UNIFailure

The Lebanese have stated that they won't be disarming Hezbollah, and now the head of UNIFIL states that they won't be doing the job either.

The French commander of UNIFIL, Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini, said Tuesday that his peacekeeping force will not attempt to disarm Hizbullah. Dealing with Hizbullah, Pellegrini said, was an internal Lebanese matter, and the 15,000 UN troops to be deployed under his command would not get involved. It was up to Lebanon, he said, to deploy its army in the south and deal with the Hizbullah presence.

Another beautiful round pound brought to you by the UN.

Here's the statement from the Lebanese cabinet:

The Lebanese Cabinet agreed to the UN resolution on Saturday, but Mr. Murr explained that his job is not disarmament, but rather to "ensure the security of the [Islamic] Resistance and citizens, to protect the victory of the Resistance."

The Islamic Resistance is the armed wing of Hezbollah. London's al-Hayat newspaper reported yesterday that the Lebanese government is considering allowing fighters to keep their weapons in the southern border zone in violation of the UN resolution.

The US has assumed a huge responsibility in this. They pushed hard for the cease fire resolution with nothing in the chapter 7 requirement for forcing Hezbollah to disarm. Now the UN idiots are saying it's not their job. How convenient.

Then there is the French. Stepping right up and meeting expectations.

Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French Foreign Minister, warned yesterday that France, which is expected to contribute 4,000 troops and lead the UN mission, will stay out of Lebanon until it receives guarantees Hezbollah has disarmed. He is expected to discuss the issue at meetings with the Lebanese government in Beirut today. Similarly, both the United States, which does not plan to send troops to Lebanon, and Major-General Alain Pellegrini, the French commander of UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force currently on the ground, said it is up to the Lebanese government to strip Hezbollah of its weapons.

Could one take the view that they have surrendered prior to the engagement? What good is their participation if they are going to require disarmament first? They were supposed to be going there to ensure diarmament.

"It is Lebanon that is responsible for determining its own future in this regard," David Welch, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, told reporters in Washington yesterday. "By passing this resolution 15-0, unanimously in the Security Council, the world's voice has been made crystal clear."

That is interesting. How should Israel, not to mention the rest of the responsible world, view Lebanon's actions? By refusing to disarm Hezbollah aren't they in fact institutionalizing their support for a terrorist organization? This strikes me as a clear indicator that next time Israel will be fully justified in an all out invasion. Not that they will do it since it would just turn into the mess that they previously experienced. It should tell Lebanon that whenever there is a rocket fired into Israel, they will react with overwhelming force, and UNIFIL should realize that they aren't safe from collateral damage.

A senior UN official told the BBC the world body is aiming to get an advance force of up to 3,500 troops into Lebanon within two weeks. Lebanon plans to start moving 15,000 of its own soldiers into the southern part of the country this week, and Israel said it could pull out of Lebanon within 10 days. But Maj.-Gen. Pellegrini told France's Le Monde newspaper yesterday that it could take up to one year to get the full force in place in southern Lebanon. Sean McCormack, a U.S. State Department spokesman, said the force needs to be deployed "on a much more urgent basis than that."

A full year? Well, there is a new definition of the UN fast-reaction force. Or maybe the think that a half-assed upgrade of a half-assed force isn't half-assed?