 |
 |
 August 17, 2006
LA MARSEILLAISE....I think Jacques Chirac could fairly be deemed today's Wanker of the Day:
Please. Chirac didn't realize before today that Hezbollah was unlikely to disarm voluntarily and might present a danger to troops that tried to force its hand? Let's summarize: Chirac personally rammed through the ceasefire resolution; insisted that it call for a UN force; did everything he could to imply that France would contribute several thousand combat troops; but in the end is only willing to stand up a 200-man military engineering company. Because Hezbollah might shoot back. And yet he still wants France to command the overall force. Give. Me. A. Break. —Kevin Drum 6:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (143)Comments
Does this mean we are eating Freedom Fries again? Posted by: craigie on August 17, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKAnd exactly why are we supposed to work multilaterally again? Posted by: the real Al on August 17, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKRight and Left, Democrat, Republican and in-between, we can all agree on one thing: Jacque Chirac is a dick. Posted by: frinklin on August 17, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINKNot so fast, Kevin. It was Israel, not France, that insisted on a beefed-up force, and we all know that no alternative organization would do. NATO? A NATO force might as well paint crosses on their armor and call themselves the Crusaders. The concept that Hezbollah, after holding off the Israelis, was going to voluntarily disarm was always laughable. France's contribution was to get the killing to stop. I'm surprised he didn't point to the Sy Hersh article and say "This one, too, is your mess -- you clean it up" to the US. Posted by: Allen K. on August 17, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKRight and Left, Democrat, Republican and in-between, we can all agree on one thing: Jacque Chirac is a dick. Yep. He's a dick. Posted by: Al (The Real One) on August 17, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKJaques Chirac is a dick, but he seems to've contributed to stopping the pointless war. Posted by: David Weman on August 17, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKThe numbers according to this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_mideast_force_8 France: 400 + 1700 troops already in the region. The end goal is 30,000 troops with 4,000 to 5,000 from Europe in the initial wave. Posted by: manyoso on August 17, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKSo, the premise of the post is all wrong? Posted by: David Weman on August 17, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKMore American troops were killed in that 1983 Beruit attack than French. Posted by: Sharon on August 17, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINKShockingly, France is there when it's time to appease terrorists, but is MIA when it's time to flex some muscle. Is there anybody who didn't see that one coming? Anybody? Kevin, you have no right to complain about this; it was so amazingly predictiable. Posted by: American Hawk on August 17, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINKyes, but is it good for France? I would rather have a selfish cowardly foriegn policy that doesnt hurt America than a brave idealistic one that weakens America. Posted by: jimmy on August 17, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKFrance and several other nations are, rather explicitly, holding up substantial commitments to the UN command until decisions are made on rules of engagement; France has also stated that 1,700 other French troops would be available to "assist" the UN operation, but remain under non-UN French command. Israel trying to veto the contributions from Malaysia and Indonesia, who've each offered 1,000 troops, probably hasn't helped, either. Posted by: cmdicely on August 17, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKWhich is more noble: lie for killing to stop or vice versa? Posted by: nut on August 17, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINKMore American troops were killed in that 1983 Beruit attack than French. Yeah, and America has about 200 fewer troops in Unifil now than France has, and as offered about 200 fewer additional troops to the expanded UN mission than France has, too. Despite trying just as hard to claim credit for the cease-fire resolution. Considering that Beruit terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace -- along with D-Day -- we'll call it even, Chris. October 23, 1983 was the bloodiest day in the Corps' history since World War II, when Marines fought to secure Iwo Jima. This fellow who confesses to being there at the death of the little dancing girl may be a plant: aWol & Co. have arranged a series of these cute diversions so that Nancy Grace can take the Great American Public into months of fog that obscure the fall elections. We must watch what happens to him. Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on August 17, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKI'm with nut and Weman on this one. Possibly Chirac, knowing the recalcitrance of the US on stopping the violence, deemed it the only viable way to end the killing, even for awhile. If that's the case, then vive la Machiavellis-for-Peace French. In a world where people lie, cheat and steal for the opportunity to destroy life, what's wrong with doing the same to save it? And in that empty place where no bombs are dropping, maybe someone can have the breathing room to figure out a real solution. Posted by: Riggsveda on August 17, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINKOn a related issue, I notice that Iraq War supporters insist that freedom should be more important to Iraqis than how many of them are being blown up and shot every day. They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats. Posted by: Red on August 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINKGiven that France was the colonial power that (created and) controlled Lebanon after WWI, I'd say the French are wise to avoid that role again. Familiarity breeds contempt. Posted by: Wapiti on August 17, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKI'm with Joe Buck. The Israeli regime tries to force the world to intervene on their behalf by holding hostage and killing Lebanese civilians and the French respond with a diplomatic maneuver. Works for me. Let's let the Lebanese police their territory. Perhaps they can delegate the task to a militia (something quite like our National Guard.) The solution for Israel is to negotiate a settlement and stop forcing their troops into more territory. Posted by: dennisS on August 17, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINKWow, Kevin. I read the WaPo article you linked to along with the Yahoo article linked above and I gotta say you sure did a bang-up job of completely misrepresenting the facts! You might have a big future as a punit in the corporate media after all. Posted by: danno on August 17, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINKKevin sees this one correctly and, at least on this, he does not let Bush hatred twist the situation to an attack on Bush, as some in this thread are doing. Posted by: brian on August 17, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINKdanno wrote: "I read the WaPo article you linked to along with the Yahoo article linked above and I gotta say you sure did a bang-up job of completely misrepresenting the facts!" Well, Kevin has to gratuitously bash the French once in a while to maintain his Sensible Liberal status with his right-wing Republican blogger colleagues. They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats. Too bad that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. It's a perfect description of the disaster that is BushWorld. Posted by: craigie on August 17, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKIf the US gets stuck holding the bag financially and militarily, are we Israel's puppet? Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on August 17, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINKNext thing you know, those French will be planting bugs in the offices of other countries at the U.N. Heck, I wouldn't put it past those lying French to present false evidence of weapons of mass destruction in another country to the U.N. Posted by: cowalker on August 17, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINKRed said: They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats. Red, I hope you don't mind if I use this as a sig. I'll give you credit. Posted by: cowalker on August 17, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINKBut don't we want it to be easy for Israel to go back and keep on destroying Lebanon? I think there's some Flip-Floping going on here(and by here,I mean the trolls on this blog!) Posted by: R.L. on August 17, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINKClassic triangulation, Kevin. I see you haven't lost your touch. But hey, at least we've got you on board with the name-calling. Posted by: Irony Man on August 17, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKsorry , no way any american gets to complain about chirac and foreign policy. His government said Iraq doesn't have WMDS. he was right. His government said Iraq had no link to 9/11. he was right. His government said Iraq would fall apart. He was right. Kevin, stop criticising Chirac and go back to ineffectual bleating about how your government tortures people and isn't it awful. Go back to complaining about your army comitting war crimes.go back to complaining about how your country launches unprovoked attacks on others countries.go back to moaning about how iraq has been reduced to a bloody shambles with the death toll in the hundreds of thousands. Don't criticise chirac , not now not ever. kb: I think D-Day pretty much settled America's account with France for eternity YMMV. Posted by: Sharon on August 17, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINKIt's true, Chirac's passive wienerness has still been more constructive than any of the chest-beating in Washington. Is this where we want to put our resentment. On the other hand, I know you're just sayin'.... Posted by: Kenji on August 17, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKI think D-Day pretty much settled America's account with France for eternity YMMV. Well, it maybe evened up the bill for the American Revolution, but besides that? Posted by: cmdicely on August 17, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKYes, "besides that" -- see Point Du Hoc and the definition of "eternity" -- as I said YMMV. Posted by: Sharon on August 17, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINKsharon, Ah yes the old 'but D-DAY....' line. But why shouldn't the french do what the british want ? After all there were more brits at D-day than americans. Or why shouldn't they do what the russians want, after all without the red army there wouldn't have been a normandy landing. Why is it that the french must do whatever idiotic notion crosses the minds (for want of a better word) of bush,cheney & rumsfeld ? Posted by: kb on August 17, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINKOn the other hand, maybe Chirac noticed GWB's geographically improbable call for the peacekeeping force to seal the border between Lebanon and Syria, and rethought the wisdom of greater French involvement . . . See, e. g.: http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002438.html Posted by: rea on August 17, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKThere weren't more Brits buried here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pointeduhoc1.jpg Posted by: Sharon on August 17, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin, your last paragraph has an eery whiff of the US pre-war madness. Change the countries, change cease-fire to "INVADE!!!" and voila! You've got yourself a War Brat post. I realize what you're saying. I just found it... oddly reminiscent. Posted by: Ripley on August 17, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKkb: [Chirac's] government said Iraq doesn't have WMDS. he was right. No, his government didn't say that. Don't criticise chirac , not now not ever. Chirac is a smelly French turd. "The Machiavellis-for-Peace French" sums it all up, as far as I'm concerned. And don't think the Israelis and Americans didn't know exactly was going on. They wanted a fig leaf to end a war that had backfired, and the French gave it to them. Posted by: Swopa on August 17, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKBut why shouldn't the french do what the british want ? After all there were more brits at D-day than americans. Or why shouldn't they do what the russians want, after all without the red army there wouldn't have been a normandy landing. The French shouldn't necessarily do what any other country wants. But their debt to the U.S. is clearly bigger than their debt to Britain or Russia. We saved all their asses. Posted by: GOP on August 17, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK"There weren't more Brits buried here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pointeduhoc1.jpg" And ? Chirac est tres intelligent. He rammed the ceasefire through with promises and now he has a ceasefire, Lebanon moving troops south to deputize Hezzbollah, and no one wants to go back to fighting. So he engineered a ceasefire that will not be broken because of weariness with the whole god damn stupidity of it all and the Lebanese will take care of matters in their own way which they much prefer. Viva Intelligence. Posted by: yves on August 17, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINKAccepting Kevin's presentation of the facts concerning French troop strength, which seems to be, er, creatively done, we are supposed to villify Chirac because he lied to the US to stop a war? Yeah, what an evil man. As I have said before, we are just another attack on US soil away from moderates like Kevin jumping on the bandwagon to continue GWB's crusade. Kevin is the Sensible Liberal. A Republican's best friend. Posted by: Reprobate on August 17, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINKThanks, Kevin, for a tiny measure of common sense coming out during one of your lucid intervals. Now look at your so-called friends and how they react to blasphemy to the party line, and you'll see why so many of us have gone over to the Dark Side of the Force from the former Democrat Party. Why don't you ask your friends why they would rather focus on the peccedillos of John Bolton rather than try to purge the Augean Stables on Turtle Bay. Trimming the French influence in that body would be a good place to start. Posted by: minion of rove on August 17, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK[Iraquis] are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats. Beauty, Red! Never heard anything on that level from the highly-paid MSM. Posted by: Bob M on August 17, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKWell, despite the Washington Post overplaying of the Le Monde arty, this evenings reporting rather paints a more naunced picture, or rather the French want a well-designed force before blundering in. Rather than whanker, contra M. Drum, they're leveraging their game well. Posted by: The Lounsbury on August 17, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure that Chirac, the cheese-eating surrender monkey, owns a gun. But it has never been fired and only dropped once - when he saw the Germans coming... The snail-eating twit. Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on August 17, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKWell, despite the Washington Post overplaying of the Le Monde arty, this evenings reporting rather paints a more naunced picture, or rather the French want a well-designed force before blundering in. Yeah, but that is written in French, so we know it's all lies. ;) Posted by: Disputo on August 17, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKI keep saying: "Send Iraqi troops". There are so many hundreds of thousands that are trained, and there is no real seucrity problem to speak of. We need to really show the world what a success our Iraq campaign has been, by making them a major player in providing peace in the middle east. Won't anyone stand up for the Neocon Dream anymore? Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on August 17, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK... we are supposed to villify Chirac because he lied to the US to stop a war? We should villify him because he lied to us, yes. Posted by: GOP on August 17, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINKWe should villify him because he lied to us, yes. Glad to see that GOP finally agrees that GWB should be villifed. Now we're getting somewhere. Let's summarize: Chirac …Kevin Drum 6:01 PMThis is one of your more idiotic posts. While others have more ably pointed that out, I would add, that coming from a guy from the only country supplying Israel with the munitions that were used against Lebanonese civilians, you have no credibility to chastise anyone. In fact, France deserves gratitude for efforts to end Israel's attack while Bush was encouraging a broader war. Let's see what your government does in Lebanon besides helping destroy it. From what I see, you and Bush should invite Hezbollah to help you rebuilt New Orleans. World War 11 began when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. … mhr 7:25 PMThe war started in Europe when Adolf Hitler led Nazi-controlled Germany to invade Poland on 1 September 1939. Britain and France responded by declaring war on Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Glad to see that GOP finally agrees that GWB should be villifed. No, I said that Chirac should be villified. If you were better at reading, you might have realized that. Posted by: GOP on August 17, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKKevin, So, the GOP platform consist of the following planks: - Lying to start a war: good. - Lying to stop a war: bad. Good to know where you boys stand. Disputo, No, the GOP platform doesn't even include, let alone consist of, either of those two planks. By the way, why do you think lying either to start or stop a war necessarily wrong? Posted by: GOP on August 17, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINKDisputo: - Lying to start a war: good. - Lying to stop a war: bad. Good to know where you boys stand." Another beauty! Great one, Disputo. Posted by: Bob M on August 17, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINKIn other news, Lieberman has surged to a 12 point lead in the 3-man race for Senate in Connecticut. Posted by: Down goes Frazier on August 17, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINKyves wrote: "Chirac est tres intelligent. He rammed the ceasefire through with promises and now he has a ceasefire, Lebanon moving troops south to deputize Hezzbollah, and no one wants to go back to fighting. So he engineered a ceasefire that will not be broken because of weariness with the whole god damn stupidity of it all and the Lebanese will take care of matters in their own way which they much prefer. Viva Intelligence. Except that Israel is unlikely to react in the way the French want (or perhaps merely hope). If the Israelis become convinced that the peacekeeping and Hezbollah disarmament deal was a fraud, this little past fracas won't be a patch on what comes next. If the Lebanese army becomes complicit in allowing Hezbollah to fully reconstitute their position, then Lebanon becomes equally their enemy. Don't be deceived by Israel's poor showing in the mess of the last month. Though probably with different leadership, one can guarantee that next time the Israelis come it won't be with a mere two brigades on line. It will be more like four or five divisions. And their air force will be unlikely to pull their punches like they did this last time. If the Lebanese assist Hezbollah, it'll be goodbye power net and goodbye water, at the very least. It is not a good idea to trick a belligerent into a ceasefire. It was either meant in good faith or it will considered merely a ruse de guerre. Let us pray it is not so. Posted by: Trashhauler on August 17, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKIf the Israelis become convinced that the peacekeeping and Hezbollah disarmament deal was a fraud, this little past fracas won't be a patch on what comes next. The Israeli pols and military are too busy pointing fingers at each other for responsibility for this fiasco to pay any attention to Hez for awhile. Regardless, as Israel sufficiently displayed this time around, they'll use any provocation to implement plans years-in-the-making to decimate Lebanon. They could decide the ceasefire is a fraud, or they could decide that they don't like the look of Nasrallah's jib. The nature of the pretex is immaterial. "I'm sure that Chirac, the cheese-eating surrender monkey, owns a gun. But it has never been fired and only dropped once - when he saw the Germans coming... The snail-eating twit." Maybe so, but he is a decorated combat veteran. After graduating first in his class in his officer training, Chirac volunteered for duty in the Algerian war and spent two years there. Not as tough as the Texas Air National Guard, I'm sure, but the guy has definitely seen the elephant. Posted by: beowulf on August 17, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINKFrance got the bomb Why should France be disarming Hezbollah in the first place ? Chirac has learned valuable lessons from the Bush administration regarding international diplomacy. Perhaps he's been talking to Dickless Cheney. Posted by: Where's osama on August 17, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINKdisputo wrote: "Regardless, as Israel sufficiently displayed this time around, they'll use any provocation to implement plans years-in-the-making to decimate Lebanon. They could decide the ceasefire is a fraud, or they could decide that they don't like the look of Nasrallah's jib. The nature of the pretext is immaterial." If true, all the more reason why it would be stupid to give them an honest-to-Jahweh, real provocation. I support Disputo's take on this. The source I read, Reuters.UK, had an interesting comment in the last paragraph. France is one of the BIG THREE (US, France, Germany, UK?) who will be pushing for sanctions on Iran in the near future. I doubt that Chirac would be privy to any further measures anticipated, but French intelligence could have stumbled on something recently. I've always felt that Israel's incredibly aggressive response to the capture of two soldiers was just nuts. It really made no sense. I think the US and Israel were assessing the threat from Hezbollah before taking any action in Iran. Posted by: nepeta on August 17, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINKNot only assessing the threat, but trying to diminish it. Posted by: nepeta on August 17, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-804321@51-759824,0.html Maybe some really should read French here. The French are not saying that because Hizbollah doesn't want to disarm they won't send more troops. They say that the UN resolution is not precise about just what the UN forces can do IF Hizbollah doesn't disarm volontarily. A "robust mandate" means UN troops can shoot an Hizbollah guy who doesn't comply, can shoot at any weapon smuggler but also at Israeli troops which break the ceasefire. As long as the mandate is not clear, there is no point in sending thousands of troops like sitting ducks into the region. Posted by: Vanguardia on August 17, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINKKevin, that's not what wanking is. If six months from now Israel and Hezbollah are at eachother's throats again and Chirac is bragging about how awesome his UN force is at keeping the peace, that would be wanking. Posted by: Boronx on August 17, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I believe you are misreading the situation. I don't think it has much to do with nickel and dimming the exact number of soldiers or a pissing context for the commander's hat. France already has 1,700 soldiers of the Baliste operation, stationed in Cyprus and onboard French Navy ships just off the Lebanese shores. Baliste operation = evacuation of foreigners from Lebanon. The operation is winding down and the task force should be available for the UN force. It's actually already working for the UNIFIL's logistics. http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/ema/enjeux_defense/operations_exterieures/liban/informations_generales/liban__operation_baliste./ My guess is that Chirac is pursuing 2 goals : Note : Like most countries, France doesn't deploy significant forces if it doesn't keep full operational control on them. FYI, the US is the most anal of all countries about this principle. The dust-up could have to do with that. Posted by: Fifi on August 17, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK"Classic triangulation, Kevin. I see you haven't lost your touch." Exactly. He's pretty good at it. It's in the TNR job description. But I wonder why the UN troops can't patrol a DMZ twenty miles wide that falls on Israeli territory?....Or ten miles from each side. Posted by: luci on August 17, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINKVanguardia, But the French were the ones who supported a resolution that was more favorable to Hezbollah. Btw, Hesbollah has also criticized Syria's attempt to promote factionalism in Lebanon. Hezbollah has been playing its cards just right so far. nepeta From what I know the French wanted a "robust mandate" which was watered down in the final draft, to be followed by another resolution that would specify the mandate. This hasn't happened yet. But if Hezbollah would never shoot at UN troops anyway, why would we need the UN troops in the first place? What will happen when the first rocket transport from Syria arrives? Basically Israel agreed to the resolution because it knows Hezbolah will never keep its part. And should Hizbollah not start shooting fast enough, the Israelis will go hunting some "leaders". The resolution is a farce both sides agreed upon because they needed some time. Israel wants to show that Hizbollah is the only guilty part, Hizbollah needs to regroup and rearm. Don't kid yourself. That war hasn't really started yet. Posted by: Vanguardia on August 17, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINKAnd yes, Hezbollah will probably melt into the population with arms stashed away. Do you think Israel will tolerate that? You bet they will be coming to "clean the area". Fallujah style Posted by: Vanguardia on August 17, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKWell, Vanguardia, I only can hope that I'm right. With the UN force in place, how are the Israelis going to hunt leaders? I know they've suggested that they'll do that until the UN force arrives, but after that??? Posted by: nepeta on August 17, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINKAnd I don't think Israel can afford to destroy Lebanon yet again, in a global or domestic political sense. They blew it. Posted by: nepeta on August 17, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin STOP THE PRESSES!!! KEVIN DRUM GRUDGINGLY ADMITS THE FRENCH ARE LOSERS!!! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!! LOL. Really Kevin, you're going to have to hand in your lefty credentials. No more brie for you!!! Posted by: egbert on August 18, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINKWhy do you think Olmert wanted German soldiers? Can you imagine a German soldier shooting at an Israeli? Posted by: Vanguardia on August 18, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINKI wasn't aware that Olmert wanted German soldiers. Coming back is easy. It won't be easy with 15,000 UN troops standing at the border and Hezbollah invisible. And as I said above, Israel may have bigger things on it's mind in the coming year, e.g., helping the US strike Iran. Posted by: nepeta on August 18, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINKIn other news, Lieberman has surged to a 12 point lead in the 3-man race for Senate in Connecticut. Considering that the last such poll had Lieberman ahead by 24 points, I wonder how this result can really be called a "surge". I guess that's Joementum for you. Kinda like how the German people knew that they were losing in WW2 because the Nazi radio broadcasts kept telling them that their army's glorious and decisive victories kept happening closer and closer to the Fatherland. Posted by: Irony Man on August 18, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINKHisbollah with longer range missiles will just shoot over UN heads into Israel. And Israel will bomb back. The UN better get out of the way. Posted by: Vanguardia on August 18, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINKI don't know why you think Hezbollah would be so stupid. They've won this round!!! Won more than they could have hoped for. In the years between 2000 and the beginning of the 'war' this year, Hezbollah had done little to hurt Israel. There's no way Hezbollah is going to break the ceasefire. Posted by: nepeta on August 18, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINKSo what do you think did Hizbollah accumulate all those longer range missiles for that can reach Tel Aviv and which it hasn't fired yet? The border between Lebanon and Syria is long and rugged. UN troops will only be stationed in the Southern strip. Who will keep Hisbollah from receiving more missiles from Iran via Syria? Posted by: Vanguardia on August 18, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK"Let's summarize: Chirac personally rammed through the ceasefire resolution; insisted that it call for a UN force; did everything he could to imply that France would contribute several thousand combat troops; but in the end is only willing to stand up a 200-man military engineering company. Because Hezbollah might shoot back. And yet he still wants France to command the overall force."
France's intervention in a war it did not plan nor enable, and its ability to produce a functional cease-fire, has saved countless lives while permitting much needed relief to reach the thousands of Lebanese who defied Israel's call for voluntary ethnic cleansing of the South. Perhaps if Chirac thought Bush had a better grasp on reality (which would involve talking directly to Syria and Iran in order to secure a more lasting peace) then maybe the French might feel better about dumping several thousand troops into a hot zone. And how many troops is the United States commiting to that U.N. peacekeeping force, anyways? Posted by: smedleybutler on August 18, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINKNobody won. Draw in the first round. Posted by: Vanguardia on August 18, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINKThe lot of you appeasing placators can continue to support Hamas and Hez b'Allah if you please. But, yes, I will question your patriotism. Posted by: Birkel on August 18, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINKAnd the lot of right-wing trolls can continue to use such bizzre expressions as "appeasing placators." And we too will raise questions: like, does this guy have a fucking brain? Posted by: smedleybutler on August 18, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKSmedleybutler: Excellent post. I hope we're wrong, but it sure looks like Iran is the way it's 'going down.' Birkel: I am neither a citizen of Israel or Lebanon. How does anything I have to say about this have to do with patriotism??? Posted by: nepeta on August 18, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINKPatriotism is a highly over-valued item these days anyway, as is nationalism. Posted by: nepeta on August 18, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINKBecause Hisbollah attacked the U.S. on 9/11... My head hurts now Posted by: Vanguardia on August 18, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINKBut, yes, I will question your patriotism. And as long as you continue to "not get" the whole point of the US Constitution, I won't question your patriotism. No question about it, you're a traitor. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on August 18, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINKIf you will recall, France stated categorically in the first week it would not send a large peace keeping contingent, and in fact doubted anyone would send a peace keeping contingent - the ambassador even joked that everyone would volunteer to be responsible for the logistics base in Cyprus (the next day, the US publically announce that it would categorically not send troops in a UN Peace Keeping force, but would like to run logistics from cyprus). All of the US proposals calling for a peace keeping force did not include US troops with them. France got peace. It may be temporary, but Hezbollah stopped shooting (having lost a lot of land), and Israel decided letting go of the tiger's tail might be a viable strategy after all. I doubt either side is all that anxious to re-engage. The idea of peace keepers on the border to "disarm" Hezbollah is of course crazy on its face. It was Kabuki. But it did its job. It gave Israel a face saving out. It gave hezbollah the image of a responsible political faction. It stopped the war. I'm sorry thats not good enough for you Kevin. But its more than anyone else was able to do. Posted by: Mysticdog on August 18, 2006 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINKHolbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded | |