Nearly four weeks ago, the Bush administration insisted, much to the chagrin of the international community, that there was no sense in supporting a cease-fire unless is was "sustainable." They didn't want to stop the fighting until they were sure the fighting was going to stop, goshdarnit, and it had to be part of a long-term solution.
Now, weeks (and nearly 1,000 deaths) later, the U.S. supports a U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution that everyone seems to agree won't do much to halt the violence. It doesn't address the two Israeli soldiers, Lebanese prisoners in Israel, disarming Hezbollah, Shebaa Farms, or really any of the underlying issues. It calls for an end to Hezbollah's rocket attacks and "offensive action" by Israel, but how that's defined is wholly unclear. As Time says,
All of which brings up the question, what's the purpose of pressing for the adoption of a cease-fire plan that's dead on arrival?Lebanon has offered to send 15,000 troops into southern Lebanon, which may help create a diplomatic breakthrough, but it's pretty clear that Hezbollah and Israel both want to take another week (or two or three) to try to establish some kind of "decisive" victory. It's not going to happen, of course, so both sides will claim victory. Of course, just by surviving, Hezbollah has won, in a sense, and Nasrallah has become a cult hero, so Israel has to be hoping that some kind of decent international security force will compliment Lebanese troops to create a real security zone. If Israel couldn't destroy Hezbollah, maybe it can back them off the border.
I'm not optimistic. A border manned by the French and Lebanese is likely to be about as secure as documents on a VA computer.
