Wimps

The way this whole UN peacekeeping force thing has played out really ticks me off.

I have lost all patience with Europe. I should be more specific -- I mean Old Europe, not the British, but much of Old Europe.

Some European countries are so quick to whine and make demands, yet they routinely fail to contribute and bear responsibility.

They are like spoiled, bratty children. They expect to get their way and have everything taken care of for them. They are unfairly critical and ungrateful.

I'm sick of those European countries trying to weasel out of sharing the burden of managing the world's problems with us.

Yes, at present, the United States is the sole superpower; but that doesn't mean that Europe should be able to just sit back while we do all the work.

From The Washington Post:

BRUSSELS, Aug. 25 -- European countries agreed Friday to provide about half the troops for a new 15,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, with a significant contingent expected to arrive within a week, officials announced after an emergency meeting here.

"Europe is providing the backbone of the force," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told reporters after the session with European foreign ministers. "We can now begin to put together a credible force."

The commitments from reluctant European governments followed nearly two weeks of intense prodding and pleading by Annan. There have been concerns that the tenuous cease-fire between Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and Israel could unravel without the rapid intervention of an international peacekeeping force.

The majority of the European troops will be supplied by Italy, which has offered as many as 3,000 soldiers, and France, which Thursday promised a total of 2,000. An advance group of about 185 French troops, from engineering units, arrived in Lebanon on Friday, joining a small group already in the country.

The French demanded a ceasefire. They promised to lead the peacekeeping force, and then they reneged on that promise.

They may have been pressured into agreeing to send two thousand soldiers, but I'll believe it when I see it.

It should not have taken "two weeks of intense prodding and pleading by Annan" to get the European governments to step up.

Even with the total European commitment of between 5,600 and 6,900 troops, Annan conceded that major obstacles remain for deploying the international force alongside Lebanese army units in southern Lebanon and Israeli units on the border.

Annan, who is eager to include Muslims in the peacekeeping force, said he is prepared to accept offers of troops from predominantly Muslim Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, despite insistence from Israel that it will not accept the presence of peacekeepers from the three countries, which do not recognize the Jewish state.

The U.N. leader said that in light of the "struggle" in obtaining troop commitments from European countries, he could not afford to turn down governments that were willing to fill the remaining ranks of the planned force.

"We will take the best peacekeepers where we can find them," Annan said. "We don't have pools sitting in barracks you can choose and pick from."

No kidding. There are no "pools sitting in barracks."

So why does Annan act like he is the commander-in-chief and has the power to call the shots?

Obviously, Europe was making a fool out of Annan by refusing to commit troops to the UN force.

He said all three countries' armies had extensive experience in international peacekeeping missions, and that those forces could be deployed in areas where they would not come into contact with Israeli soldiers. Annan also said he is discussing troop deployments with Turkey, a Muslim nation and member of the NATO alliance. Turkey has diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

Annan is clueless.

It's not unreasonable for Israel to be uncomfortable with so much of the peacekeeping force being made up of troops from hostile countries.

Why are these Muslim nations so willing to serve as peacekeepers anyway?

I question their motives.

The French, who Annan said will lead the force until next February, have openly disagreed with the U.N. chief on the proper size of the force.

French President Jacques Chirac said at a Paris news conference Friday that he believes 15,000 troops is "a totally excessive figure" because of the relatively small patch of territory where soldiers will operate, suggesting instead a maximum of 6,000 troops.

"How can we have 15,000 Lebanese troops being deployed as well as 15,000 UNIFIL forces?" Chirac said, referring to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. "I'm not sure there's room for both."

Chirac doesn't know what an appropriate number of forces would be. How could he possibly know?

It's really disgusting that Chirac had to be shamed into fulfilling France's obligation.

He's a disgrace.

...In addition to Italy and France, Spain has offered about 1,000 troops, and Poland said it will send 500. Finland, Denmark, Germany, Hungary and Greece each have promised small numbers of personnel.

Approximately 2,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops are in southern Lebanon and along the Israeli border as part of UNIFIL, which was created in 1978.

The United States and Britain have refused to provide ground troops, saying theirs are already overtaxed in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has said the U.S. military will provide communications, logistics and intelligence assistance.

It would be insane for the U.S. and Britain to take the lead militarily in southern Lebanon.

If the terrorist-appeasing UN wants a peacekeeping force there, let the terrorist-appeasing nations man it. They demanded a ceasefire; now they can try to maintain it.

...Chirac on Friday continued to defend the delay in his decision to make a significant contribution to the peacekeeping force. While France was instrumental in writing the U.N. cease-fire resolution and initially said it would send 2,000 troops to southern Lebanon, Chirac drew domestic and international criticism when he then offered only about 400 soldiers.

"It would have been utterly irresponsible to take a decision that would jeopardize the lives of French troops without having the guarantee that they would be deployed under optimal conditions from the point of view of their safety," Chirac told reporters during a joint appearance at the Elysee Palace with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "I don't know how I would have been judged if I had decided irrationally without thinking about a minimum of guarantees."

Blah, blah, blah.

Chirac can't be trusted. He's utterly irresponsible.

Does he realize that this ceasefire is a sham? Is that why he doesn't want to commit troops?

Is he afraid of sending French troops into a war zone?

..."Troops are not going in there to disarm -- let's be clear," [Annan] said. "Disarming Hezbollah cannot be done by force. It has to be political agreements among the Lebanese."

Annan wants to be clear. I want to be honest.

There is no political agreement that will get Hezbollah to disarm.

I don't like being a pessimist, but I have to be a realist.

This ceasefire is doomed.