No Peacekeepers for Lebanon

| Tue Jul. 25, 2006 1:52 PM EDT

Last week I wrote that it seemed very, very unlikely that other countries would be willing to contribute troops to an international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. After all, in the scheme Israel envisions, they'd have to confront Hezbollah about its arms and missiles, and Hezbollah has no intention of handing over its weapons without a fight.

Anyway, the New York Times today reports that it's all true, no one seems to want to send troops in Lebanon—certainly not so long as they'd be required to disarm Hezbollah and monitor Lebanon's borders, as Israel wants. European countries are envisioning something less robust, a buffer force "that would follow a cease-fire and operate with the consent of the Lebanese government in southern Lebanon." But again, who will send the troops? No one in Europe wants to. And if no one sends troops, how will this conflict end? It's clear that Israel can't destroy Hezbollah by military force, so where does that leave them?