Lessons Learned 
A cease-fire in Lebanon is a terrible idea. 

By Jed Babbin
July 19, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Original Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008672

http://www.realclearpolitics.comU.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair want to send an international force to separate Israel from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Mr. Blair said a U.N. force should be sent to stop the bombardment coming over into Israel and therefore [give] Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah. Mr. Annan said such a force could pursue the idea of stabilization. But their idea assumes, first, that a cease-fire would protect those worthy of protection and, second, that restoring the region's antebellum stability would promote long-term peace. Both assumptions are utterly false. 
Hezbollah is not some small, ragged band scattered around Lebanon. It is a huge terrorist structure, built over decades, that includes thousands of men, weapons, positions, offices and everything that enables it to control southern Lebanon. Israel is now destroying that infrastructure. A cease-fire would benefit Hezbollah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hezbollah and the nations that support it--Syria and Iran--as well as the Lebanese who have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a U.N. force would create no security whatever against future attacks. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET
The U.N.'s years-long record on the Israel-Lebanon border makes mockery of the term peacekeeping. On page 155 of my book, Inside the Asylum, is a picture of a U.N. outpost on that border. The U.N. flag and the Hezbollah flag fly side by side. Observers told me the U.N. and Hezbollah personnel share water and telephones, and that the U.N. presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists. 
The Israeli response to the attack by Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorists was much more violent and effective than Hezbollah, Iran or Syria expected. The Olmert government failed to make any significant response to previous raids from Gaza and Lebanon, which encouraged both terrorist regimes. The Syrian and Iranian regimes practice brinksmanship as their foreign policy. They attack as often as they can in as aggressive a manner as they believe will not trigger a decisive response. Iran wanted to distract the G-8 summit from agreeing to do anything about its nuclear weapons program, so it apparently told its Hezbollah surrogates in Lebanon that the time was ripe to begin a major offensive. 
The Hezbollah attacks began about two weeks after Israel suffered the usual international condemnations for its response to the Gaza-based Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. Even after the Gaza incursion, Iran and Syria--emboldened by international condemnation of Israel's disproportionate response--were convinced that Israel would do no more than make token raids into Lebanon. For the first time, Israel has acted in accordance with what used to be President Bush's theory: that a government that contains, supports or harbors terrorists is responsible for their actions. Israel is now demonstrating that there is a price to be exacted from nations who collaborate with terrorists. The reason Israel must not agree to a cease-fire now, and why a U.N. force must be rejected is the fact that the Arab nations may be starting to open their eyes. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET
An emergency Cairo meeting of the 18 Arab League nations' foreign ministers last weekend produced the most significant event in the region since Saddam Hussein fell from power. These meetings are routine, held in crises or for political posturing and on every occasion before last weekend have resulted in condemnation of Israel and the United States. This meeting began with the Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action and supporting Lebanon's right to resist occupation by all legitimate means (which even the Associated Press report characterized as language frequently used by Hezbollah to justify its guerillas' presence in south Lebanon). The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon's right to liberate them by all legitimate means. The Lebanese prisoners are virtually all Hezbollah members and legitimate means translates to terrorism. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hezbollah. But a historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism. 
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was criticizing the guerilla group's actions, calling them 'unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.'  Prince Faisal said, These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them. These are the rumblings that precede a political earthquake. The Arab leaders are afraid that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next. We must reinforce those fears because they provide the first big lever with which those nations can be moved. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET
The Arab foreign ministers apparently have the glimmerings of a lesson dawning in their minds. The U.S. veto of a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli action makes clear that if Israel imposes consequences for support of terror, the U.S. will not stand in the way. Punishing Lebanon for its government's acceptance of Hezbollah is one step. The next logical step would be punishing Syria and then Iran. If President Bush means to implement the policy he has pronounced, he wouldn't merely get out of Israel's way. He would lead. Instead of criticizing Mr. Annan and asking him to call Bashar Assad to pressure Syria to cut this sh-- out, he should find a more reliable messenger. The name of Peter Pace comes to mind. 
The Iranians and Syrians are apparently urging Hezbollah to intensify this battle in the coming days. Many more missiles and suicide bombers will be used against Israel. And the Israelis will continue their attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. If we pressure the Israelis to call a halt to action prematurely, the hope that rose from the Arab ministers' meeting will be dashed, and the lesson taught that there is still no penalty for supporting, succoring and ordering terrorists to do their work. If we continue to reject a cease-fire, and openly encourage Israel to deal a decisive blow to Hezbollah, then Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will understand the lesson is quite the opposite. For Syria and Iran, the lesson will have to be applied directly. 
Mr. Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor of The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the U.N. and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think (Regnery 2004). This article appears on RealClearPolitics.com.