US Troops in Lebanon?

No, I don't mean another US invasion in the Middle East. This refers to the possibility of the US making up a sizeable portion of new international peacekeeping force to stabilize and patrol the southern border regions and - I assume - help facilitate the disarming of Hezbollah. (By force? Through an agreement between Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah and the international community? I don't know)

Via Harpers, but because it is easier for people, I will cite the shorter excerpts from Raw Story : (emphasis mine)

"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 fuck?' 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.

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 youre 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.

Why o why must we continue to be led my idiots and chickenhawks who continue to think and treat war and using military force as it means nothing in order to prove their twisted and bogus foreign policy theories. Did they not learn from Iraq what it means not to listen to your military leaders.

As the CIA officer believes, I too believe that such a force would quickly devolve from being a peacekeeping force into a peacemaking force.

You'll never force Hezbollah to disarm because it will fight and the fighting will be fierce. We'll likely see such a force coming under guerilla attacks of the type similar to what US troops are facing in Iraq. The political road is the only road to take; if you can't force them to disarm perhaps at some point they will disarm themselves through negotiations. It may take a while but I don't think it is impossible. I am not saying a peacekeeping force is necesarilly bad, but any multinational force must be there with the aquiesence of Hezbollah, likely after talks.

The fighting has to stop and then there has to be talks for a more lasting peace that involve at least Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel, the US, the UN, and Syria as parties to the talks. If we really want attacks to stop in the future than Syria and Hezbollah MUST be allowed in the negotiations or else it wont work.

Military force is not going to solve this problem and it is foolish to believe a solution will arise solely by force. If it did than Israel would of solved its problems with the Palestinians three-times over.