. UNIFIL, which first arrived to pick up positions in south Lebanon in 1978 following an Israeli incursion that took soldiers of the Jewish state right up to the ancient port city of Tyre. In total, about 6,000 men from a dozen nations took part in the force. They included troops from France, Senegal, Fiji, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries and Nigeria. Over the years, UNIFIL has dwindled down to 2,000 soldiers.

The United Nations passed U.N. Security Council resolution 425 and created UNIFIL as an interim, or temporary, force to facilitate the pullout of Israeli forces who had invaded as far north as the Litani River and to keep Palestinian commandos in check and north of the fence that separates Lebanon from Israel.

UNIFIL failed in all aspects. Not only were they incapable of preventing the two sides crisscrossing the frontier like it was red tag sales day at Macy's, but from the very first day Palestinians loyal to Yasser Arafat engaged units of the French contingent near the city of Tyre and shot and severely injured Col. Jean Salvan, a tough paratrooper who had seen action in Indochina and Algeria. It was the PLO's way of setting the parameters. It went downhill from there.

UNIFIL should serve as a lesson of what not to do. Why did UNIFIL fail so drastically? First, according to Eisenstadt, UNIFIL was hastily organized "to prevent events in Lebanon from derailing U.S. efforts to advance and broaden the still-fragile Egyptian-Israeli peace process." This resulted in a number of shortcomings.

Second: "UNIFIL operated in accordance with traditional peacekeeping principles: impartiality in its dealings with local entities (even terrorist groups)."

Third: UNIFIL lacked the proper strength needed to carry out the job. "Even at its peak strength of 6,000 soldiers and observers it lacked the manpower necessary to secure its entire area of operations, creating numerous gaps in its deployments that were often exploited by terrorists and others seeking to disturb the peace."

Eisenstadt correctly points out that any new force would need to be given the proper strength in order to carry out its mission. Two immediate changes would have to be made in regards to a force such as UNIFIL: it would need to be a deterrent force with the ability to strike, rather than an observation force; and it would need to be deployed in far larger numbers, comprising no less than 25,000 combat-ready soldiers, and possibly more.

That force would need to comprise an intelligence company, a logistics company, and have the backing of armor, artillery and most important, enjoy the support of competent air cover -- both fixed wing and helicopters. Only a handful of countries, such as the United States, France, Great Britain and Russia, would be capable of dedicating aircraft carriers to support such a mission.

UNIFIL, despite its failures, should not be scrapped altogether, but rather integrated into the new force, as it brings almost 30 years of field experience, knowledge of the terrain, the area, its customs and its people. In that sense, UNIFIL can be a valuable asset to the new deterrent force in south Lebanon.

In order to succeed this time as a strike force it must have clear marching orders from the U.N. Security Council. Additionally, says Eizenstadt, it should be endorsed by the Arab League. This may be a useless rubber stamp formality, but one which would nevertheless give the force that little more legitimacy it is to have expected by the rest of the Arab world.

However, this strike force's primary task, Eizenstadt points out, must be to assist the Lebanese army in integrating the south and becoming the respected force in the area. It should befall upon the Lebanese army -- with the backing of this new multinational strike force -- to ensure that a) Hezbollah militiamen do not cross into the no-go zone, and b) that Israel remains on its side of the border.

The Lebanese army and the new multinational force that will enter the south after the cessation of violence will find a much-destroyed south Lebanon with little or no infrastructure left intact. The Lebanese army's primary task will be to maintain security and prevent the reintegration of militias into the area.

Then, to win the hearts and minds of the Lebanese population -- which is mostly Shiite -- the Lebanese and foreign military will need to be helped by yet another army: an army of NGOs and volunteers, doctors, builders, educators and other professionals who make up our everyday life. They will have to take on the social service tasks that Hezbollah carried out.

Deploying one without deploying the other would be inviting another failure in south Lebanon.

related report
Outside View: Talks In The Shadow Of Bombs By Vladimir Simonov
Outside View Commentator
Moscow (UPI) Jul 26, 2006
On Wednesday, Rome will host an international conference on the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which I would describe as a new Mideast war.

The world's best minds, represented by the United States, Russia, Western Europe, the moderate Arab states of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as international institutions, such as the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank, will try to find a way to end the war.

While they are conferring in Rome, Israel will continue to destroy lives in southern Lebanon. Israeli Brig. Gen. Alon Friedman said on military radio that the ground operation in Lebanon would last at least 10 days. By the end of it, the war's statistics -- 400 killed and 600,000 homeless and refugees --will be obsolete. Israel's casualties number 37, most of them servicemen whose job involves the risk of death.

This brings us to the main contradiction of the Rome conference: Can peace be discussed amidst the whining sound of precision aerial bombs destroying Hezbollah's cement bunkers, which in reality turn out to be schools and hospitals, and the smell of the burning bodies of adults and children?

This question has split conference participants into two groups.

Although U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during her Mideast tour that achieving a cease-fire was an urgent task, Washington's policy is a feeble copy of the Israeli stance. Israel's objective is to destroy Hezbollah, force its militants from their headquarters in southern Lebanon, and stop the bleeding gap with the Lebanese army or an international stabilization force before ordering its bombers home.

In other words, Israel insists on prerequisites that must be met before agreeing to a cease-fire.

Russia, the United Nations and the European Union have come to Rome to demand an immediate and unconditional cessation of fighting. The world cannot wait until Lebanon descends into a humanitarian catastrophe, which is how the United Nations envoys describe the situation. What Israel is doing to the lives of hundreds of thousands of peaceful Lebanese cannot pass under the guise of a counterterrorist operation, Russian diplomats said ahead of the Rome conference.

The subject of disproportionate Israeli revenge irritates some politicians and analysts. If a Hezbollah missile has hit a fly, why can't an Israeli bomb kill a bumblebee? -- they ask ironically. Or should someone be appointed to compare casualties?

Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, has harshly denounced this attempt to quickly bury the 400 Lebanese casualties and put a sign on their grave saying, "They have not returned the two Israeli soldiers."

She demanded that the sides respect "the principle of proportionality in the conduct of hostilities" and warned that "the scale of killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."

By giving Israel a temporary chance to maim the military arm of Hezbollah, Washington is pursuing a more far-reaching goal. It would like to fit the Israeli invasion of Lebanon into the neoconservative U.S. program aimed at bringing democracy to the "broader Middle East".

Ideally, Israel will break the back of Hezbollah, which would weaken the international standing of Syria and Iran, the main sponsors of the militant Shiite movement.

Washington hopes to use this situation to split Syria and Iran and encourage Syria to appease Hezbollah, as President George W. Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a lunch at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, not realizing a microphone was recording what he said.

Blinded by the hope of attaining this goal, the United States and Israel fail to see striking similarities between the fighting in southern Lebanon and the Iraqi war. The use of military force to quash extremists in both countries is only earning them sympathy in the eyes of the people.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the man stationed at ground zero of Mideast violence, said at a recent news conference in London that the fighting in Lebanon could provoke fundamentalism.

Give the Israeli generals another week or two, and the Lebanese tragedy will provoke a tidal wave of Islamic hatred across the world that will drown the Prophet Mohammed cartoons controversy. The Rome conference should start its work by discussing this global threat.

Vladimir Simonov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.

related report
Analysis: Rome Meeting Fails To Halt War By Hannah K. Strange
U.K. Correspondent
London (UPI) Jul 26, 2006
The disappointment of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora at the failure of a dozen foreign ministers meeting in Rome to wrestle a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militias was profound.

Delegates attending the conference instead concentrated on the dispatch of an international standard station force to south Lebanon, but the need for further preparation dashed hopes of an early end to hostilities.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for "urgent action" to bring about an end to the conflict but insisted it was essential to first create the conditions in which a cease-fire could be sustained in the long-term.

Siniora delivered a passionate plea for an immediate halt to the violence, in which at least 380 Lebanese and 42 Israelis have been killed.

The Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon was "bringing the country to its knees," he said. "For the past 15 days we are being pounded every day... the country is being cut to pieces," he said.

The conference was partly overshadowed by the deaths of four United Nations observers during Israeli shelling in Lebanon, and who U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said appeared to have been deliberately targeted.

While Siniora acknowledged that "some progress" had been reached, he still expressed his frustration at the ministers' reticence to call for an immediate cease-fire.

"The more we delay the cease-fire the more we are going to witness more being killed, more destruction and more aggression against Lebanon," he said.

But Rice said it was first necessary to ensure a plan was in place to prevent any cease-fire from breaking down.

"We are all agreed that we want most urgently to end the violence on a basis that this time will be sustainable, because unfortunately this is a region that has had too many broken cease-fires, too many spasms of violence followed by other spasms of violence," she said.

The underlying causes of the conflict had to be addressed, she suggested, adding: "We cannot return to the status quo ante." The secretary indicated that urgent talks would be held over the coming days to agree a mandate for the international stabilization force in the region. The force's primary task would be to help the Lebanese government to establish full control over south Lebanon and disarm militia groups so that there was "one authority, one gun."

Such a force would be an important element of ensuring the region did not simply slide back into conflict, she added.

Another burning issue facing the international community was to rush humanitarian relief to the people of Lebanon, said Rice.

Siniora agreed that the Lebanese government needed international assistance to establish sole and sovereign control of the country, saying: "We cannot afford any more to have this situation recur." He stressed that any peace plan would also have to deal with Israel's continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms area -- which Beirut insists is Lebanese territory -- and its ongoing imprisonment of Lebanese detainees.

He also defended Hezbollah's right to exist as a political entity, noting that it was represented in the Lebanese parliament and government and had in the past played an important role in liberating areas of Lebanon from Israeli control.

He acknowledged that Hezbollah militias had provoked the immediate conflict by launching a raid across the U.N. Blue Line, but strongly condemned the Israeli response.

"The reaction shows that Israel had a well prepared plan and the retaliation is definitely, by the judgment of all concerned, disproportionate to what has happened," he said.

None of Israel's past military actions had brought its citizens safety and security, he said, insisting it was "high time" that Jerusalem realized that the route to peace was through good relations and negotiations with its neighbors.

"In 30 years, this is the seventh aggression and seventh occupation that Israel has exercised against Lebanon," he said.

Israel could achieve peace by solving the problems of Gaza and the West Bank and other occupied territory such as Shebaa Farms, he said, citing the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative in which Arab states proposed a complete end to the Arab-Israeli conflict and a normalization of relations in exchange for a two-state solution and the return of territory occupied in 1967.

"They've said they want peace, it is high time for Israel to do it," Siniora concluded. "This is how the Israeli leaders can protect the Israeli people, to allow their children to live in prosperity and security."

Israel also incurred the wrath of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who accused it of "apparently deliberate targeting" of the U.N. observers killed Tuesday.

A U.N. report into the incident said that the observers had contacted Israeli forces on no less than 10 occasions during the day to make them aware of their position and ask them to halt firing. The building, which was long established and clearly marked as a U.N. post, was finally hit with a precision-guided missile, the report said.

Israel vehemently dismissed suggestions it had deliberately targeted the observers, the deaths of whom it "regretted." Both Israel and the United Nations would investigate the killings, Annan said.

Ultimately the conference yielded more sentiment than action, with the ambiguity of the delegates' statement hinting at the deep differences of opinion which threaten to scupper any concerted international effort.

In a tacit acknowledgment of the long road ahead, Annan said it was important to establish a political framework to implement "whatever understanding we reach eventually" and to support the "eventual" deployment of an international force.

Britain's, Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "Nothing was achieved which will make the people of Lebanon and Israel any safer.

"In the absence of an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Lebanon -- in the words of its prime minister -- will continue to be cut to pieces and Israeli citizens will remain at risk.

"This conference promised little and delivered less."

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Your World At War

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News