Well, after taking the lead in negotiating the UN cease fire agreement in Lebanon (and props to them for doing so), France stepped up to the plate today and demonstrated to the world their commitment to the deal by committing 200 troops to the peacekeeping force.
Whoop de fucking do. Hope Hezbollah doesn’t have a girl scout auxiliary that’s feeling ornery, otherwise the French might wind up with sunburned armpits. Coming soon to E-bay Beirut: good deals on French rifles; never fired and only dropped once.
Seriously, is it too much to expect countries that put themselves at the forefront of the efforts to negotiate a cease fire to actually, you know, support that cease fire when it is accepted by the combatants? To put their money where their mouth is in other words? They are leading the UN effort for Christ’s sake, sending only 200 troops is pathetic.
Reply With Quote
If I were French I wouldn’t support sending troops either. The whole situation is a cluster fuck. The cease fire was DOA becuase Hezbollah never had any intention of disarming, nor did the Lebanese or French army have any intention of forcibly disarming them.
Sure, right now Hezbollah is content to simply lick their wounds and get resupplied by Syria and Iran. In a year or so though that will be a different story. If their territory is occupied in any meaningful way, especially if Israel is still there, they won’t be content to just sit by.
My post was three sentences long. In two of the three I stated that the 3,500 figure was referring specifically to the next two weeks. How the fuck could you possibly have missed it?
Let’s try again: The UN has stated that it wants to add 3,500 troops in the next two weeks. Is the 200 troop figure (for which you’ve provided no cite by the way) part of that 3,500 or part of the entire anticipated force?
Between this, and the mental image of a Hizzbollah Auxilary Girl Scout troop causing French soldiers to suffer sunburn to their armpits, I am happy. Thanks for the laughs.
Regarding the OP, I admit to being one of those that chuckle at the idea of a “French Army”, but seriously. 200 hundred people? If you’re going to take the lead on being the “face” of the cease-fire, commit to it. Anyone have a compact breakdown of forces by nation that are going to be sent?
I’m tempted to take a cheap shot at the level of commitment by saying the French need the military in France to handle to radicals in their country. Sadly, it appears more and more to not be a cheap shot, but rather the truth. I’ll poke the French at almost any chance I get, but this issue (Islamists that want to kill every single non-Islamist) is all too real.
Forget about winning the lottery. I just want a world where I can slam the French again without realizing they have some serious shit to worry about within their borders from people that want to kill me too.
Allow me to be the first to say I’ve seen the 200 figure mentioned, but I have no idea if that’s the total commited force. My retraction and apologies if that number is innaccurate.
From what I gathered reading the newspaper, France has two main concerns :
It doesn’t want to commit a significant force if there’s only a weak mandate. It doesn’t want its forces to be sitting ducks or a big bunch of passive observers. IOW, not a repeat of Bosnia
-It fears that its troops might be specifically targeted as a result of its strained relations with Syria and Iran. According to the paper, french military intelligence would believe that the planning of such attacks is already underway. IOW, not a repeat of Lebanon 1, where a french barrack was blown up by a suicide truck.
So France would be strongly tempted to participate only symbolically, but, being for various reasons under a strong pressure to lead the UN force, might cave in if it manages to get its way (or something closer to its wishes) during the current negociations.
Actually, that’s exactly what the French Foreign Legion is doing these days- they’re in Djibouti (nominally independent, but for all intents and purposes a French puppet state), French Polynesia, New Caledonia, French Guyana, etc.
Perhaps it’s a battalion of trebuchet operators who will hurl Renaults and Citroens into Lebanon if Hezbollah forces don’t lay down arms. The onslaught of shitty automobiles would make any civilized man weep with fear.
treis, I’m quoting you, but this isn’t directed personally to you.
I’m sure there have been dozens and dozens of GD threads about the effectiveness of the UN. It’s not my intent to turn this into another debate about the UN.
The quote is along the lines of what a lot of people think of the UN’s effectiveness in sustaining cease-fires. The UN has often done wonderful things in helping basic living conditions for millions of people. But militarily? The track record isn’t exactly proven. If an army is trying to kill you, signing a piece of paper and giving a speech isn’t going to do much. How effective was the rebuke to North Korea? Or Iran?
Taking a seat the the Table of Truce with a pen, and the guy on the other side of the table brings an RPG? Yeah, I’d be a bit skittish, too. When that guy with the RPG readies to sign the paper, meanwhile telling you his life purpose is to kill you anyway, why would you try to do what is needed to play by those rules?
Goddamnit, I’m actually ready to defend the French (for now) over this issue.
It’s official, the terrorists have won. :mad: :smack: :mad: :mad:
I read your post, and went “No cite?” WTF, is he blind? I linked to the Reuters piece right in the OP!
…and then I posted the OP in another thread by mistake…(here)
…and then I cut and pasted that mistaken post into this OP…
…which killed the link. Eureka!
I’m sorry Otto, this link should have been in the OP.
To answer your question, France “may in the future” commit more troops. They are “leaving the posibility open”. They have 1700 other troops in the area which could be “made available” to the UN but would not be put under UN control. And assorted other wishy-washy bullshit. The linked article also notes that Italy has committed 2-3000 troops. I think it’s a piss poor level of support for a cease fire that they were one of the principle brokers of.
I should think the answer to this SHOULD be…none (I have no idea if this is true however). We are a bit strapped atm, wouldn’t you say? In addition, I don’t think US troops in that area would be much of a comfort to the various peoples there…nor much of a calming influence either. Lastly, were I in one of the other national forces being committed to this, the LAST thing I’d want to see is US troops. They will be like huge magnets drawing fire to anyone near.
It would sort of be similar to if Israel committed troops to this UN effort. Think Hezbollah or the Lebanese would like that very much?
While I don’t blame France for its poor committment (and its more than possible this will change as they get pressure from the EU and other places), I have to say that its kind of ironic that France WANTS to put itself forward as a world power (and certainly a major power in the EU)…and then commits such a token force when so much is on the line here. After all, it was the Euro’s mostly who wanted this ceasefire so bad and put mounting pressure on Israel AND the US to get it (well, of course the various powers in the ME ALSO wanted this ceasefire rather badly too).
I have to agree with the assessment though that this great and noble ceasefire foisted on the Israeli’s has every indication of being a potential cluster fuck, and I know that I wouldn’t want to commit large portions of my military to that region given the mandate (and past history of UN peacekeeping operations) and potential for mayhem. Of course, I also wouldn’t have agitated for a ceasefire so long and hard if I wasn’t willing to put my money (and my troops) where my mouth is either…
