
Could U.S. Troops End Up in Lebanon?
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources
http://harpers.org/sb-source-bush-admin-lebanon-1153936109.html
There's much discussion of putting a multinational, NATO-led
force in southern Lebanon as part of a ceasefire agreement in
the Israel–Lebanon conflict, but Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, according to a story in the Washington Post, has said that
she does “not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground
forces . . . are expected for that force.” However, a
well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush
Administration is in fact considering exactly such a deployment.
The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while
at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including
England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or
extremely reluctant to participate in an international force.
Given other nations' lack of commitment, any “robust”
force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates
being discussed in the media—would by definition require major
U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and
the United States are currently discussing a large American role
in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top
administration officials, along with senior civilians at the
Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.
The uniformed military, however, is ardently opposed to sending
American soldiers to the region, according to my source. “They
are saying 'What the ...?'” he told me. “Most of our
combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their
way, or coming back. The generals don't like it because we're
already way overstretched.”
Sending American soldiers is at this point simply an option and
by is no means a certainty, but if the administration decides to
move forward, my source said, “It would be viewed in the Arab
world as the United States picking up a combat role on behalf of
Israel.” And as Mahan Abedin, Director of Research at the Centre
for the Study Of Terrorism in London, noted in an email he sent
me yesterday, any deployment of peacekeepers to southern Lebanon
“would require the acquiescence of Hezbollah. There are no
indications [that] this will be forthcoming, not least because
such a force could potentially lay the groundwork for
Hezbollah's disarmament.”
The former CIA officer said that the Bush Administration seems
not to understand Hezbollah's deep roots and broad support among
Lebanon's Shiites, the country's largest single ethnic bloc. “A
U.S. force is going to end up making, not keeping, peace with
Hezbollah. Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re
basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our
soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This
would be a sheer disaster for us.”
The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight
out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the
Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders
suggest, in order to “stabilize” the region. The chances of
success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be
done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment
that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and
worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.
* * *
Note: What is the likely outcome of the current fighting? The
Independent (U.K.) yesterday had a good roundup of the prospects
that's worth a read.
http://harpers.org/sb-source-bush-admin-lebanon-1153936109.html
---------------------------
Abbas Remarks on Israeli Soldier Clarified
Forbes - 1 hour ago
A Palestinian lawmaker and a spokesman for the Hamas military on
Thursday denied that the release of a captured Israeli soldier
in the Gaza Strip could be imminent. Earlier, Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas ...
all 343 related »
==================

RAMALLAH - Senior members of Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party staged an anti-American protest today
outside the main government building here while Abbas met with
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, WND has learned.
The United States was founded on the principles of individual
freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government.
As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect,
individuals have the natural and God-given right to live their
lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful.
It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy, these
inherent and inalienable rights.
http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/index.asp