REPORT: Bush Mulls Sending U.S. Troops to Lebanon

We knew it was only a matter of time. According to a post on Harper's that relates information provided by a "well-connected former CIA officer," Bush is tossing around the idea of sending U.S. troops to Lebanon. They'd apparently make up most of a so-called "international peacekeeper force" that sounds very similar to the farcical "coalition of the willing," created to cover Bush's unilateralism in Iraq. It's estimated that at least 10,000 to 30,000 troops would be needed at the border to have any chance of "success." Bush is allegedly pondering this action because NATO, Britain and other European nations are balking at the idea of sending troops in any significant numbers, if at all.

While this idea reportedly has support within the Administration and the Pentagon, the uniformed military apparently wants no part of it. After all, our military is already neck deep in the big muddy, quagmired in Iraq as civil war erupts. Also:

The former CIA officer said that the Bush Administration seems not to understand Hezbollah's deep roots and broad support among Lebanon's Shiites, the country's largest single ethnic bloc. “A U.S. force is going to end up making, not keeping, peace with Hezbollah. Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.”

The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to “stabilize” the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.