Chirac: 15,000 peacekeepers 'excessive'

[maddezmom]

PARIS - French President Jacques Chirac said Friday that he does not believe the expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon needs 15,000 troops, and he called that figure "excessive."

A U.N. resolution calls for the force in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, to expand from 2,000 troops to 15,000.

Chirac, who has pledged a total of 2,000 French troops, said the territory in question was too small to require that many peacekeepers.

"My feeling is that the figure that was put forward at the beginning of discussions — 15,000 for a reinforced UNIFIL — was a figure that was quite excessive," he said.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_peacekeepers

[tocqueville]

1. What I have heard of the rumors here

the military people say that a 9000 men force is sufficient. Because it's not a situation of "peace-keeping" à la Kosovo or an occupation. The problem is not to quell an insurgency or something like that. Most of the French that have already been sent work on demining and reconstruction, they don't patrol and are lightly armed.
The coming task is to neutralize from the beginning any attempts to resume the hostilies.

What is far more important than the sheer numbers is the level and quality of equipment. For example the rumours are that the French are sending at least a brigade of Leclerc tanks which are superior to the Merkavas. It is going to be interesting to see too what level of air support can be sent. The latest European fighter jets are superior to Israeli ones and a show of force could deter new Israeli incursions.

The most interesting thing is the chain of command : it will probably be Italian/French, but purely military. No diplomats telling the local commanders what to do. The highest responsible will be a UN general sitting in New York and reporting to Kofi. But no civilians between him and the local command.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. Chirac has revised his numbers downward since he could not get

adequate troops to meet them from other nations. It was amusing to see him step up and provide more troops to maintain French leadership. As I have posted in the past, France involvement here is all about statue and not altruistic. This a political not military calculus. Your rumors are nothing more than face saving talk from the Chirac government.

As for you military comment, you need to do some reading in Janes and elsewhere on the accepted quality and performance of the French military. Your statements are based on nationalism not facts.

LeClerc, Leopard, Abrams, Merkava, Challenger II are all current MBTs. There is not enough difference between any of them to make one markedly superior over the others, each has specific features the others do not. If anyone has the edge, its the new Leopard series. The key is training, tactical doctrine and crew experience. LeClerc and French armored forces are untested in a generation against other armor. KFOR != armored combat. IDF crews, though often reservist, have trained together for years, and have more combat time. Also their doctrine, tactics, and equipment is optimized for the terrain where they are fighting on. Do the rumors tell you that the LeClercs floating on the Med are of the Tropicalized variant or have the Urban Warfare upgrade? If not they might as well stay on the boat. An article that discusses crews as well as hardware is here. I don't fully agree with it, but its a place to start. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp The real world example would be during 1967 and 1973 conflicts, the IDF has always had lesser equipment and smaller forces that Egypt and Syria, but decisively won. Its not just the hardware.

Similar things can be said with the aircraft. IDF has air superiority in the region and a complete compliment of aircraft. The carrier based Eurofighters are much more limited in quantity as are the French helo. The IAF is flying older H/W with extensive modifications and upgrades. The French would also have to contend with the IDF IADS. The only available AEW platforms to the French are older E-2s, assuming they are embarked. Once again, the results would be based on tactics and skills, not the H/W. Individually the Eurofighter is superior to anything the IAF has, but one on one dogfights went out in WWI. Given the vulnerability of the French carrier, if things got out of hand, it could readily be sunk or more likely immobilized, disabling any French threat.

I am not prophesying a French-Israeli conflict as part of the peacekeeping ops, just debunking some of the franco-nationalism based incorrect statements. The reality is that the peacekeepers will have their hands tied (as always) and be ineffective. They won't take any action against Hezbollah out of fear of attack. They won't take any action against Israel for the same reason. The ROE will be to retreat when confronted, surrender when asked, and shoot only if cornered. This is nothing new.

[tocqueville]

3. As usual it's bothering to accept facts that don't "fit"

the main concern from all European countries was the unclear mandate. France had the "bad role" as the "instigator" of the peace process in that case to avoid sending troops in a quagmire type Bosnia. There was a big fight at the UN to make tough rules of engagement available and even more important to change the chain of command. OK, it was blackmail but the only purpose was to set the rules. Thus the delay, it has nothing to do with posturing. And regarding the command France will swap with Italy at the end of the mandate and probably the command will rotate both internally and externally. This had been discussed in France and many saw an Italian command as positive, motivated by the extremely bad relations between France and Syria. So the "prestige theory" is BS. And Mr Olmert obvious "splitting" policy was nothing but ridiculous.

Regarding the magnitude of the numbers, France had ALREADY 2000 men in the region, men that were supposed to intervene if the evacuations turned ugly. Some special forces BTW intervened in South Lebanon under the worst shelling but that was of course not reported by the English speaking media. The real presence of France in the region is about 3 900 men.

Regarding the military equipment level and its quality, Janes weekly is very nice magazine, but of course living in the English speaking world bubble. I heard that before. The British were very surprised during the Falklands that the Argentinians inflicted them severe damage and casualties with Mirage 2000 and Exocet missiles. A lot of people in the US-UK bubble still live in the WWII bubble. "The EUropeans ? They have an army ? That's news..." etc... etc... But it is the European that are the BULK of NATO, with OWN weapons (even if some US systems are included mostly on the Air Forces side, at least for some countries). It's the Europeans that provided the troops on the ground in the Bosnia/Kosovo war, not the US (they arrived when the fighting was over). The US had at that time air superiority but that was about all. And in Kosovo it played a very little role regarding the Serbian forces.

The Leclerc tank is one of the top tanks in the world. It's not true that they don't have terrain experience, they had it in Kosovo (urban) and Ivory Coast. And the Kosovo tanks are not "tropical". And the Eurpeans train too you know. The Merkavas latest exhibition in Lebanon wasn't that convincing. It's a big difference to meet at least comparable armor and to meet elderly Russian tanks and poorly trained crews, even if their numbers are superior. Besides the European have plenty of modern antitank weapons that can be mounted on APCs and even handheld.

Regarding aircraft you are in the same way badly informed. The two main European fighters are the French Rafale and the Eurofighters which are in the F22 raptor class (the latest is somewhat better but far more expensive). It's not question of sending Mirage 2000 more than for special missions. And it's not question of "dogfights". That's for Tom Cruise. It's question of taking out the enemy aircraft 20 kms from where you are. Tests have been done with those European planes with half stealth capacity against the older generation. The older generation doesn't stand a chance. They are blown out of the sky before they even know it. And all this little ballet is directed by AWACS. Oh yes, we have some.

Nothing says that the French carrier is going to be there since it's probably outside Pakistan to provide air support for Enduring Freedom. European planes can be based on Cyprus or in Northern Lebanon. And FYI, even if the carrier was there (the Italians have an older one too) it's not floating alone. It has a a flotilla of protecting vessels, electronic counter measure vessels, anti submarine vessels, anti submarine aircraft and they are armed with with Aster missiles (check their performance compared to Patriot), Exocets and SCALP cruise missiles (check compared to Tomahawks - they have been tested in Iraq II by the Brits with full success against Saddam's bunkers). The protecting frigates are of the Lafayette class which are very difficult to detect, specially in bad weather. So if I was the IDF Navy, I wouldn't try anything foolish. Besides the French won't be alone, the Kriegsmarine is coming and the Scandinavians too with VERY sophisticated equipment.

So your little "debunking" is amusing. It has a big problem. It's outdated. You partly are not to blame because I think that you are the inconscient victim of the US jingoism and it's tendency to dismiss everything which is not US as "crap". But you guys hardly speak any other language than English, don't watch foreign news in the native languages, maybe with exception of the BBC. So you get what you get, and it's not always accurate. For example
a French, British or German APC is far superior to any equivalent in the US Army. If the US had bought those before going to Iraq they had probaly cut the number of casualties in two. But they prefer to mount armor on humvees until the point they can hardly move at all. And it's more expensive too.

The Europeans want to show in that story that they are a force to reckon with, because they are starting to get a little pissed at the US/Israel policies in the area. The French Foreign said today that after discussions with Kofi the goal is to build "an exclusion zone" in South Lebanon. "Nobody there except the Lebanese and the UN - which excludes armed Hizbollah too". And I bet that the European generals preparing their troops right now are going to put up with their best. Nobody here wants to repeat the painful experiences from Bosnia (before the UK/French broke the UN mandate), not to talk about the former Lebanon experience.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Its more like you don't like inconvenient, non-Franco centric facts...

Regarding the military equipment level and its quality, Janes weekly is very nice magazine, but of course living in the English speaking world bubble. I heard that before.
Janes is the authoritative guide today, that it is published in English is not relevant. Its international coverage is excellent and quite accurate. You really should read it.

The British were very surprised during the Falklands that the Argentinians inflicted them severe damage and casualties with Mirage 2000 and Exocet missiles.
There were specific lapses on the UK side that allowed much of that to happen. It was in the popular press at the time. It cost the UK dearly.

It's question of taking out the enemy aircraft 20 kms from where you are. Tests have been done with those European planes with half stealth capacity against the older generation. The older generation doesn't stand a chance. They are blown out of the sky before they even know it. And all this little ballet is directed by AWACS. Oh yes, we have some.

If you think that the ROE will allow BVR launched you really out of touch.

A lot of people in the US-UK bubble still live in the WWII bubble. "The EUropeans ? They have an army ? That's news..." etc... etc... But it is the European that are the BULK of NATO, with OWN weapons (even if some US systems are included mostly on the Air Forces side, at least for some countries). It's the Europeans that provided the troops on the ground in the Bosnia/Kosovo war, not the US (they arrived when the fighting was over). The US had at that time air superiority but that was about all. And in Kosovo it played a very little role regarding the Serbian forces.
The pros do not live in such a bubble, nor do I. However, there are those that do in the US. Not particularly relevant to Lebanon.


The Leclerc tank is one of the top tanks in the world. It's not true that they don't have terrain experience, they had it in Kosovo (urban) and Ivory Coast. And the Kosovo tanks are not "tropical". And the Eurpeans train too you know. The Merkavas latest exhibition in Lebanon wasn't that convincing. It's a big difference to meet at least comparable armor and to meet elderly Russian tanks and poorly trained crews, even if their numbers are superior. Besides the European have plenty of modern antitank weapons that can be mounted on APCs and even handheld.

First of all Kosovo and Ivory Coast are not similar terrain to Lebanon. The term "tropical" refers to a variant of the LeClerc, which is modified to perform better in the desert, ~300 have been bought by the UAE, no indication any of those variants are in the French service. I've never said the LeClerc was not one of the top MBTs, I did point that that your claim of superiority was not correct. The real key to effectiveness of armor in combat is the crew experience coupled with tactics and doctrine suitable for the engagement. What is the average experience of French armor crew? Are they using a desert or urban tactics or those more suited to Europe? Those are key questions if they have to fight anyone in Lebanon, be it Hezbollah, Syria or Israel, especially since they have never seen combat. Training can only take you so far.

You are incorrect to describe the 1967 and 1973 conflict as "elderly Russian tanks and poorly trained crew" At the time the T-72 and T-55 were front line Soviet equipment and they were trained by Soviet advisers. However the Syrians and Egyptians were also using Soviet tactics, a bad choice for the open deserts of Sinai and the like.

As for the performance of the Merkavas in Lebanon, it became clear that they could not stand up to the latest Russian anti tank missiles. Then again, no other tank could either, even the LeClerc or Leopard. Per a recent BBC article, the number hit was in the 30s, and only 4 were total losses. Armor in urban environments has been problematic since Stalingrad. This was no surprise, especially after what happened in 1973 with the AT-3 Sagger. That the Hezbollah had the Kornet and others is being disputed by the Russians, but the IDF is displaying them with Syrian markings.

So your little "debunking" is amusing. It has a big problem. It's outdated. You partly are not to blame because I think that you are the inconscient victim of the US jingoism and it's tendency to dismiss everything which is not US as "crap". But you guys hardly speak any other language than English, don't watch foreign news in the native languages, maybe with exception of the BBC. So you get what you get, and it's not always accurate.

I don't seem to be pushing one country's or region's superiority over another. I have not brought up US weapons systems or compared them to those you espouse. I am pointing out that there is little cut and dried or assured when modern forces meet in combat. I speak several languages, have lived in Europe, and am experienced with the militaries of the NATO countries.

For example a French, British or German APC is far superior to any equivalent in the US Army. If the US had bought those before going to Iraq they had probaly cut the number of casualties in two. But they prefer to mount armor on humvees until the point they can hardly move at all. And it's more expensive too.

I assume you are aware that the Humvee is not an APC? The Humvee is the replacement for the Jeep. The US chose to use Humvees and up armor them rather than APCs. The Stryker/LAV and Bradley are US APCs, and they have been used in Iraq. Like the MBTs they are all fairly competitive with each other, doing about the same mission.

You can post all the euro-centric military nonsense you want, but bluntly you clearly lack the background to understand the issues and discuss the issues inteligently. Take a wider view, read whats out there in open sources.

Finally, be honest about the French desire to lead the upgraded UNIFIL. They are not in it for altrusitic reasons. France has been in a steadily downward trend in their stature for some time. Issues within the EU have accelerated that at times. This is a way for them to recover some of that. It will also help them sell some of their military equipment which they desperately need to do if the French armamants industry is going to survive.

[tocqueville]

5. I still think that you are in your Bubble

I just lost the very detailed answer I sent being outlogged for a cache cleaning...

So I'll give you the short answer

#1. The European aircraft have that capacity, which you denied before. The rethoric trick of saying that the ROE won't allow it is despicable. Check the ROE first. Besides all this will be used as a deterrent. "Don't try that's all". We can miss on purpose too. Maybe it can change some minds.

#2 The European tanks are well in class with the Merkava. The Leclerc have superiority in fire rapidity. Besides your attempts to say that we "maybe" don't have, and urban and etc.. are smoke grenades. We have a desert version
and Southern Lebanon is not "urban". And we have anyway very good anti-tank capacity (I didn't mention the helicopters). Militarily, I see the Israeli as a lesser threat than the Hezbollah regarding tanks. You should read more about the European tanks (plenty of open sources). And again the fact that the Israeli won classic battles against (OK not so bad tanks) - crews with the wrong strategy - you state it yourself - 30 years ago is no proof at all and is pure rethorics again. Besides the Europeans train all possible situations with the US within NATO - and that time the Israeli wouldn't meet Syrians. It's like you don't have faith in your OWN capacities, amazing ! Aah the go it alone, I see...

#3 I notice that you remain silent on the Naval capacity.

#4 The comparison between the APC and the Humvee is a question of poor choice, I know the difference between the two vehicles. Besides the Bradley didn't do that well in Iraq, about 50 have been lost. But it was a question of MAIN choice for transportation. Ask any GI in Iraq if they want to climb in an European APC to go on patrol or in a Humvee that crawls.

#5 These attempts to reduce France's intervention in Lebanon to a question of prestige is ridiculous, based on prejudice and in a way very typical from people living far away from the LOCAL reality :

- France HAD and HAVE the leadership of the UNIFIL until January, then it rotates. All those speculations about the "leadership" are 100% journalistic spin and used of course for French bashing.
- Once again France wanted a reinforced clear mandate and represented the Europeans about that. The facts talk for themselves. Chirac talks yesterday, today there are 7-9000 Europeans ready to send troops. Chirac can be criticized for his tactics, but since he didn't get a chapter 7 resolution first, he had to twist Kofi's arm. Now we have got an Italian/French chain of command, swapping at New Year, right to PREEMPTIVE use of force if no compliance and no diplomats involved. But maybe that bothers the US ? If the operation is a success, what will the freepers say about the UN ?
- French armsales are about 12% of the world's, France is the third arm dealer after the US and the UK, so there is no crisis... And this year have seen lucrative contracts with the Saudis and India among others.

so I didn't intend to be that nasty but I can return :

"You can post all the US-centric military nonsense you want, but bluntly you clearly lack the background to understand the issues and discuss the issues intelligently. Take a wider view, read whats out there in open sources."

it's one thing to have the capacity to flatten villages, another to win wars :

The US military adventures after 2001 have all been clusterfucks from Afghanistan (that's probably why NATO is taking over) to Lebanon, over Iraq. Not only for pure military incompetence but even for pure material deficiencies like Iraq and Lebanon have shown...

The Europeans have been on many theaters from Bosnia/Kosovo over Africa to Afghanistan and the missions have mostly been a success despite their lack of "military experience" and "faulty equipment"...

I'd be far more humble if I were you.