Let’s examine the effectiveness of the U.N. plan in Lebanon.
1. Deploy 3,500 troops to the region. Sounds reasonable, right? A bunch of blue helmet U.N. soldiers ought to maintain the peace, right?
The United Nations hopes to begin deploying the first 3,500 troops in a new UN force in Lebanon within two weeks to monitor a fragile truce, providing France provides the backbone for the contingent.
When has France ever provided the backbone for anything? This plan is doomed from this very first step if it depends on the cheese-eating surrender monkeys for a backbone.
2. Actually implement U.N. resolutions.
Once the Lebanese army controls most of the south, the aim it to implement a September 2004 resolution, which calls for the disarmament of all militia, such as Hizbollah.
Better late than never.
3. Actually implement U.N. resolutions. I know it’s the same as number 2, but in order to implement 2 year old resolutions, you need strong leadership willing to actually implement the resolution.
This is to be done by the Lebanese army, assisted by UN troops. But Lebanon’s defence minister Elias al-Murr said the army would not disarm Hizbollah. France’s foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy said his troops would not do it either.
Ahhh, the U.N. at its finest. Maybe after a few weeks of sitting around with their thumbs up their butts they can get mad enough to pass a new resolution (maybe with bigger words and some scary language)… which they won’t try to enforce for at least 2 years… and which they’ll try to enforce by sending in troops from countries that don’t want to enforce it.
Rinse and repeat.