What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??

[CanadaPhil]

Much of the discussion in the media right now is of what countries should be part of a "peacekeeping" force (for lack of a better term) to replace Hezbollah and act as security buffer for Israel in order to bring about a long term cease fire.

However, it looks like no nation is willing to commit to any such possible endeavour at this point (well duh!)

Today I heard that Germany was offering as long as it was OK with Hezbollah??  :

My vote is for TURKEY & FRANCE.

I think that Turkey is an obvious choice. They are part of NATO, have relatively well equipped forces, have diplomatic relations with both Israel and Lebanon, and are a majority Muslim nation.

France is the other obvious choice as Lebanon was once a former "colony" (again for lack of a better term) and many Lebanese speak French and have ties with France. They also have great influence in Syria. I also believe its high time that France finally step up and stop playing Monday morning quarterback and bashing Israel from the sidelines as they love to do.

PS: I don't think that Canada should touch this thing with a 50 ft. pole. Thankfully, PM Harper agrees.

 

[tomahawk6]

I hope no country falls for that trap. But if one country stepped up its should be India. They have no love for islamic terrorists and have plenty of manpower to sustain a division size force.

 

[1feral1]

How about some arab countries or countries from that part of the world. It seems that the west always has to do their dirty work, then we get criticied by arab nations for not doing it the way they would.

My 2 cents,

Wes

 

[Etienne]

I think that for starter, Lebanon should start cleaning their own country first by kicking out Hezbollah. They have already achieve to kick out the Syrian army out 2 years ago, with the help of the international community. If they can't achieved that, or don't want to...well it's another  ball game..

Chimo !

 

[rz350]

I would say a mix of nations that get all with the region. Some western nations that get along with Israel fairly well. Maybe Saudi or Egyptian Muslim forces to keep Lebanon happy and a few random nations, India, Russia perhaps, they seem to have decent relations with both sides (They Buy Israeli avionics and sell weapons to the Muslim nations...they have no real love for either side, so they would do a good job of being somewhat neutral, and try to keep both sides as intact as they can so they can keep buying and selling weapons) That and I remember a while back Putin said he would consider sending Russian forces to the area as part of a multilateral mission (hey, gotta go with the willing as opposed to the unwilling)

Thats all IMHO (my very humble opinion)

 

[Red 6]

In my opinion, NATO should take the lead in any sort of stabilization force, and the rules of engagement need to be clearly enforced. Hezbollah will not adhere to any cease fire without heavy pressure and will undoubtedly use it as an opportunity to launch small scale sleeper attacks, stage and shift forces, get their logistical tail in order and bring up more Katyushas. I hope the United States is NOT involved. It's hard for me to feel sympathy for Hezbollah and its followers since they have the blood of 241 dead Marines on their hands.

The trouble with any outside military force coming in is the risk they will be sucked into the conflict through suicide attacks. Force protection will have to be ceaselessly enforced.

 

[George Wallace]

Looking at it with a little bit of optimism, there may be a possibility of a UN Zone of separation being created and enforced by NATO forces.  It would have to be a wide enough zone to keep the Israelis happy, but not managed in a way to take away from Lebanese sovereignty. 

Lebanon has been in the process of reconstruction, mainly due to many of her citizens with Dual Citizenships returning from Western Nations.  I am sure that the Lebanese Army and Police Force are in much better shape and efficient than what we find in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they would be an asset in this matter.  I do not think it would be wise to allow the Lebanese Army into this UN Zone, but the Police would be a vital ingredient in any plan to manage this zone.

UN (NATO) Forces would have to oust Hezbollah from this zone, disarming and destroying any Hezbollah sites in the zone (Hopefully putting an end to Hezbollah in the process.).  NATO forces would have to aggressively and actively enforce the neutrality of the zone.  I am not proposing a militarized zone, but a military administered zone, by a well armed and disciplined NATO force.  Lebanese civilians would be free to live and work in the zone, and be policed by their own police forces.  Those police forces would also have to maintain close liaisons with the NATO forces. 

I would recommend that this Force have ROE's that would allow them to defend themselves vigorously.  I would make it a "No Fly Zone" to all buy NATO aircraft and aggressively enforce it.

This would have to be a Force that could maintain the neutrality of the Zone and do so aggressively and therefore be a well armed, trained and disciplined force.  I don't think any idea of a Force made up of any other nations would be able to fill those criteria.

 

[Red 6]

You're right on target with your ideas, George. Whatever organization takes on this mission(NATO, EU, UN) , it will be one of the toughest of its kind ever undertaken. Trying to enforce a separation between a sovereign government and a terrorist group will be incredibly hard. I mean, the whole idea of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel. Everything they do stems from that tenet.

 

[GAP]

I like Georges' suggestion, except for one little thing.  The area in question is predominately Shite. The police forces would likely be Sunnis, which is not going to go over well. Even if the police forces were Shite, they are very likely to turn a blind eye to Hezbollah activity, which is why Hezbollah gained so much power in the area in the first place.

I may be out to lunch here, but I thought the area also had a high concentration of Maronite Christians...

 

[George Wallace]

Gap

I was thinking along the lines of Bosnia, where NATO forces actually did raids onto weapons caches, and the like.  The Police would maintain the Civil Laws, but NATO forces would aggressively maintain the military situation.  They would actively 'clean out' Hezbollah sites and enforce the neutrality of the zone.  Civil Laws would be enforced by the Civil Police Force, which I am optimistically hoping are not as biased as in some other Middle Eastern nations.

Lebanon have a very diverse cultural, ethnic and Religious population, which I feel may lend it to reconstruction more successfully than the other nations in the Region.  I don't think that there is the same Racial/Religious/Cultural hatreds in Lebanon as we find in places like Iraq, and a few other countries.  I could be wrong.

 

[GAP]

I was thinking along the lines of Bosnia, where NATO forces actually did raids onto weapons caches, and the like.  The Police would maintain the Civil Laws, but NATO forces would aggressively maintain the military situation

Ooohhh...with Hezbollah's history and the current radical Islam garbage being spouted, I don't envy any country going in to try to do that. Looking at the potential UN recruits, I don't see many that are capable of that much aggression, certainly not India/Turkey, that have been mentioned. The only ones capable of aggressively enforcing the rules might be some NATO countries and maybe Russia, the others have either no will or an interest to one side or the other.

 

[George Wallace]

That is why I am advocating a NATO Force.  I hesitated to voice my distrust of any of the others, although there are a few that could be relied on to maintain a strong disciplined and neutral force, the majority of which would be British Commonwealth Armies not in NATO.

 

[GAP]

agreed

 

[Shadowolf]

I think the question is -  What army wants to be put in front of an aggressive IDF?  I sure as hell dont want to be caught in the middle of IDF's Smash and Bash.  I say let IDF sort it out, then send in the Peacekeepers once they are willing to walk away from Lebanon. 

 

[George Wallace]

Any Force that goes in, no matter if it is before or after Israel 'kicks butt', will have to be well armed and able to take on any aggressor, including the IDF.  If they are not armed enough to vigorously defend themselves, we will be back to what we have now in the UN Force that is currently at the receiving end of Israeli attacks.  And I mean a Force that will have the abilities to kick Israeli ass if it need be.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What NATO country other then the Americans and Brits could conceivably kick the IDF's ass?

 

[GAP]

What NATO country other then the Americans and Brits could conceivably kick the IDF's ass?

No country is even considering taking on the IDF.  You are right, they are too good. The focus seems to be the quagmire the whole scenario would lead to (see: Iraq). Israel will not go in again, unless attacked, which means the peacekeepers are not able to do the job. I think Hezbollah would make sure that they are not able to do their job.

 

[probum non poenitet]

No country is even considering taking on the IDF.  You are right, they are too good.

I've often wondered if it's a case of the Israelis being too good, or their opponents being very weak.
I'd put my money on a NATO brigade over an Israeli one in a knock-down fight, but we'll likely never know the answer to that.

Interesting ideas about the separation force. As George Wallace said, it would have to be effective, and not for show.
That's why the Israelis are really contemptuous of much of the UN - they see it as mostly ineffective, and Israel wrote the book on "If you're not with us, you're against us."

When it comes to a third-party force in south Lebanon, It think the hardest people to convince will be the Israelis. I am guessing they would rather do it themselves, so they know it would be done aggressively and to Israel's benefit.

On the other hand, if a NATO force actually worked (like IFOR in Bosnia) Israel may go for it, but like Gap said: Remember 1983 and what happened to the U.S. and France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

It could be a damned dangerous assignment, but what else is new these days?

It's a terrible thing about the UN troops being killed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In addition to Ambassador Bell’s comments (Hard questions about a NATO force) and my comments on his piece here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47908/post-417563.html#msg417563 I would offer that:

• The credible force must have its own good, modern, combat air power – fighters, fighter/bombers, AEW/AWACS and EW assets.  This is essential to provide credibility to both Israel and neighbouring Arab states.  It also raises the thorny question of interoperability which may make (my preferred) NATO led force more difficult;

• The credible force must – as other have already mentioned – have a mandate which allows it to use deadly force against all comers: Hezbollah, the IDF or anyone else (Syria, for example) who might decide to mess with it; and

• Perhaps most difficult, the credible force must have a good intelligence capability, including high level SIGINT services.  This might make a NATO only force a better option as NATO nations are reluctant enough to share intelligence with each other but many will refuse to provide intelligence to non-NATO force members.  The commander needs three levels of intelligence –

o His own strategic and tactical intelligence to help him plan and conduct his own operations in support of his mission,

o Intelligence which he can – must – share, equally, with Israel and Lebanon showing (most (some?) of) what he knows about the going-on in his area of responsibility;

o Information which he can share with the UN – which means information which must be UNCLAS and which he must expect to read in the press the next day – about the situation in the area.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Edward (and everyone else)

if you were in charge, how wide would you make the 'buffer zone?'

Tricky question considering how little real estate there is over there.
I believe the Israelis used about 20 km, which is a decent chunk of Lebanon.

What about civil administration, etc.?