August 16, 2007

The Ongoing Futility Of UN Peacekeeping

Last year, the world rushed to expand the UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon as a resolution to the Israeli-Hezbollah war that the terrorists initiated last summer. Of course, the previous UNIFIL force had allowed Hezbollah to arm themselves to the teeth with missiles, rockets, and the entire spectrum of guns, thanks to Syria. Hezbollah forces even dug in next to UNIFIL positions, which UNIFIL never actively opposed, and it resulted in several deaths from an Israeli counterattack.

Now Israel wants better rules of engagement for UNIFIL forces so that they can actually fulfill their mandate of enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which forbids arms to Hezbollah in the region -- and the UN responded with its usual futility:

The UN Security Council will reportedly reject an Israeli request to expand UNIFIL's mandate in southern Lebanon against Hizbullah. An official Security Council vote on the matter is scheduled to take place later Thursday, however, Israeli officials already asked European members of the Council how they intended to vote and they subsequently answered that they were against such a move, Army Radio reported Thursday morning.

Israel wants UNIFIL troops to be granted new rules of engagement against the guerilla group, in which the peacekeeping force would be given the green light to take a more 'proactive' role against Hizbullah and expand its field of operations from open areas to cities and towns. Israel also asked that UNIFIL troops be allowed to open fire against Hizbullah operatives, and not only after they are fired upon.

According to the report, the Security Council will reject the request due to safety concerns for its personnel on the ground in southern Lebanon. The mandate of the 13,600-strong UN peacekeeping force is due to expire at the end of August.

Got that? The UN and the global community demanded that Israel withdraw from the conflict so that they could deploy peacekeepers and enforce 1701 and 1559, both of which demanded an end to arms in southern Lebanon except for regular Lebanese military forces. Israel withdrew -- they hadn't done a very good job of fighting until that point anyway -- and allowed the peacekeepers back into the sub-Litani region. The UN forces then promptly returned to their previous policy of looking askance while Syria re-armed Hezbollah back to pre-war levels.

Israel, under the impression that the UN actually wanted to achieve its stated goals, then asked for ROEs that would accomplish the mission. That would mean that the UN would have to take action against Hezbollah, and probably against Syria as well, by attacking supply routes and destroying weapons emplacements. These were the actions Israel was taking, especially in the last weeks of last summer's engagement, that would have effectively met the stated goals of the UNIFIL deployment.

But the UN doesn't want to do it. Why? Because it would be "too risky" for their personnel. Maybe they should have thought of that before sticking their nose into southern Lebanon in the first place. Instead, the UN has acted as the personal bodyguards of terrorists and the governments that support and arm them. They haven't acted as peacekeepers; they've acted as guarantors of a future, genocidal war against Israel.

Do they recognize this? Of course not. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon want to extend the mandate for another year. Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora wants the same extension. Israel should insist that UNIFIL forces leave immediately. If UNIFIL won't stop terrorists from arming themselves in direct contravention to the UN's own resolutions, then they're worse than useless -- they're malevolent, and should be disbanded.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ongoing Futility Of UN Peacekeeping:

» The UN is uselsss part 5,000,0000,0000 from Stix Blog
Along with all the rapes and Oil For Food scandals that the UN has had over the years, it has always been an Anti-Israel haven for the thugs of the Middle East. The UN had troops in Lebanon last year [Read More]

Comments (5)

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 16, 2007 7:49 AM

Remember as well that the current US mission-the post Saddam mission-is not only authorized by the UN, but it's MANDATED. All those who whine about going against the UN etc had better look carefully and read those post-Saddam resolutions well for the UN requires that the US stay and restore security. To want an immediate withdrawal is to want to blow off the UN.

Posted by MaaddMaaxx | August 16, 2007 8:20 AM

The UN is irredeemably flawed.
At best, a debating society dedicated to the idea that more talk is the solution to any problem. In the Middle it is a socialist breeding ground dedicated to taking money away from cultures dedicated to production and giving it to....whoever whines loudest.
At worst it is a corrupt bureaucracy filled with thieves and worse.
The Dhimmis whine about the money spent in Iraq....How many Billions have we flushed down the toilet that is the UN?

Posted by Carl in Jerusalem | August 16, 2007 8:24 AM

Captain Ed,

I'm surprised at your reaction. This was all foreseeable. Resolution 1701 never required the UN or anyone else to take action against Hezbullah or Syria unless they were asked to do so by the Lebanese army. The Lebanese army is about 50% Shiite and the odds of them 'asking' the UN to take action against Hezbullah are about the same as the odds of hell freezing over.

All of this was obvious to anyone who read Resolution 1701 closely a year ago. Unfortunately, Israel's foreign minister cannot and did not read it. And it's Prime Minister couldn't have cared less what it said as long as it got the troops out of Lebanon.

Please read my response to you - much of which is links to blog posts from last summer and fall. This result was completely foreseeable to anyone who wanted to see it.

Posted by David M | August 16, 2007 10:02 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/16/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 16, 2007 1:25 PM

Actually, the Israelis had done a good job of fighting. Didn't Hezbollah admit that had the fighting gone on for another week, they would have completely run out of supplies and had to surrender?

The Israelis seem to have a problem with casualties, just like we do. The entire country has turned into a bunch of liberals -- even in their army. It's one thing to mourn casualties on the road to victory, and it's totally another to have those casualties cause you to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

They were raised believing that the individual Israeli soldier was invincible, and when a few died, they threw in the towel, so to speak.

Of course, when we here in America point the finger, three point back. Just look at our own liberals, who cry defeat about a level of casualties equivalent to Iwo Jima (which made my grandmother a Gold Star Mother), a single battle in WWII. FDR would have a fit if he saw where his party has gone.

Post a comment