Only hours before the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the “full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations” and calls for, but does not demand, that Israel and Lebanon support a permanent ceasefire, Secretary of State Rice had this exchange with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Will this new U.N. presence . . . have the authority to go out and aggressively disarm Hezbollah, take away their rockets and prevent Hezbollah from getting new rockets coming in from Syria?
RICE: Well, Wolf, it has not ever been the expectation that the disarmament of Hezbollah is going to be undertaken by a foreign force. The obligation to disarm Hezbollah under Taif and under Resolution 1559 is an obligation of the Lebanese government. They will receive whatever assistance they need . . . this force has, first and foremost, an obligation not to allow a return to the status quo ante, which means that armed groups, arms, cannot operate again in the south of Lebanon . . . So this force has a big mandate, it has a robust mandate, it has a mandate that will allow it to defend itself and to defend that mandate. But it’s never been the expectation that this force is going to disarm Hezbollah. That will have to be done by the Lebanese.
Let me try to cut through this diplomatic double-talk:
- UNIFIL, which is authorized to be enlarged to 15,000 troops from 2,000, will, among other things, (1) “Monitor the cessation of hostilities,” (2) “Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South. . . as Israel withdraws its armed forces . . . ,” and (3) “take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties . . . “
- The Resolution does not specify (1) which countries will contribute to the enlarged UNIFIL force, (2) when the enlargement of the UNIFIL force and the withdrawal of Israeli troops will begin and be completed, or (3) what weapons will be made available to the UNIFIL force.i
- While Rice, in her interview with Blitzer, says that the UNIFIL force is not going to disarm Hezbollah, UNIFIL is authorized to “take all necessary action” to prevent “hostile activities” and resist the employment of “forceful means” to prevent it from carrying out its mandate. The phrase “all necessary means” implies the use of force which, in turn, implies that UNIFIL’s rules of engagement include the killing of Hezbollah and/or Israeli forces that fail to abide by the terms of the Resolution. Since killing is a means of disarmament, UNIFIL is authorized to disarm those combatants that violate the Resolution. If “never” is taken to mean “under any circumstances,” this contradicts Rice’s assertion that foreign forces have never been expected to disarm Hezbollah. Further, the Resolution does not specify the criteria, nor who is responsible for defining the criteria, for determining what constitutes a “hostile action” or an attempt to prevent UNIFIL from “carrying out its mandate.”
Thus, the key sections of the Resolution are ambiguous, to say the least. The ambiguity means that the UNIFIL force, if it is to fulfill its responsibilities, must be willing to enter Lebanon with the prospect that it troops will be wounded and killed by Hezbollah and, less likely, by Israel. Should this happen, there is every reason to believe that the residents of the countries that contribute to the UNIFIL force will object, possibly in a violent manner. Should such a scenario eventuate, as in my view seems likely,the governments of such countries will be subject to intense and growing pressure to abandon their commitments.
It would be in Hezbollah’s interest to cause this scenario to unfold, as a declining UNIFIL presence in southern Lebanon would make it progressively easier for Nasrallah’s troops to return and pursue its long-term goal of destroying Israel. I therefore expect Hezbollah, which is not even specifically named in the Resolution, to force the issue by violating the Resolution’s terms. If it does, it will inflict casualties on its fellow Muslims—the Lebanese army—as well as on UNIFIL. As is well known, messianic Muslims do not shy away from killing Muslims who do not share their beliefs. In addition, the loyalty of the Lebanese army troops—many of whom, like Hezbollah’s, are Shi’a—must be considered to be suspect. I would be greatly surprised if there were no turncoats. For Israel, of course, killing UNIFIL and Lebanese troops in large numbers would be a public relations nightmare.
The bottom line: Hezbollah and its supporters—Iran and Syria—are likely to emerge as the winners from the Resolution. Then again, the Resolution pertains to the Mideast, an area of the globe where things can quickly change. So, if you’re surmising that I’m hedging my bets, you’re right.
- The Washington Post reports that the UN will hold talks today to determine the type of forces to be used and which countries will contribute. It also notes that (1) the force will have to be deployed faster than any previous UN force, and (2) although its size has been determined, its structure and the types of units needed have not. France’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, said foreign troops could be sent to the region quickly.↩
I only hope that this move was made as a deal for stronger action against Iran’s nuclear program in the near future.
Tom,
We’d damned well better not be relying on the friggin French for anything, in fact, we’d be doing ourselves a favor in the long-run if everytime they went to stand-up, we kicked their legs out from asunder.
As for this resolution, it’s called ‘doing something, just to be doing something’ and will only produce acts which are far worse than those going-on. The Iranian’s have been gaining traction, certainly over the last 6 months, and cannot afford to lose even the slightest bit of momentum for fear they might not have or get another chance. Lebanon, Iraq…Afghanistan, Pakistan…all are especially sensitive and vulnerable.
If Lebanon becomes relatively quite over the course of next week, I’d certainly look for and expect Iraq to blow sky-high.
Eg, life is a constant struggle between hope and experience. Unfortunately, when it come to the Middle East and the French, you and past experience are on the ball.
But seriously, I wonder why Olmert agreed to this. The Israeli public is overwhelming behind him, there aren’t any major military setback, and Hezbollah propaganda campaign was being attacked itself. It’s not like they risk losing world opinion. That was lost back in 1948. What’s the angles? What’s the long game?
Tom,
I’m frankly lost on the purpose of this resolution and have to go-back and re-read the other resolutions as they pertain to the present – provided, of course, this resolution is not designed to fail and fail well before the insertion of UN forces. If there is an angle at all from what I can see at present, it would have to be during the interim period, a period I’ll define as the time during which UN finds and deploys forces into Lebanon including a transitional period of acclimation required for the coordination of UN forces with Lebanese and before their transitioning to the South. Hell, they may even have to vet and clear whole divisions of the Lebanese army – but only if this a serious effort.
While Bush has mentioned Syria’s and Iran’s involvement in his later statements, it’s troublesome that the resolution omitted specific mention of these culprits and their roles; especially as the Iranian’s have openly admitted to arming Hizbollah and stated they would continue to due so in the future. They are also calling on other states to do the same. Syria plays a minor role as a staging area and command center as compared with Iran but my presumption here is we’d want to compromise the Syrian’s to such a degree that even using them as a conduit for materials would be futile and far too dangerous – much less their continuing to act as a command center. If this is to be done, it has to be done in the interim period(described above) otherwise Hizbollah pulls-back to the North and the Iranian’s supply longer-range rockets or missiles as the Israeli‘s turn-over the area in the South. Once the Israeli’s are South of the Blue-line they are really screwed, paragraph (12) authorizes – if not demands – that UN forces act against ANY hostile force in areas under their control. All the more troubling because the resolution contains to statement pertaining to the right of Israel to act in its own defense when the damned thing goes down the tubes. Simply put, once the Israeli’s are back inside their own borders, they effectively come under a full state of siege.
That’d be my best shot at an angle right now. Syria-Iran, Syria-Iran…if they aren’t actively be in-our-sights they damned well should be. No, ‘ifs, and or buts’ about it. If the region goes-up in smoke…well, without going into a lot of detail…I can see more upside than down.
Eg, with deference to your previous comment, I will always count on the French to act in France’s interests, even under the guises of the UN.
On a geostrategic level, it hasn’t been a good couple of years for France, particularly given Paris’ perception of itself as a world power. Do they see this as an opportunity to reinsert itself in the Middle East, now that the IDF done most of the heavy lift in regard to Hezbollah?
I can’t see any benefits France reaped from its pro-Arab stances and opposition to OIF. In fact, it lose credibility for being essentially ignored by the US-led coalition. As an instrument of foreign policy, nothing beats boots on the ground, something France doesn’t have in the region.
The French Army supporting the Lebanonese Army could disarm Hezbollah. If Hezbollah decides to fight back, wouldn’t the Siniora government be more dependent on Paris for political and material support?
Also, is Paris positioning itself to intervene in Syria if and when the Assad regime collapses? If French forces aren’t already positioned in Lebanon, the only other power able to safe events in Syria would be the US next door in Iraq. I knew an anti-American calculation was there somewhere.
What do you think, Eg? It’s logical but is it realistic?
Marc,
Good analysis on the resolution. I differ on some points, but overall it was excellent.
Because this is your comment section, and because the questions I have about this are somewhat extended, I have posted some things to consider that I haven’t seen anywhere else. And when I say anywhere, I mean anywhere.
Of course, that could mean I’m seeing things that aren’t there. Or maybe others aren’t seeing what is clearly right in front of them.
http://theinformationprocessor.blogspot.com
My guess is neo cons are going to realize what a stupid idea this was and we’ll hear the “they didn’t do it the right way / they held back” excuse they and their commie bretheren are known for
Marc, I think you’re being too sanguine about the expansion of UNIFIL. As I read the resolution UNIFIL is to be expanded in numbers without a significant expansion in mission: it’s still a Chapter VI force rather than a Chapter VII force and it’s principle mission is force protection. If Hezbollah or Israel attacks UNIFIL, it can respond. I don’t see anything in the resolution that suggests that either Lebanon or UNIFIL will engage Hezbollah, disarm it, or remove it.
So, basically, we’re left with a pious wish and a chance for both sides to re-arm and re-group.
Tom P,
If this move of Olmert is really in earnest (acceptance of a ceasefire), and not a “for the eyes of the world” strategy (a calculation that Hizbullah would not accept the UN text, so that Israel would be justified in retaliating), then the Israeli public will be firmly and unstoppably on the way to chuck him out. Barak was chucked out in favor of Sharon after the 2000 Intifada broke out; the Israeli public would replace a weak and ineffective Olmert with a hardline right-winger like Bibi Netanyahu or Avigdor Liberman.
Bungling idiot. You can’t believe how angry I am right now. This war is, as columnist Uri Orbach said in one of his op-eds, a war for the peace of the world (in the face of the Islamic threat), not just for Israel. Israel’s capitulation will be a resounding invitation for jihadists worldwide to push on with their terrorism, because it teaches them that it terrorism pays.
lol
Dave—If my words are “too sanquine” about UNIFIL, there must have been a short-circuit between my mind and my hands. I am anything but sanquine.
ZionistYoungster—We can only hope that it’s “for the eyes of the world,” as you aptly put it, and that if it is, Hezbollah, while accepting Res 1701 in words, will violate it in deeds.
As my post indicates, I think that Hezbollah will violate 1701—perhaps not immediately, but after a long enough pause that Nasrallah will have reached the decision that much of the world will condemn Israel for the hostilities he initiates. Given Hezbollah’s fierce resistance to Israel in the current war and Nasrallah’s resulting elevation to hero status among Muslims, it’s incomprehensible that he will now eschew violence. What would he stand to gain by so doing?
The interesting question is whether the pause—if there is one—will last long enough for the Olmert government to fall.
I, too, am angry: because of what it means for Israel and because of what it means for Iran. The mullahs can’t help but be encouraged by this additional sign of weakness on the part of the West and, in particular, by the U.S.
For an interesting and different perspective, you should read this:
http://theinformationprocessor.blogspot.com/2006/08/unremarkable-strategy-literally.html
[...] Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil Prev/Next Posts « My Assessment of the Security Council Resolution on Lebanon | Saturday, August 12th, 2006 at 9:30 pm [...]
ZY, I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. When I said, “The Israeli public is overwhelming behind him,” I was referring to the ongoing campaign and not the ceasefire.
I hear your anger, which is not an uncommon reaction. That leaves the question of why he did it, it referring to the ceasefire and his political suicide, unless for larger strategic goals.
If this is a loss of nerve, he deserves to be kicked to the street. But the given domestic consequences of agreeing to the ceasefire, instead of Olmert grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, could this be a retrograde move as a prelude towards some sort of action against Iran, per Aristides. I hope so. It should be clear soon enough. If not, Bush has some hard questions to answer as well as Olmert.
Tom, I understood exactly that. The public is overwhelmingly behind Olmert on the campaign; it will be overwhelmingly against Olmert on the ceasefire agreement.
The question how long it will be before it happens is not only about the Israeli government, it’s about Hizbullah. Not only, as you said, whether it will last long enough for the Olmert government to fall, but also, how much time will Hizbullah get to rearm. Both answers will determine how painful the next war will be: according to the strength of Hizbullah, and according to the resolve of the Israeli government.
That old Chinese curse (“interesting times”) indeed.
To Tom and Marc on Iran:
It’s said Bush being bogged down in Iraq is stalling the hopes of him attacking Iran. Perhaps. But here, for some reason, I’m looking on the bright side: America’s presence in Iraq is a good springboard to Iran.
The Iraq story hasn’t been glorious. Bush is so obsessed about “democratizing”, not learning from history (1933 Weimar) that democracy in the hands of people whose minds are unfree (like the Muslims) only gives rise to worse dictatorships. Bush is repeating the same mistake that the English and French did when they had the whole region under them: leaving Islam alone. I go with Coulter on her “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. I think the last part is the most important. Not conversion by force, of course, but the presence of Christian rule over the country could lend a hand to evangelists by blocking the deterrent of the shariah’s Death to Apostates law.
Back in the day between the two world wars, the British and the French were recovering from the first and then participating in the second. That was their excuse for not de-Islamizing the region. Nowadays, Bush is being prevented from Christianizing Iraq by world opinion that says religious politics is a no-no (except for Muslims…).
As a result, almost nothing good is coming from the US stay in Iraq. The only chance that it could be made good, that the US presence could be turned worthwhile, would be to use Iraq as a base against Iran. But here, once again, the servant of evil named World Opinion is holding the leaders back. Same as with Olmert.
The blocked-quote in the post above, after the first paragraph, is a quote of Marc’s text. I was expecting
cite="Marc Shulman"to make the quote have the name of the originator on top, but it doesn’t do that. Sorry for the possible confusion.Long Live the Islamic republic of Iran!
ZY, I fear that I may have been mistaken in giving Olmert the benefit of the doubt. This conflict will just go on and go because one side does not have the means to decisively destroy the other, and the other doesn’t have the will. Let call this what it is, just another skirmish in the Second Hundred Years War.
Everyone in Washington understood that Olmert had his chance, and screwed the pooch. That’s why we had to go for the ceasefire. The only reason why we went now was simply because OImert’s bungling was turning this into a diplomatic disaster for us and providing a diplomatic windfall for Tehran. This is a case where Condi had to stop the bleeding.
No one is under any illusion in DC that the war is over, or that Nasrallah or the Iranians will be able to help themselves. Fortunately, Olmert is finished. Perhaps it will take a month or two, but Olmert’s government will fall. The only salutary thing is that Netanyahu will ascend to the PM’s office once again, and Israel will have a war cabinet.
Some concerns. The IDF reserve system is broken. Needs fixing.
A good thing. The U.S. Army in Iraq is the best fighting instrument in the world. Everyone says its broken. What if it’s not. I would not want to be Ahmadhi-Nejad with that army on my doorstep. Everyone has treated this crisis as if the U.S. has no army in the theater, and we have overwhelming force that could be brought to bear within a couple of weeks notice. Am I the only one who sees this?
I am convinced that the U.S. Third Army will be decisive in the coming conflict.
Actually if they get on the ball they have a good opportunity here, they can brutalize Hezbollah, then get out of town leaving France to deal with the mess. Also, if there is sectarian violence and Hezbollah is weakened to the point that they can’t prevent genocide, the UN is providing security so it’s their fault.
Tom,
In all reality, there’s no way the French would dare take-on Hizbollah, they’d be ripped to pieces at home.
Sorry to say, but at some point we’re going to have to abandon the Euro’s and watch as they go-up in flames. When the Mid-East finally pops their gasket(which now appears imminent), the same will likely occur on the continent. I think their last minute change regarding the Lebanese resolution was a reflex action of panic and what they know is about to unfold. A quickie appeasement play in the hopes of avoiding some of the backlash.
see post 7
Eg, so the French are sending hostages, uh, I mean troops to Lebanon. This is going to be Bosnia all over again, isn’t it? Like they say, all politics are local. Thanks for the reality check.
Tom,
If this resolution isn’t already unraveling with Hizbollah’s refusal to comply with any ceasefire, let alone disarm; I’d expect the French would supply a very meager force of advisors, or some-such – it certainly doubt it’ll be much. They’ve got their you-know-what’s caught in their zippers.
If France gets their Arab/Muslim minders angry, guess who takes to the streets and shuts-down France – if not the continent?
Eg, just for my FYI, where are you right now? I’m guessing somewhere in Europe. As this situation develops, I’m curious how the European populace is reacting. I know better than to trust the EuroMSM. I read you and I keep on hearing the words – pressure cooker.
[...] Read the rest of this post [...]