Monday, August 21, 2006

Israel and Lebanon

So. Israel thought that airpower alone could end the conflict (you wonder how many times it's going to take for people to realize the folly of that one.) Israel thought wrong. The U.S. and Israel thought France, in combination with the U.N., would deploy a sizeable force with teeth that would actually disarm Hezbollah. Now, Sec. Rice says that she hopes that Hezbollah will eventually lay down their arms voluntarily. France is deploying 200 engineers, the U.N. is trying to force down Israel's throat peacekeepers from countries who, as a matter of policy, don't support their right to exist, and the eventual force is going to be (hopefully) lead by the Italians, of all people. Does anyone else see Bosnia happening all over again here? 320 UNPROFOR soldiers dead, countless millions of dollars, and the end result was that NATO had to go in because the U.N. refused to do its job. Now, what I consider the worst is that we're going to send $230 million in aid to Lebanon. That we won't get credit for, because Hezbollah is still providing security in the south. So we're basically going to be indirectly bankrolling Hezbollah and increasing their stature in the areas that they control.

Good plan. I've got a better one. Israel grows a pair and decides to fight. We back Israel while telling the U.N. and the rest of the international community to go f**k themselves. We allow Israel to control the area while calling on Lebanon to back it's statements up and start training their army to take on Hezbollah. Israel does their best to wipe out Hezbollah, then Israel pulls out, the Lebanese Army steps in, and we put those $230 million to use with the Lebanese knowing that it's the Lebanese government that is their benefactor, not Hezbollah.

New Sisyphus has related thoughts.