236 Damned French…
There they go, mucking up the Middle East again. Haven’t they done enough in Iraq?
The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial writers are masters of the art. Take today’s clever, well-written example: “Mission Unaccomplished.” It sounds great. It’s a pleasure to read. The facts are all correct. And it makes many good points. Here’s how it begins:
Most U.N. resolutions don’t have the shelf-life of a gallon of milk, which isn’t always a bad thing. But in the case of Resolution 1701 — the cease-fire agreement for Lebanon and Israel adopted unanimously this month by the Security Council — things seem to be going sour even faster than that. And that is cause for serious unease.
Amen, brother! Who could disagree?
And then it gets funny. According to the Journal, France (which is not breaking the cease-fire in Lebanon) bears more responsibility for “things going sour” than Israel (which is). And isn’t it strange how things passively go sour, as if there were no agent to human affairs beyond Mother Nature? Here’s why France is to blame:
- France has only offered 200 troops;
- Resolution 1701 is vague on who will disarm Hizballah and no one seems anxious to try;
- Resolution 1701 doesn’t say who will enforce the arms embargo on Hizballah.
In conclusion:
All of this explains Israel’s increasing frustration with the cease-fire. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bought into the agreement based on what now appear to have been insincere pledges that European troops would dominate the U.N. force. Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is displaying his trademark even-handedness by denouncing Israel for trying to enforce the arms embargo while staying silent on the failure of everyone else to enforce it.
“All of this” (there’s not much) may explain “Israel’s increasing frustration with the cease-fire” (what a lovely euphemism, by the way, for repeated violation of the cease-fire). But it does not excuse it.
And might not the dawning realization in Israel that the war was an ill-conceived, mismanaged fiasco that achieved none of its ends (to paraphrase one Israeli reservist I saw interviewed on CNN today) do a better job of explaining Israeli “frustration with the cease-fire?”
Full editorial follows after the break:
Mission Unaccomplished
August 21, 2006; Page A10
Most U.N. resolutions don’t have the shelf-life of a gallon of milk, which isn’t always a bad thing. But in the case of Resolution 1701 — the cease-fire agreement for Lebanon and Israel adopted unanimously this month by the Security Council — things seem to be going sour even faster than that. And that is cause for serious unease.
On Thursday, Jacques Chirac confirmed a Le Monde report that his government was prepared to offer only some 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already in Lebanon) to what is supposed to be the resolution’s centerpiece: A 15,000-man U.N. force that will help the Lebanese army patrol their southern border and ensure that Hezbollah will no longer use the area as a staging ground for future attacks against Israel.
Given that the French contingent was supposed to be at the vanguard of this enhanced force, it’s unclear whether other nations will be willing to chip in with troops of their own. All of this after the French used the promise of a robust, French-led international force to get the U.S. and Israel to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal. Even less reassuring is the insistence by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie that her troops will remain in the lead only until February, after which, apparently, it’s salaam and adieu.
Then there is the delicate matter of disarming Hezbollah. Although the terrorist militia is so far abiding by the cease-fire, its leader Hassan Nasrallah made a televised statement last week insisting it was the “wrong time” to discuss disarmament. “Who will defend Lebanon in case of a new Israeli offensive?” he asks.
The answer, presumably, is the Lebanese Army. By the terms of the 1989 Taif Accord that ended Lebanon’s civil war, all domestic Lebanese militias should have long since disarmed or been folded into the regular army. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004 makes the same demand, as does 1701.
But the U.N. resolutions are dismayingly vague about just who, other than Hezbollah itself, is supposed to do the disarming. “I don’t think there is an expectation that this [U.N.] force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told USA Today last week. “You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of a militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily.”
That’s some “hope” on Secretary Rice’s part. Emile Lahoud, the pro-Syrian Lebanese President who is nominally commander-in-chief of the army, has described the notion of disarming Hezbollah as “disgraceful”: “How can they ask us to disarm while the blood of the martyrs is still warm?” Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has been less explicit but little better. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that he has entered into negotiations with Mr. Nasrallah to arrange a modus vivendi between Lebanese troops and Hezbollah fighters still operating in the south of Lebanon.
Resolution 1701 also calls for an arms embargo on Hezbollah, although it specifies no penalties for those who break it. Anyone who has visited the remote, unguarded and unmarked hinterland between Syria and Lebanon must know that such an embargo will be very hard to enforce.
All of this explains Israel’s increasing frustration with the cease-fire. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bought into the agreement based on what now appear to have been insincere pledges that European troops would dominate the U.N. force. Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is displaying his trademark even-handedness by denouncing Israel for trying to enforce the arms embargo while staying silent on the failure of everyone else to enforce it.
Israel can and will defend itself. The person who should really be furious here is Secretary of State Rice. She midwifed this cease-fire in the name of Lebanese democracy and as a way to use diplomacy, and the U.N., to tame Hezbollah and frustrate its patrons. She also believed French promises, so it’d be good to know if she now feels she was lied to. If this U.N. exercise turns out to be as feckless as it increasingly appears, U.S. credibility will also be a loser.
It’s a masterpiece. So why am I not convinced?
[tags]Lebanon, Israel[/tags]
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
40 queries. 0.069 seconds. CMS: WordPress. Design: modified Hiperminimalist Theme.
RSS for posts and comments.
Valid XHTML and CSS.
See, the Congress cafeteria never should have changed Freedom Fries back to French Fries. It’s a slippery slope to submitting to surrender monkeys and Nicolai Carpathia, and it plays into the hands of the turrsts.
Comment by SP — August 22, 2006 #
Domage! There go all the hopes of a boom in arak and shanklish leading the recovery of the Lebanese economy. Perhaps more of those yellow and green bikini tops will be sold.
Comment by P-New — August 22, 2006 #
okay, but what do you have to say about yesterday’s NYTimes editorial, which presumably you can’t just write off as right-wing idiocy?
Comment by James — August 22, 2006 #
Waiting for Jacques
Published: August 21, 2006
It would be tempting to laugh about France?s paltry commitment of 200 additional peacekeepers for Lebanon, if it weren?t so dangerous. After insisting for years that they be treated like a superpower, the French are behaving as if they have no responsibility for helping dig out of the Lebanon mess.
When the Security Council agreed earlier this month on a cease-fire resolution, scripted by the French and the Americans, it was with the clear understanding that Paris would head the 15,000-member international force and contribute a large number of troops. Now President Jacques Chirac?s generals have cold feet. Such a condition is highly contagious. And there are serious concerns about whether the United Nations can field enough well-trained troops without the French to ensure that Israeli troops withdraw completely and Hezbollah?s attacks on Israel do not start again.
At least part of the explanation for Paris?s bait and switch is that Mr. Chirac is a politically unpopular lame duck, unable to keep his generals in line. But the French military command has also raised some legitimate concerns about the peacekeeping force?s lack of a clear mission. Most notably the resolution (might we note again that the French helped write it?) sidesteps the question of who, if anyone, will disarm Hezbollah.
The French say they are waiting for the Lebanese government, which is even more frightened of Hezbollah, to cut a deal to get the militia to give up its arms or withdraw from southern Lebanon. If so, they will be waiting safely at home for a long time, while the war could start again at any moment.
The unfortunate reality is that the best that may be hoped for in Lebanon is an eventual political marginalization for Hezbollah. For even that to happen, a well-armed peacekeeping force needs to deploy quickly. At a minimum the troops could block Hezbollah?s supply lines from Syria. They could also send an important psychological message to the Lebanese people that if they are looking for a new sheriff, Hezbollah is not the only candidate in town.
The United States, which is badly overstretched in Iraq, has made clear it will not send its own troops. And Americans are so unpopular in the region that that is probably a sound decision. President Bush, however, needs to get on the phone with his on-again friend Mr. Chirac and make clear the cost for both Lebanon and France, if France shirks its responsibility. And Mr. Bush needs to be canvassing other leaders, promising that the United States will be very grateful for any help at all. The United States also needs to take front-line responsibility for rebuilding southern Lebanon. Hezbollah draws at least as much influence from its social services programs as it does from its guns.
The French generals are right to be nervous. This is a very dangerous mission. And there are no guarantees that it will succeed, even with a full complement of peacekeepers, massive deliveries of foreign aid and the sustained attention of the international community. But without such an effort it will certainly fail. A second-tier power can sidestep difficult choices. The superpowers cannot.
Comment by James — August 22, 2006 #
Oh no, I wasn’t writing off the WSJ editorial as right-wing idiocy at all. It was very clever, and the point about the French shirking their promises was well-taken. But I do find this rush to blame France for Israel’s actions funny.
Thanks for sending the Times editorial. It, by contrast, is full of fine-sounding phrases but lacks substance.
I’m not really sure what the Times thinks should happen. They want Bush to pressure Chirac to commit more troops, for those troops to be given a mandate to fight Hizballah, and for the US to spend more on Lebanese reconstruction? Nothing controversial about spending on reconstruction (unless it gets diverted into profiteers’ pockets). Also nothing controversial about recommendations 1 and 2—unless you’re French or Lebanese.
The Times writes:
The unfortunate reality is that the best that may be hoped for in Lebanon is an eventual political marginalization for Hezbollah. For even that to happen, a well-armed peacekeeping force needs to deploy quickly. At a minimum the troops could block Hezbollah?s supply lines from Syria. They could also send an important psychological message to the Lebanese people that if they are looking for a new sheriff, Hezbollah is not the only candidate in town.
This is wishful thinking on the Times‘ part. Peacekeepers could compete with Hizballah for Lebanese hearts and minds as a candidate for sheriff? How, by firing on Israeli commando squads the next time Israel breaks the cease-fire? By firing on Hizballah for refusing to hand over its guns? No wonder the French don’t want the job.
And why is everyone so insistent on European troops for this job when Bangladeshis or Fijians will suffice for every other conflict in the world? Because Olmert is? The Times has argued that Bangladeshis and Fijians are better suited to end genocide in vast Darfur than Nigerians and Senegalese would be. If, according to the NYT, Bangladeshis and Fijians are good enough to stop genocide in a remote region the size of France, what’s the problem with using them to police a region the size of Yonkers?
(OK, deep breath. Sorry for the outburst. I’m actually all in favor of sending better-paid, better-equipped, and better-trained troops on peacekeeping missions. It’s the double-standard that gets on my tits.)
In the end, France’s failure to step up is interesting, but it seems like a diversion from the pressing concerns on the ground in Lebanon and Israel.
Comment by Administrator — August 22, 2006 #
Jokes apart, why do the Americans always expect the UN or the French to clean up their messes (and those of the Israelis)? Rumsfeld liked to complain about the UN and the Europeans not doing enough to fix things in Afghanistan and Iraq too, when US public opinion started to turn against US troops being there for too long. I hear/read the most incredibly straight-faced righteous indignation from American policymakers and opinion leaders about French “recalcitrance” and it just boggles the mind.
It’s all very well to march in and win a military victory with your advanced weapons, but the moment reconstruction or nation-building enter the equation (Powell’s “we break it, we own it” doctrine was a good one), they start whining about how the UN and the Europeans won’t step up to the plate. The US is a wonderful country and I love Americans but they can be exasperating sometimes in their willingness to pass blame on to everyone else. If Americans want the world to stop seeing them as childish Rambos, they need to behave more responsibly.
Comment by SP — August 23, 2006 #
P.S. The French ain’t doing their public image any good with their bait and switch either…they will lose credibility as international negotiators in the future. But it wasn’t their mess to clean up in the first place.
Comment by SP — August 23, 2006 #
I must say, that for once, I agree with everyone writing here. Clearly, all parties, the French, Amrika, the UN, Iran, the Lebanese gov’t, and above all Israel and Hezbollah must step up.
I would add that the French have more than passing responsibility in this matter. In taking the lead at the UN, they implied a commitment. More than that, French colonial policy under the Mandate favoured Maronites and to a lesser extent Sunnis over Shiites. The lingering inequalities are surely at least part of Shia support for militancy.
Comment by P-New — August 23, 2006 #
Can we stop with the creepy “Amrikas” already? Are you guys going to break out little plastic keys next?
Comment by John-Paul Pagano — August 23, 2006 #
little plastic keys?
Comment by Administrator — August 24, 2006 #
During the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini imported 500,000 little plastic keys from Taiwan to hand out to Iranians in an inspirational gesture. After Iraq invaded, they wound up being given to Basiji children sent into the battlefields to act as human minesweepers. The keys were meant to open the door to paradise for each child martyr.
Comment by John-Paul Pagano — August 24, 2006 #
Oh, those keys. Were they plastic? And from Taiwan? 2ishta.
Ha. Take that, Pagano. More little Arabic phrases. “The West is weak and decadent! Down with the Infidel! Paradise is mine! Brouhahahaha cough cough cough.”
Comment by Administrator — August 24, 2006 #
Yes and yes. It’s not that it’s Arabic, which I wish I spoke myself. (Please translate 2ishta.) It’s that I, and I would guess most of your American readers who are not part of your inner circle, know the word from Marg bar Amrika, the Iranian Revolutionary death chant. Death to America, Marg bar Amrika, the mantra of Khomeini’s minions.
Comment by John-Paul Pagano — August 25, 2006 #
2ishta = egyptian colloq. for ‘qishta’. (lit.) ‘cream,’ i.e. ‘cool!’ or ‘nifty!’
Comment by Administrator — August 25, 2006 #
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/nasrallah_tacit.html
Comment by James — August 29, 2006 #