against who, exactly? the country was already occupied by US, Israeli, Syrian, and several NATO troops. The PLO is leaving. Who are we targeting?
SemperFI
David Howery said:
The Syrians initially, that would have been the easy part. The hard part would have been the shiites and hizbollah and making it not seem like it was the christians against the muslims. The Isrealis being there makes it a somewhat difficult situation. I wonder if we could have brokered some kind of deal to withdraw their forces. It's a fact that us leaving made the US seem weak and that militant islam had taken us on and won. So I think with a multinational invasion, the French British and Italians were already there, could have made a big difference.
No Grenada/URGENT FURY ?
If Reagan had decided to invade Lebanon after the Oct 1983 USMC barracks bombing, would there have still been an invasion of Grenada ? The Marine Amphib Group which was used for URGENT FURY was initially enroute to Lebanon when the decision was made to invade Grenada- had they actually gone to Beirut as planned, would Grenada still have happened ? What about the other elements used for URGENT FURY, like the 82nd Airborne and the Rangers- would they have been deployed to Lebanon and not had to go into action on Grenada ? Or, alt, could the US have conceivably conducted these 2 campaigns at the same time ?
What about if the US had decided to use the CIA and Delta operators in Beirut at the time to track down and assassinate the Hizbollah scum who'd conducted this terrorist attack ?
If Reagan had decided to invade Lebanon after the Oct 1983 USMC barracks bombing, would there have still been an invasion of Grenada ? The Marine Amphib Group which was used for URGENT FURY was initially enroute to Lebanon when the decision was made to invade Grenada- had they actually gone to Beirut as planned, would Grenada still have happened ? What about the other elements used for URGENT FURY, like the 82nd Airborne and the Rangers- would they have been deployed to Lebanon and not had to go into action on Grenada ? Or, alt, could the US have conceivably conducted these 2 campaigns at the same time ?
What about if the US had decided to use the CIA and Delta operators in Beirut at the time to track down and assassinate the Hizbollah scum who'd conducted this terrorist attack ?
More contributions to MNF in Beirut
Another thought which just sprang to mind. As a corollary to discussions re Beirut in 1982-83, there were actually US efforts to try to recruit more allied or neutral countries to provide combat troops to the Multinational Force, such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, and Sweden, in order to provide the perception of a truly multinational PKF instead of a US-dominated coalition. However, in the end, these efforts came to nought, with none of the countries approached willing to send combat personnel as peacekeepers to support the MNF, and the PKO remained comprised only of US Marine, Italians, French and British contingents right up to the Oct 1983 Marine and French barracks bombings.
WI Alexander Haig's efforts to recruit a wider base of contributors to the MNF had been more successful ? What PODs would be required to entice any of the above countries to have provided their soldiers as non-UN peacekeepers in Beirut ? Could the presence of more national contingents within the MNF have acted as a greater deterrent and disincentive to Shi'ite terrorists and not alienated the Muslim pop of Lebanon as greatly as did the US-dominated PKO ?
Another thought which just sprang to mind. As a corollary to discussions re Beirut in 1982-83, there were actually US efforts to try to recruit more allied or neutral countries to provide combat troops to the Multinational Force, such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, and Sweden, in order to provide the perception of a truly multinational PKF instead of a US-dominated coalition. However, in the end, these efforts came to nought, with none of the countries approached willing to send combat personnel as peacekeepers to support the MNF, and the PKO remained comprised only of US Marine, Italians, French and British contingents right up to the Oct 1983 Marine and French barracks bombings.
WI Alexander Haig's efforts to recruit a wider base of contributors to the MNF had been more successful ? What PODs would be required to entice any of the above countries to have provided their soldiers as non-UN peacekeepers in Beirut ? Could the presence of more national contingents within the MNF have acted as a greater deterrent and disincentive to Shi'ite terrorists and not alienated the Muslim pop of Lebanon as greatly as did the US-dominated PKO ?
I actually think a greater willingness to place US troops under UN command could result in a more diverse multinational contingent.
Now politicians need to learn that placing one brigade in those blue helmets isn't giving away supreme command of all US forces to the secretary-general.......
Now politicians need to learn that placing one brigade in those blue helmets isn't giving away supreme command of all US forces to the secretary-general.......