""Hezbollah and the army are united. We are one," the Lebanese military sergeant said, declining to give his name because he was not authorized to speak to the media. "I will tell you the truth. My brother is in Hezbollah, so why would I want to take his weapon?
"We couldn’t do it even if we wanted to. Hezbollah is stronger than we are."
The sergeant’s view was commonplace in Lebanon.
Virtually nobody in this country thinks the Lebanese Army is up to the task assigned to it under UN Resolution 1701. Even the Lebanese government has said its troops will only ask Hezbollah not to carry their weapons which still includes an arsenal of about 8,000 Katyusha rockets around in public" Canada.com
France is in the process of opting out of a large troop commitment to the "international force" because the French government rightly sees that the mandate envisioned for the force does not match reality on the ground and probably never will. Without a lot of French troops the whole intention of the "international force" will be thwarted. France is the only European country with an expeditionary power projection capabilty sufficient to the job. I doubt if Israel will find the prospect of having its northern bvorder "secured" by Turks, Malaysians, Indonesians, etc. to be very attractive.
On a different but related subject, the Arab states have now declared at the UN that they want a new peace process to begin in the Middle East because the "road map" is dead. What they want is a new "Madrid," a new beginning in the everlasting attempt to find peace between the Arabs and Israel.
Will the United States want that? Probably not. Why? It is our policy to seek an end to the govenments that would be parties to such a peace, not to consolidate their positions as signatories of a peace that would bring them the approval of their people.