ForumGarden

I note the following from the Washington post: "BEIRUT, July 24 -- On an unannounced trip to ravaged Beirut, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outlined a plan Monday to deploy an international force, possibly led by NATO, in a buffer zone just inside Lebanon for 60 to 90 days, after which it would expand its mission to help the Lebanese army"

and the comment in the NY Times: "No Troop Commitments for Lebanon By ELAINE SCIOLINO and STEVEN ERLANGER Support is building for an international military force in southern Lebanon, but there are concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel.

together with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's visit to the White House today.

The simple - obvious - solution is to invite the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy a US-trained de-Baathified Iraqi Division in Lebanon at his soonest convenience. Who could doubt such good intentions? Who could say no?

Who could believe you're serious?

To whom do the US-trained de-Baathified Iraqi Divisions owe loyalty?

How could a Lebanese government object, given the dire straits they find themselves in this week?

How could the Israelis mind?

Where's the problem?

All I can say about the current situation in the middle east is that I get a really bad feeling about it.

I have a horrible feeling that it is like a giant powder keg that is about to explode: I feel that the effects are going to be very far reaching and that we are all going to get dragged into a protracted and bloody war.:(

woppy71 wrote: I feel that the effects are going to be very far reaching and that we are all going to get dragged into a protracted and bloody war.:(Surely that can only happen if our country becomes involved.

ArnoldLayne wrote: Spot, do you honestly think, even an American trained Iraqi military presence could be completely neutral ?In a country containing nothing but Muslims, Christians and Humanists? Totally. What reason have you to think they might not be? Who could fear them? The problem the NY Times highlighted was "Support is building for an international military force in southern Lebanon, but there are concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel". This suggestion, in my opinion, caters for that while not upsetting any other interested party.

ArnoldLayne wrote: Well its a country that also contains a very large faction of Isreali-hating terrorists. Hezbollah, I'm sure would use the Muslim forces form Iraq as an umbrella to reinforce and expand. I can envisage complicity on the part of such forcesFirstly I think that's unfounded speculation with regard to a professionally-trained body of men, then. Secondly Hezbollah is supported by Iran, not the most natural of allies for an Iraqi Division. Thirdly anything that cements the Amity of Nations can't be all bad. Fourthly any internationally recognized force that's inserted into Southern Lebanon can obviously not be associated with the Coalition of the Willing which stormed Iraq earlier this decade, it's very unpopular and would be much resented by the locals. Fifthly the force inserted obviously has no mandate for, for example, hot-pursuit of suspects over the Israeli border (since such an event might be misinterpreted). As a buffer force it sounds ideal. The proof of its effectiveness would be the cessation of rocket attacks from Lebanese soil, which (in my opinion) would be instant and total, and would stay that way for the duration of their presence there. That's just my opinion, you understand.

I don't think you could raise even an understrength Division of US-trained Shiite Iraqi troops, whereas I do think you could raise several Divisions of US-trained Sunni Iraqi troops. As to which flavour is kicking hell out of whom in Iraq this week and under whose orders, that I don't know. I wouldn't want to play pinochle against a table-full of either, not even if they brought the beer.