The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance

[bemildred]

The United States and France have produced a United Nations resolution of sorts aimed at ending the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but the negotiations between US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and France's Jean-Marc de La Sabliere nearly ended in disaster.

Through the course of a single week, the US and France came as close to a bitter split over Middle East policy as they had on the eve of the Iraq war. At issue in the confrontation was a US insistence that an international force (led by France) be deployed to Lebanon prior to the declaration of a ceasefire - a requirement the French thought ludicrous. They weren't the only ones.

"The position that we're taking in the UN is just nuts," a former White House official close to the US decision-making process said during the negotiations. "The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there's a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis - could enforce Hezbollah's disarmament."

All of this, this former official noted, "is covered over by this talk about how we need a substantive agreement that addresses the fundamental problems and that will last. But no one is willing to say exactly what this means."

Asia Times

[Kagemusha]

1. I think it's ludicrous too.

Too much listening to Israel about UN observer forces not fighting terrorists like they're the Golani Brigade.

[bemildred]

2. It explains why the proposed resolution was so bizarre.

Reminds me of the way Congress creates law, no real concerns about coherence or feasibility.

[Kagemusha]

4. In other words the French flattered the US with a DOA resolution,

after sucking up Bolton's insults for long enough. They wanted to look like they were doing something and are happy to let Bolton and Olmert drown in their own bile while an ineffective resolution keeps the French physically out of it.

Because the French don't plan to go into a shooting war on Israel's side with a pittance of troops just to eat car bombs again.

[w4rma]

3. Neo-cons are insane. They do not understand reality. (nt)

[endarkenment]

5. It is 82 all over again.

Maybe we could repeat this sequence:

"Because of the damage to U.S. credibility, the Reagan administration--at Lebanon's request--sent 1,800 Marines back into Lebanon on September 29 as part of a multinational force that included troops from Britain, France, and Italy. The force was initially to act as a peace-keeping buffer between the Israelis and everyone else. In that environment of civil disorder, bombings, and kidnappings, the mission of the U.S. Marines was unclear. They were harassed by the Israeli forces and opposed by other factions. Particularly ominous was the activity in the Bekaa Valley of Iranian guerrillas and Lebanese Shi'ites, such as the Hezbollah group, who were sympathetic to the Iranian regime. In April 1983 one of those groups, the Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in which 46 people were killed.

In August Israel partially withdrew to the south, leaving the Marines in the crossfire between Lebanese factions and removing their reason for being there in the first place. The Marines suffered casualties from Druze artillery--although it is not clear that the shelling was intentional--and the U.S. Sixth Fleet off the coast countered by firing shells the weight of Volkswagens at Druze positions. U.S. aircraft flew bombing missions as well. The United States had clearly taken sides in the Lebanese civil war.

The consequences of U.S. intervention became all too apparent on October 23 when a truck filled with explosives entered the Marine headquarters at Beirut airport. The resulting blast killed 241 Marines. By February 1984 Reagan had abandoned the intervention in Lebanon and withdrawn the surviving Marines.(189)"

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

In fact, even though the source is the Cato Institute, the entire article is a good read if you want background on the middle east that is not the standard narrative.