Proliferation Press

A webpage devoted to tracking and analyzing current events related to the proliferation of WMD/CBRN.

Archive for March 2nd, 2007

The Troubled Reconstruction Effort in Lebanon

Posted by K.E. White on March 2, 2007

Political tensions in Lebanon continue to slow down construction and are hampering efforts to rebuild the country.

Despite billions of dollars worth of investment being ploughed into the country’s real estate sector before the 34-day bombardment by Israel last July, no new contracts have been awarded since the war, and work that was underway has been slow to progress.

Switzerland plans to reduce its relief activities in Lebanon, after successfully completing aid operations in the region.

But experts warn that cluster bombs could jeopardise the return of refugees to their homes in the south.

 The top Swiss foreign ministry aid official says he’s very pleased with the result of a humanitarian mission in the wake of last year’s conflict in Lebanon…

The water supply system was restored for about 8,000 people and Switzerland sponsored five medical containers to ensure access to treatment….

Lebanon‘s national de-mining office told Frisch that over a 100-square-kilometre area in the south there are hundreds of thousands of unexploded devices – in all more than one million in the south of the country.

It will take them several years to clear them all.

“It is a serious problem, as people cannot work their land, there are cluster bombs in olive trees, children get hurt and handicapped playing on playgrounds,” Frisch warned.

Over one million refugees originally fled their homes but 80 per cent have returned to their badly damaged houses in the meantime, according to officials.

The diplomatic ballet of comings and goings by Lebanon’s political leaders to Washington lends one to presume that the Bush administration is suddenly becoming more interested, and possibly more concerned, by the precarious situation in Lebanon.During the past few weeks Amine Gemayel, a former president and member of the influential Gemayel family and one of the keystone Christian clans in the country was accorded a 30-minute audience with President George W. Bush and several of his top foreign policy advisers. Then just last week Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze community and member of the March 14 pro-democracy movement, was also received by the president at the White House.

The question is what exactly can Washington do to support the legitimate government in Beirut and alleviate some of the pressures imposed by Hezbollah on the Lebanese government?

When U.S. State Department officials put the question to a group of visiting Lebanese politicians during an impromptu meeting in Washington last week, no one was able to come up with a comprehensive answer.

Someone said sanctions. We tried those in Iraq, remember? That did not seem to have done much good other than to help garner greater dislike of Americans and help make Saddam richer.

Maybe diplomacy rather than strong-arm tactics is the answer. Maybe something will come out of the new diplomatic campaign aimed at bringing Iran and Syria to a “meeting of neighbors” to discuss Iraq’s future, a meeting the U.S. has agreed to attend. For the sake of the Lebanese, let Lebanon not become the sacrificial lamb of Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Are you at an impasse now?

The country is at an impasse, yes. But that doesn’t mean our government is not constitutional. It is working, but not with full efficiency. If I didn’t have the support of the parliament or the population, I wouldn’t stay in my position one second. I am a man of principles, not a man looking for positions. It is my duty to continue extending a hand to them [the opposition]. They have to be swayed to our side. We are a government defending democracy, independence, and we are unique in this part of the world in terms of moderation, openness, toleration. This country has a high degree of perseverance, ingenuity and creativity.

Posted in Bush administration, Claude Salhani, Lebanon | Leave a Comment »

Switzerland Finally Goes to War…with Liechtenstein?

Posted by K.E. White on March 2, 2007

From the Associated Press:

ZURICH, Switzerland — What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.

A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.

“We’ve spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it’s not a problem,” Daniel Reist told The Associated Press.

The Guardian adds some insight:

Markus Amman, an interior ministry spokesman, said nobody in Liechtenstein had even noticed the soldiers. “It’s not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something,” he said.

If the Swiss had decided to invade and annex Liechtenstein, which has a population of around 34,000, it probably would have been a walkover. Liechtenstein is a quarter the size of the Isle of Man, and does not have an army.

The Swiss / Liechtenstein episode may stir memories for some of an accidental invasion of Spain by British marines five years ago after they misplaced Gibraltar while on exercises, much to the alarm of local fishermen.

And another fun fact:

Liechtenstein and Saudi Arabia are the world’s only two countries whose names derive from still ruling royal families.

Posted in Liechtenstein, Switzerland, War | Leave a Comment »

News Note: General Petraeus and Launching a Counterinsurgency Strategy in Iraq

Posted by K.E. White on March 2, 2007

Lt. General PetraeusLt. General David H. Petraeus is the Bush administration’s great hope in Iraq.

But faced with limited manpower and a six month deadline, can he deliver?

But before answering this question, Petraeus’ strategic outlook must be fleshed out.

John A Tirpak investigates—and critiques—Petraeus’ conception of airpower in counter-insurgency missions in yesterday’s Air Force Magazine.

While no expert, I find it surprising that Tirpak gives no mention to Israel’s botched military operations in Lebanon last summer. Relying on the air force, Israel not only lost their campaign against Hezbollah, but saw her reputation sink to new depths with the bombing of Beirut.

Still his article provides interesting, if slanted, insight on Petraeus’ operating style.

From the article:

The strange comments about the applications of modern airpower are contained in the dead-last, five-page annex to a brand-new 335-page Army-Marine Corps combined arms doctrine on counterinsurgency (or “COIN”), co-signed by Petraeus and Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James F. Amos. Field Manual 3-24 was published in December.

Petraeus, a Princeton Ph.D. whose dissertation was titled “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam,” took on the rewrite of the counterinsurgency doctrine because the Army hadn’t updated it in more than 20 years.

As commander of the 101st Airborne Division in the 2003 major combat phase of the Iraq war, he frequently told reporters that the Army was ill-prepared to fight insurgencies and failed to learn from the history of such conflicts. He left Iraq in 2005 to take up command of the US Army Combined Arms Center. In January, he was confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, for his new job in Iraq.

The views in FM 3-24 reflect a limited knowledge of airpower’s true role in the current operation and suspicion that airpower can all too easily prove counterproductive. This is all the more distressing in light of the view that Petraeus will set direction for the ongoing fight in Iraq.

The new doctrine argues that airpower is best put under control of a tactical ground commander or, at the highest level, the multinational force commander, but not an airman.

In short, counterinsurgencies don’t go too well at first. Western militaries “falsely believe that armies trained to win large conventional wars are automatically prepared to win small, unconventional ones” and fight COIN with a similar mind-set.

Militaries that are successful in beating an insurgency are those that “overcome their institutional inclination to wage conventional war” in doing so, Petraeus and Amos wrote.

The doctrine portrays the decision to call in air strikes as one requiring heavy deliberation, as commanders must “weigh collateral damage against the unintended consequences of taking no action.” And when summoned, air attack must be based on “timely, accurate intelligence, precisely delivered weapons with a demonstrated low failure rate, appropriate yield, and proper fuse” to achieve the desired effects without blowing up anything unintentionally.

“Inappropriate or indiscriminate use of air strikes can erode popular support and fuel insurgent propaganda. For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during COIN operations,” the two ground generals wrote.

However, they acknowledged that being too cautious with airpower isn’t good, either, noting that “avoiding all risk may embolden insurgents while providing them sanctuary.”

Airpower offers advantages in collecting ISR and signals intelligence for spotting and tracking insurgents and pinpointing their positions. Helicopters—the main air asset employed by the Army—“have been especially useful in providing overwatch, fire support, alternate communications, and medevac support,” the doctrine explains.

Posted in Air Force Magazine, Bush administration, Iraq, John Tirpak, Petraeus | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.