New UN Plan for Lebanon - Who Will Disarm Hezbollah?
Latest UN Proposal
Latest ceasefire proposal does not call for disarming terror group as precondition to ceasefire; according to deal being formulated, IDF will gradually pull out of Lebanon and will be replaced by an international force including 10,000 French troops.............The proposal will call for Hizbullah’s disarmament in accordance with UN Resolution 1559, but this will not be declared a precondition for reaching a ceasefire............
The UN will not disarm Hezbollah:
The international force will be tasked with preventing the smuggling of Katyusha rockets and arms from Syria and Iran to Lebanon, but it will not disarm Hizbullah.
So if the international force will not be disarming Hezbollah, my question is who will? Without that this is simply a buffer force and is not a solution. Does not sound like Hezbollah is on board yet with the UN proposal:
Hizbullah, for its part, announced that it would not abide by any UN Security Council decision that would not call for the withdrawal of IDF troops from Lebanon.
Hezbollah declares victory:
Hezbollah did not wait for the official UN Security Council announcement on a ceasefire and launched its own media campaign declaring it had 'won the war against Israel.' In the latest video aired on Al-Manar TV the terror group says it “defeated the invincible army” and “July-August 2006: Legend shattered.”
The ground offensive is on hold while the UN deal is worked, but more rockets could trigger the launch of the ground offensive:
Meanwhile the prime minister and Defense Minister Amir Peretz instructed the army to put the next phase of its ground operation in south Lebanon on hold to prevent further escalation and after the White House apparently made it clear that such a move would be detrimental to the diplomatic efforts.
However, a source in Jerusalem said “The international community understands that we cannot accept the continued rocket fire on northern Israel.”
Powerline's Paul Mirengoff and several other bloggers are criticizing the Bush Adm for holding the Israelis back. I'll have to strongly disagree with that logic...........The Bush Adm has done a tremendous job giving Israel time (a month) to destroy Hezbollah. The Israeli strategy was not effective and Bush can't be blamed for that.............................................So Bush is responsible for the ineffective Israeli strategy thus far because the US is now holding Israel back at the 11th hour?
As Glenn Reynolds posted: Bush certainly seems to have hit the sweet spot -- prosecuting the war vigorously enough to anger the antiwar left, but not vigorously enough to please the prowar right........................
War Analysis via JPost:
But the political echelon thinks differently, and from the first day of this war the politicians, senior officers said, held the IDF back from escalating its offensive and hitting Hizbullah hard. First it was the massive air campaign. Then came the limited, pinpoint ground raids. Only when all that failed did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet approve a large-scale incursion into Lebanon and the re-creation of the security zone.
This wishy-washy decision-making process cost the IDF lives, according to one senior officer. "A military force always needs to be on the offensive, pushing forward and keeping the enemy on its toes," he said. "When you sit still for too long, you turn into a target and you begin to get hit again and again." ................
Others blogging on this topic:
In any event, Siniora's sudden pickiness about his protectors shows that he hardly sees an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah as his worst possible scenario. France and Lebanon have both achieved incoherence.