Madam, - Your Foreign Affairs Correspondant Deaglan de Breadun (Opinion and Analysis, August 19th) refers to the difficult decision facing our politicians - should troops be sent to the Lebanon? Dispatching Irish troops as part of a Unifil force will, Mr de Breadun writes, in many ways be a re-run of the previous peacekeeping experience in that country. I believe that assessment is innacurate, principally for two reasons.
Firsly, the spectcular lack of success in eliminating Hizbullah has dealt a huge psychological blow to the Israeli-military which was widely believed, in the region, to be invincible. Despite being granted an extension of time by the international community to continue its merciless and, much of the time, indiscriminate assault on the country, Israel singularly failed to achieve its objective. By any measure, Israel has been significantly diminished and the consequences of this for the region remain to be seen. It has already broken the ceasefire and Mr Olmert has not been slow to announce the abandonment of his plan to withdraw from some of the West Bank settlements.
Secondly, the rise and success of Hizbullah complicates considerably the prospects for peace and stability in the immediate future. Hizbullah has made clear that it does not recognise UN Resolution 1559 and has no intention of disarming. It is this context that now makes Lebanon a much more dangerous and volatile country for a peacekeeping force. The relationship between the Lebanese army and the Hizbullah guerillas is very strong and Hizbullah is widely viewed as a legitimate national defence force.
The recent Security Council Resolution is worryingly lacking in specifics about the proposed enhanced Unifil force, particularly as one of its key issues is the disarming of Hizbullah. Suggestions from Washingtom that the Lebanese army should forcibly disarm Hizbullah reveals (yet again) a lack of understanding of the region by the present Administration.
France may have stunned everybody with a much drastically reduced offer of troops for the force but it is apparantly looking for a clearer Mandate before commiting more troops. Most commentators (including your own Foreign Affairs Correspondent)have noted that Security Council Resolution 1701 is long on aspiration and short on detail. While sending troops is the right thing to do, the Government should not allow itself to be bounced into putting our soldiers in harms way on the back of an ambiguous Mandate. With characteristic arrogance Israel is now telling the UN to hurry up and send the troops. Weeks ago, when the UN and the internationsl community were calling for a ceasefire the response from Isrrael was - when we are ready. By all means let us send troops, but can we take a moment to sort out that Mandate?
Yours, etc,
JAMES PHILLIPS, Sandymount, Dublin 4.
Madam, - Two aspects of "proportionality" are worth noting. First, when Ireland had only 2.8 million people in 1960, and an Army of only seven Regular Infantry Battalions, with no overseas experience, with World War II bolt-action Lee Enfield rifles, we sent an Infantry Battalion to the Congo, of under 700 men, and maintained that level of commitment to Congo, Cyprus and Lebanon UN duty. Indeed for six months we even provided two battalions in the Congo and an Armoured Car Squadron. France today has a population 21.74 times bigger, and pro rata could provide the entire additional 13,000 for the UN Lebanon Force with a lower level of commitment than tiny and impoverished Ireland made in 1960. Instead they send 200 engineers. And even if they lack the courage of their verbal posturings, they could send their Foreign Legion to once again give glory to France, while avoiding French deaths. Proportionalite, mon ami?
Perhaps it's time for Dermot Ahern and Willie O'Dea to invite their Gallic counterparts to either "put up, or shut up"? The 48 Irish personnel who died on UN duty in Lebanon is the equivalent of 1,044 French dead, but they hightailed it out quickly when they lost 58 paratroops in a Hezb-Allah suicide-truck-bomb in Beirut in 1983. We lost nine at Niemba alone, equal to 196 French, not 58, but did not run. Or think of running. Proportionalite, mon ami?
Secondly, Beirut City or Airport were not destroyed, not the North and Port area, nor the West, or East, nor all of South Beirut, but Israel bombed mainly the Haret Hreyk south central neighbourhood holding the nine-story Hezb-Allah HQ, their five-story Al-Manar TV HQ, their Al-Nour Radio, etc, along with only runways and fuel tanks at the Rafic Hariri International Airport in the Khaldeh coastal suburb two miles south west of Haret Hreyk. The LA Times map on the web shows these limited and highly concentrated Israeli operations very clearly. Dis-proportional? Yours, etc,
TOM CAREW, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.