Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The World of Order
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, July 23, 2006

Thomas Friedman, whose wisdom is usually locked behind the TimeSelect wall, is out and about in the Deseret News. And he has a plan for peace in the Mideast.
Even though it had members in the national cabinet, Hezbollah built up a state-within-a state in Lebanon and then insisted on the right to launch its own attack on Israel that exposed the entire Lebanese nation to retaliation. Moreover, unprovoked, it violated an international border with Israel that was sanctified by the United Nations.

So this is not just another Arab-Israeli war. It is about some of the most basic foundations of the international order — borders and sovereignty — and the erosion of those foundations would spell disaster for the quality of life all across the globe.

Lebanon, alas, has not been able to produce the internal coherence to control Hezbollah and is not likely to soon. The only way this war is going to come to some stable conclusion anytime soon is if The World of Order — and I don't just mean "the West," but countries like Russia, China, India, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too — puts together an international force that can escort the Lebanese army to the Israeli border and remain on hand to protect it against Hezbollah.

I am not talking about a U.N. peacekeeping force. I am talking about an international force, like the one that liberated Kosovo, with robust rules of engagement, heavy weapons and troops from countries like France, Russia, India and China that Iran and its proxies will not want to fight.
And then, when we're done with that, we band together to ensure that everyone in the world has a fluffy bunny or a fuzzy kitty.

*Sigh*

If The World of Order was willing to do the dirty work necessary to extend that order to barbarous states, there wouldn't be any barbarous states.

Sadly, most of the states of Western Europe have deluded themselves into believing that "dialog" can always accomplish the ends they seek, making military power irrelevant. And Russia and China are too busy making money off of the barbarians to feel any particular need to put them down.

Friedman writes as if the main problem is that the Bush Administration just doesn't make the effort. If only we would try:
Bush and Condoleezza Rice need to realize that Syria on its own is not going to press Hezbollah — in Bush's immortal words — to just "stop doing this s—-." The Bush team needs to convene a coalition of The World of Order. If it won't, it should let others more capable do the job. We could start with the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, whose talents could be used for more than just tsunami relief.
The trouble is that Mr. Friedman's proposed solution assumes that The World of Order is interested in being mobilized. If they aren't then the considerable talents of Messrs. Bush and Clinton will simply be wasted. It also forgets that much of Messrs. Bush and Clinton's successes in building coalitions were due to the unique circumstances under which the coalitions were formed.

In Mr. Bush's case, Iraq had actually invaded and occupied Kuwait, a clear case of armed aggression—and aggression that concerned a state, Kuwait, from which Europe imported a substantial portion of its oil. even the French—although not, it is important to point out, the Russians, who were not helpful—realized that military action was in their interests. Similarly, Arab states who felt themselves threatened by Iraq were also keen to help.

In Mr Clinton's case, the disintegration of Yugoslavia had been one of Europe's chief concerns for nearly a decade. Although they had not been particularly competent at addressing it. And, again, the Russians were not helpful, jumping in on the side of the Slavs, limiting, in many ways, our military options.

It's true that in both cases, American political will forged a coalition. But in both cases, there were direct interests involved on the part of Europeans that induced them to join the coalition.

And, of course, in both cases, Russia and China were not helpful.

So, it is an open question whether the Bush Administration's preference for unilateral action—the large number of nations that participated in the multinational force in Iraq notwithstanding—is due to mule-headedness on the part of George W. Bush, or a clear-headed recognition that help from Western Europe, Russia, and China will not be forthcoming.

It might be nice to think that the Euros, Russians, and Chinese would, if we asked nicely enough, join us in extending the world of Order to the Mideast. It would also be nice to think that wolves would groom defenseless little lambs with their soft, warm tongues.

Both propositions are about equally as likely.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
For once I agree - I see no reason at all why John Doe from Ohio or Deepak Patel from Bombay should put themselves in the firing line to stop Israel and Hezbollah from going at it..a sad state of affairs indeed for those Lebanese who did not support Hezbollah’s actions.
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://blewog.blogspot.com
In Mr Clinton’s case, the disintegration of Yugoslavia had been one of Europe’s chief concerns for nearly a decade.

Mr. Friedman seems to have forgotten that President Clinton was UNABLE TO gain the backing of the UN Security Council for the use of force in Yugoslavia. Clinton used NATO in order to get around the UN.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
For years the US has tried to stop the EU from building it’s own defense force. It prefers the EU to work via Nato, which is US dominated. In practice that means that the US leads the Nato and it is much harder to get things done without them initiating and supporting it.

Kosovo was a wake up call for many european countries who were opposed to a European Defense Force and we are slowly moving there.

Until it is build (and that will take time) Europe is shattered, military. Only a few countries can have an impact and none of those as much as the US - and a lot of them have troops deployed elsewhere. France has about 60.000 troops worldwide, half of them in international peacekeeping missions. Germany has a number of troops in Afghanistan and is rather shy to start supporting invasions - understandably so with their history. The UK has contributed significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan. All other countries can only offer small forces.

How adequate a UN force can function depends on the mandate - and on the money necessary to fund them. Most UN troops come from poorer countries (I think Bangladesh is the number 1 provider) and the richer countries pay for the material and the salaries and provide training (Except the US, who hasn’t paid its full contribution in years).

So any UN force has to be funded by an institution that allready doesn’t have enough funding, and has to have a very clear mandate to use violence to ALL perpetrators. Somehow I don’t think the US will suddenly pay up to station UN troops there - and approving a mandate that might make the forces shoot Israeli’s seems even more unlikely.
 
Written By: dutchmarbel
URL: http://marbel.info/blog/
Dutchmarbel... Europe’s impotence is self-inflicted. The EU population is higher than the uS’ and the combined GNP is GREATER than the US’. But after 1991 Europe decided that it would reduce it’s defense expenditures to below 2% national GNP and await the coming of the UN-Sponsored Fuzzy Buunies and Unicorns. This is compounded by Europe’s politicians and defense concerns. Right now Europe is busy marketing THREE "european" fighters, the Gripen, the Eurofighter and Rafael. Anyone of them could compete with the F-35 and the F/A-18, but no country/consortium is going to give up its jobs so instead of ONE really good fighter Europe produces three OK fighters that cost a LOT for the performance you get.

Europe’s defense problems have NOTHING to do with the US and its machinations re: NATO. Europe simply won’t spend it’s cash and spend it wisely. The result is a diluted defense effort.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Europe’s defense problems have NOTHING to do with the US and its machinations re: NATO.
Except that having American and British forces comprising the majority of NATO’s ready forces and committed to their defense has allowed the rest of Europe to forego maintaining its own military capabilities. Self inflicted impotence indeed.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
To be fair Pablo, IF Poland attacks the Bundes Republik the Bundeswehr is strong enough to defeat them. AND France’s forces are recuperating from the "bow wave" of the LeClerc, Rafael, and Charles De Gaulle acquisition and beginning to foucs on training and sustaining the force, rather than acquiring the force. Still Europe’s efforts are dvidied and under-funded.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dale,

Boy, are you and I on the same page. I hear from all corners for US leadership on this (and needless to say that seems to mean stopping the fighting, not other options) without any admission of what that means, which is our troops. Even in the first gulf war the rest of the world followed along and gave token help (except for the Arab states who paid for it.) There was a rhetorical difference, but Iraq and Afghanistan have in some ways received more help from Europe than last time. That was also a war where the Europeans made sure their commitment was short, this will not be.

A similar point could be made about the Balkans. US leadership means us and mostly us. So does unilateral action, which, as in this adminstrations previous conflicts, means you get pretty much everyone who would have helped anyway and just forego UN sanction.

I also think it is odd, that an adminstration which is said to be so glaringly incompetent, needs to be the leader. Despite the mans many faults, Bush is the one who needs to lead. We are led by the deluded simpleton, but there are obviously no leaders available around the world to work this out. What does that say for the rest of the world and its leadership? I’ll take this as a reminder of why Bush does some of what he does.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
(Except the US, who hasn’t paid its full contribution in years).
Snort snort....yeah, we’ve never contributed properly to the UN have we, bunch of dang cheapskates, that’s what we are.

Hey, who got the bill for the US military portion when the UN drove Iraq out of Kuwait anyway? France? Belgium? Holland? Oh, ah, right, must have been Iceland that paid the tab for US/UN forces that time.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey, who got the bill for the US military portion when the UN drove Iraq out of Kuwait anyway?
Uh, well, actually, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did. And Iraq, of course.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"The world of order"? Sounds suspiciously like "The White Man’s Burden" to me. Or is it the New World Order? It’s so confusing keeping track of these things.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Uh, well, actually, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did. And Iraq, of course.
Japan actually coughed up an enormous wad of cash, IIRC, and did so without a dog in the fight.
What does that say for the rest of the world and its leadership?
And for their insistence that we deal with North Korea?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
And the US didn’t pay any of it? (I’m resisting a Churchill quote)

Apologies -
I should have made my point more precise and not implied that we paid for it all ourselves.
I did try to resist the urge to note we always get at good portion of bill though (obviously I failed!)

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Apropo however to Dale’s observations & posts about Googling ’first’

From CNN -

The Cost
The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Query however - is my understanding correct in that a good portion of our UN arrears assessments in prior years have been largely offset by ’credits’ we have earned deploying our troops as UN peacekeepers for UN mandated operations?

Am I wrong in understanding that our credits are a reflection of our ’bill’ to the UN for the monetary cost of deploying our military forces in places like Somalia, Kosovo, etc.

Which, if correct, to me makes it a shell game, where we spend the money, we give the UN the bill, and they forgive our portion of our assessments for the next year by telling us we don’t have to pay them just so they can pay us back.
(and I do see that we are still ’in arrears’ of our assessement despite credits applied for past and ongoing mandated efforts).

If not correct, well....then we’re just deadbeats after all aren’t we?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

"The world of order"? Sounds suspiciously like "The White Man’s Burden" to me. Or is it the New World Order? It’s so confusing keeping track of these things.
I find it a little uncomfortably reminiscent of Dar al Islam as opposed to Dar al Harb, the realm of war.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
I am not talking about a U.N. peacekeeping force. I am talking about an international force, like the one that liberated Kosovo, with robust rules of engagement, heavy weapons and troops from countries like France, Russia, India and China that Iran and its proxies will not want to fight.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for this international force to occupy and demilitarise Isreal?
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Wouldn’t it make more sense for this international force to occupy and demilitarise Isreal?

Of course Phoney Roman, after all it’s ISREAL that refuses to ackowlege it’s neighbor’s existence... Get real.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dale -
The trouble is that Mr. Friedman’s proposed solution assumes that The World of Order is interested in being mobilized. If they aren’t then the considerable talents of Messrs. Bush and Clinton will simply be wasted. It also forgets that much of Messrs. Bush and Clinton’s successes in building coalitions were due to the unique circumstances under which the coalitions were formed.
When you go on to describe the unique circumstances that paved the way to Bush I and Clinton building Coalitions, I don’t see any uniqueness compared to the present threat to the nations existing in the World of Order from radical Islam & WMD proliferation & disruption of trade. The difference appears to be both Clinton and Bush I had people constantly working with others to get a consensus - not publicly saying to them we "handcuff ourselves" if we stoop to work with allies like them, that we have the almighty JDAM and unlimited credit with our Chinese, Japanese, and Saudi moneylenders so we don’t really need them, and besides....we refuse to talk to our enemies. Cuba, N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Syria, Pakistan, India due to it’s nukes, France, Venezuela, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria - during the Peak Period of neocon arrogance 2001-2004 - except Pakistan...as they were needed..

So other nations reasonably concluded that the Bushies were not much interested in coalitions unless they were to serve as cheerleaders or auxiliary troops - with the exception of Australia and the UK, which had already committed to Clinton to be in the Iraq coalition.

Bush I was man enough to say he talked to Reagan, Nixon, and a few Democratic "statesmen" frequently on Major issues. Clinton added Bush I, Bob Dole to his speed dial and talked with Nixon and Reagan for advice until each were gone.

Until things began going badly and unraveling in 2004, Bush had not tried much multilateralism. Now he’s changed with N Korea and Iran talks, but the damage to America’s image as a team player after the Neocons who wheedled their way into policy-making power and talked up the New Rome, the New Empire, was extensive.

And Bush II, the Decider, used to brag he rarely if ever sought advice from Clinton or even his Dad, who he said he stayed away from Presidential matters and limited chat to "family stuff" between him and Pappy - to better keep his own counsel as President as he worked with Uncle Dick, Harriet Miers, Condi, and Rummy.

Maybe he has learned. As of now, his own future "urgent" phone calls seeking advice from the White House once he leaves office - might be as frequent as Jimmy Carters have been since 1981.

I believe that either or both Bush I and Clinton would be excellent emissaries to work the countries around but not in the ME 1st, then bring in the ME Parties.

Bush II is a little too religious and a little too enamored of his "Special Nation of Friends" located where the Rapture will start, for me to have much confidence in. Bush I and Clinton both understand "I’ll do whatever I can to support what Israel wants" - is not a satisfactory way to protect America’s vital interests or forge a coalition that would best protect our and a dozen or so other nations vital interests.

Dale Franks -
Hey, who got the bill for the US military portion when the UN drove Iraq out of Kuwait anyway?
Uh, well, actually, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did. And Iraq, of course.
Don’t forget Japan’s huge financial contribution, even Frances. Supposedly, the final accounting showed America made a slight profit (8-12 billion) in the global financing we got for the Gulf War, even after we had paid off Israel with an extra 2 billion in aid and 10 billion in loan guarantees - in order to keep them out of the War and thus avoid collapsing the Coalition. The big payoff was the stability and low price of Oil, which greatly aided America and the Global economy from 1991 to 2003, when Iraq and the wealthy speculators began driving up oil prices. For Clinton, and Bush until things got screwed up - the low cost of oil and its security was a 300 billion economic gift from Bush I.

 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Wouldn’t it make more sense for this international force to occupy and demilitarise Isreal?
Right. Leave the terrorist organization intact in a state that purportedly would rather have it’s sovereignty back from them, and instead invade and disarm a soveriegn UN member nation.

Uh huh. Makes lots of sense. Allahu akbar, brother!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Y’all hit it out of the park on the easy one, so let’s try it a little more lucidly:

What would this proposed multinational force do if Hizballah fired more rockets at Israel, yet without directly confronting the multinational force? Find them and blow them up?

What would the same multinational force do is Israel decided to take out Nasrallah, six months down the road?

Anyone really think they’d do the same thing in both cases?

So would it be a neutral cease-fire enforcing- group, or an anti-Hezbollah hit squad? Trust me, the locals will be asking this question.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Wouldn’t it make more sense for this international force to occupy and demilitarise Isreal?

Aside from the awe-inspiring stupidity of this statement as a whole (which others have already taken you to task for) ...

Ye gods, can NONE of you lefties spell ’Israel?’ It’s Israel. I-S-R-A-E-L. Go write it 100 times on the blackboard.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
So would it be a neutral cease-fire enforcing- group, or an anti-Hezbollah hit squad?

One and the same.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
So would it be a neutral cease-fire enforcing- group, or an anti-Hezbollah hit squad?
Its job would be to keep the neutral zone clear of both sides at all times. That would mean it would be a anti whoever ends up in areas they shouldn’t be.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Its job would be to keep the neutral zone clear of both sides at all times. That would mean it would be a anti whoever ends up in areas they should
n’t be.

Yep, realistically since that won’t usually be the IDF.....

But I’m sure whoever suggested that such a force would largely interfere with Ebola, errrr... Hezbollah, really understood that.

For all the worldly condemnation the stories about Israel taking action are usually based on the action being a response to some action Hezbollah or Hamas have already taken themselves. I can’t recall recently reading that Israel launched an unprovoked artillery barrage on Gaza. And I don’t recall any date in the course of this last year prior to Hezbollah’s attack/kidnap where the IDF attacked any of Lebannon’s infrastructure.

From Hamas and Hezbollah on the other hand, too numerous to cite.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Yep, realistically since that won’t usually be the IDF.....
Exactly. So it would most likely become a de facto Hezbollah hunting club. But that would be because of what Hezbollah did, not Israel.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ye gods, can NONE of you lefties spell ’Israel?’ It’s Israel. I-S-R-A-E-L. Go write it 100 times on the blackboard.

1. The J-E-W-S
2. The Joooooooooooos
3. Neo-Con’s
4. Fascists
5. Crusader State
6. Zionist Entity
7. Neo-Colonial Outpost
8. Apartheid State

Achillea, I’m trying but everytime it comes out different....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
One and the same.

Then you’re screwed. It might be possible to find European and/or Arab troops if the mission is the first of these two possibilities. If it’s the second of these two possibilities, or if they’re, of course, the same, then you are unlikely to find any takers.

And GWB’s masterfully smart over-loaded proposals for this force, like sealing the Syrian border, not even directly related to the conflict, will guarantee, maybe already has that these two separate purposes are conflated. Therefore, the idea, I expect, is most likely DOA.

Of course, if the ceasefire squad started out neutral, and then Hizballah started sending school buses filled with explosives after them, that would be unacceptable and probably have to be dealt with militarily. But you can’t game that outcome from the start and openly rub your hands at the prospect, and then expect that the world will react the same as if it just happened that way.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
looker,

Israel has been blowing up people it doesn’t like in Lebanon since 2000, based on perceived threats, just as Syria has. They don’t brag about it in communiques released to the western media about it, of course. And the unconscious filter does the rest.

Moving onto the Palestinian territories, I’m not the first one to point out that between 2002 and 2006, every time it seemed that a brief cease-fire had taken hold, the IDF would go and drop a bomb on an apartment building in Gaza.

I’m sure these are irritating points to stick in your narrative, but I’m not calling any names or drawing conclusions about who is "really" the "defender" and who is the "agressor". Just adding facts to a selective picture, although one that can be arrived at honestly, given... you guessed it, MSM bias.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
But you can’t game that outcome from the start and openly rub your hands at the prospect, and then expect that the world will react the same as if it just happened that way.

I must say, expecting ’the world’ to devolve into denial and wild-a** conspiracy theories rather than admitting we told them so makes ’the world’ look extremely childish.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider