 | Edwards Stumps in Chicago | |
| In Today's Video Vault | |
| Grassley Swings at (and Misses) Obama | |
| Richardson's Interview | |
| This Just In.... |
| In Defense Of Incrementalism | |
| The War Comes Home | |
| Roe, Not Giuliani, Is The Real Abortion Muddle | |
| Rudy's Party Or Reagan's? | |
| Blair's Influence To Outlast His Iraq Stand |
| Lessons Learned | |
| The War in Lebanon | |
| The Aftermath: Hezbollah's Looming Loss | |
| Faint Hope for Lebanon | |
| Bush's New Middle East |
|
July 18, 2006
Bring in the Troops
By Dennis ByrneLeaders call for international military force to impose peace in worsening Israeli, Lebanon conflict--News item.
Gee, now why didn't someone think of that sooner? Like 45 years ago?
You'd think that there would have been calls for an international military force years ago to keep Israelis, Palestinians and the rest of that bunch from cutting each other up. After all, similar calls have routinely gone out to cool bloodthirsty conflicts in places like the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia and Rwanda. So, why doesn't the same logic apply to protecting innocent lives in Israel and surrounding lands?
Maybe it has something to do with the last time the United States tried it in 1983. More than 200 Marines died in their Beirut barracks from a terrorist bombing. The U.S. hightailed it out of there and never returned.
Now United Nations Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan has called for the deployment of a multilateral force to Lebanon. So has British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said, "The blunt reality is that this violence is not going to stop unless we create the conditions for the cessation of violence. The only way is if we have a deployment of international forces that can stop bombardment coming into Israel."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quickly opposed the plan, based on the belief that it won't work while also depriving Israel of the right to defend itself. Instead, according to some reports, he wants Lebanese forces to take control of the border and disarm the Hezbollah, the terrorist group which set off this most recent havoc.
What Lebanese forces? Olmert must be making a joke.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces are moving into Lebanon to reportedly create a one-kilometer buffer zone. That hardly seems enough when the rockets can strike targets 10 miles or more away.
So, the question remains: Why have calls for international intervention been so muted over the years? Intervention is no guarantee of success, but it ended the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. And without international UN forces, led by the U.S., South Korea today would be part of Kim Jong-il's North Korean hell. Since then, rare has been the time that the UN has lived up to the ideals of its charter.
The absence of international intervention is based partially on the logic that "third-party" involvement would not "address the root causes" of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. In that, they may be right, because the root cause of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the notion infecting both sides that "God gave us this land." Which makes God a cruel jokester.
There are enough "root causes" (i.e. blame) to spread on both sides, and it is quickly becoming apparent that only knocking some heads together is going to halt the conflict, if not end it permanently. Who knows, maybe the more rational leadership on both sides secretly would welcome serious international intervention so that they won't be captives of their own fanatics who demand the destruction of the other side.
We've had decades of various parts of the international community trying to "broker a deal" between the combatants, and countless UN resolutions calling for this and that. All that it has achieved is more misery and death. If anything, the half-century of hatred has demonstrated that multilateral diplomacy, without the threat of force, is just empty talk.
Obviously, with international intervention would come serious and further considerations, such as: Should it just be "peace-keepers" who stand around with their hands in their pockets, observing? (There's already a small contingent of international watchers there.) Should the force be deployed without the consent of the combatants? Should the force's rules of engagement include firing on either side that violates the peace? How long should the force stay? Should it impose a solution worked out by the UN, the European Union, NATA, the G8 powers or "world leaders?'
The answer is: whatever it takes.
As long as the international community, which has been so critical of America's "unilateral" Middle East policy, takes the lead. As long as it finally puts up or shuts up.
| Sponsored Links |