Western Intervention Force for Lebanon...

Ok, Both UN and EU are demanding a western Peace Force to be sent to Secure the borders of Lebanon and to disarm Hezbollah.
Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has stated that he would accept a peace force if it was "Robust and with a strong enough mandate" And that "the troops shuold have battle experience"

What "Western" Troops are available and can be considered battle proven enough to satisfy mister Olmerts requirements?

Demand for the troops to have actual full scale combat experience rules out a vast number of traditional peace keeper countries like Finland (Last time in a full scale war 1945), Sweden (last war 1809), Norway (last war 1941), same goes for countries like Ireland, Neatherlands, even Germans... I assume that USA and UK are out of the question, since their involvement in Iraq might not suit the Lebanese.

French has it's Legion, but it's allreade spread thin across africa, Polish have had their special forces in Iraq, but they might be acceptable, Italians, Spanish maybe...Canadians...

Can the West provide a combat proof force to take care of Hezbollah? What kind of a force should be sent?
Firepower will not be a problem, but will the troops be given free enogh hands?

Do you believe that if foreign forces go in that Hizbollah will attack them if the israeli forces cease and desist back to their border? Israel is trying to make it seem as theough they will have a battle on their hands but the kidnap was not meant to start a war it was originally intended to get their man back from an israeli jail. I do not forsee them attacking any peace keeping foreign forces personally. I believe they would probably welcome the idea of stopping.

If a force is suppose to DISARM Hezbollah, it needs to be credible enough to be able to kick some serious ass... If the force seems like a pushover, Hezbollah will most likely to continue it's activities... leading to Israelis ignoring the force (like UNIFIL at the moment)
If you have few Armoured Brigades prowling in S Lebanon, it would make all sides think twice before doing anything stupid...

(Unifil has mostly Rifle-.50cal-RPG level weaponry and both IDF and Hezbollah consider it has no combat value)

Originally posted by northwolf
If a force is suppose to DISARM Hezbollah, it needs to be credible enough to be able to kick some serious ass... If the force seems like a pushover, Hezbollah will most likely to continue it's activities... leading to Israelis ignoring the force (like UNIFIL at the moment)
If you have few Armoured Brigades prowling in S Lebanon, it would make all sides think twice before doing anything stupid...

(Unifil has mostly Rifle-.50cal-RPG level weaponry and both IDF and Hezbollah consider it has no combat value)

They may just flee and maybe leave some of their forces behind and allow them to give up their weapons.


They would be fools to start with EU troops if they were coming to help ease the situation.


Pie

It sounds like Israel is being deliberately difficult here. It really does not want foreign involvement, so it is setting up near impossible criteria for an intervention force.

Besides, why do the troops have to be western anyway?

Because Asian or African troops lack the material to send in a Credible combat force as is requested by all sides and the UN... Only Europeans could sustain a large military operation and support for example heavy armor in Southern Lebanon.

Plus the professionalism and dicipline of the EU forces makes them more effective if the need arises to root out hezbollah by force and EU countires have the support infrastructure ready to sustain prolonged operations in middle-east

I have heard that Russia may send troops, I believe on CNN...What about the UK and Canada? That would be good I think. The US forget about it.

UK forces are tied up in Iraq and Afqanistan, so Lebanese side might not accept them as neutral, Canadians are are allso tied up pretty much and i doubt that they can spare troops.

Russians are a No No to Israelis, they've allways supported the arabs, a small scale force is possible, but Russia won't take the leading responsibility

Latest news says Turkey or France may take the lead in operation. I assume 2nd REP might be used as the core of the force with additional units from other countries supporting..

[edit on 25-7-2006 by northwolf]

Global politics would ensure that any UN peacekeeping force wont have enough teeth to effect the security situation.
Assuming that Im wrong and the UN goses after Hezbollah then what ?
At worse the UN force would in effect be bogged down in quick sand with few governments willing to put up with the casualties from the conflict.
At best the UN would force would force Hezbollah to lie low and regroup once UN forces have left Lebanon.

The only way I see a UN intervention force with teeth making a long term differnce would be if the US raged an air campaign against Iran and Syria that pretty much never stops.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by xpert11]

UN force would most likely be able to take control of the borders and stop the arms flow to Hezbollah... And attempt to root out heavy weapons from hezbollah strongholds.

As i said i suspect that bulk of the force might be French Foreign Legion, specifically 2. Para Regiment that has proven it self as an exellent force able to operate in just about anywhere in the globe, and because it's part of the "legion" casualities will not be a major political problem in france...

Polish Grom is one unit to be concidered since it has participated in bloody battles in Iraq and Polish are still eager to show they are part of the international community and a valuable addition to European defence, so they might be more tolerant on the casualities... And in all cases European people understand that if you fight you will take casualities and they're not as big issue as they are in USA (every man is a volunteer, even in countries where there are conscripts, deployment to abroad is a choise made by the individual)

Australia has stated that it will only send it's troops to Lebanon if the peace force is part of "long term peace solution"...

If US troops were sent in to police lebanon after the yehudis had bombed hezbollah to their satisfaction, then those US troops, just like the US marines so many 10s of years ago there, will be attacked.

If lebanon wants Israel out of lebanon, they can either fight back, or comply with israel and work with them to get rid of hezbollah, those seem to be the only realistic options.

Originally posted by northwolf
Australia has stated that it will only send it's troops to Lebanon if the peace force is part of "long term peace solution"...

Heres a related article that may be of interest.

AUSTRALIA may send a small number of peacekeepers to southern Lebanon once a ceasefire is declared, but only in a specialist or command roles, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.
Mr Downer had closed-door talks with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and EU foreign policy tsar Javier Solana on the sidelines of an ASEAN security summit in Malaysia, telling both that Canberra would not rule out a peacekeeping role for Lebanon.

But it would not involve large numbers of troops as Australian Defence Force (ADF) are already stretched by security operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor.

"I suspect that the only role you could conceive for the ADF in this situation, and it's possible there could be some role, would be a niche role of some kind or other, or else some kind of leadership role," Mr Downer said.

"But sending battalions of infantry, that's not going to happen."

Mr Downer made his comments as a demonstration raged outside the venue of the Kuala Lumpur ASEAN Regional Forum meeting.

Link

No real surpise here the ADF already has personal any where from Iraq to East Timor.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by xpert11]