U.S. role in Lebanon force limited

[spindrifter]

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
Stars and Stripes
Aug 1, 2:18 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If an international force enters southern Lebanon to enforce a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. military is more likely to be a behind-the-scenes helper than a front-line leader.

That means U.S. troops might ferry supplies and equipment by sea and air, assist with communications, share intelligence and perhaps deliver medicines and other humanitarian aid for Lebanese affected by the conflict.

<snip>

Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Iraq experience has made it harder for the United States to be viewed as a neutral actor in Lebanon.

"It would be seen as Israel's ally rather than as neutral, and the end result would be to make the United States into a target and make the international force far more divisive than it would otherwise be," he said.

<snip>

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIDEAST_MILITARY?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[mom cat]

1. How can the US even think about being seen as neutral?

[Kagemusha]

2. So who'll wage war on Hezbollah once the IDF tires of it?

The Turks? The French? Since Israel isn't interested in any force that won't root Hezbollah out of its holes. Since other nations' soldiers exist only for Israel's security as far as it's concerned.

[mmonk]

3. Duh

When you're a warrior nation instead of peace maker or world leader, it's a default position.