France is hesitant to commit troops to a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon without a well-defined mission, according to NPR.

Sounds more like an excuse than a reason to me.

When first asked to commit troops and lead the peacekeeping force, France agreed, then backed down, and then offered 200 troops. Only after Italy agreed to lead the force did France again claim it wanted to lead the mission and now is prepared to send 2,000 troops with one caveat. The mission must be well-defined.

As a leader, are they waiting for someone else to do the defining? Are they looking to George Bush, known for his military planning?

Of course the mission needs to be well-defined. How else will the multi-national force know what the hell it’s supposed to do in Lebanon? How will Lebanon know what to expect of the troops and what they expect from the Lebanese government?

Peacekeeping is not in the interest of right-wingers. Propping up their war machines and funneling money to the defense industry is more in their interest.

Hopefully, the United Nations will allow Italy’s new liberal government lead the peacekeeping force and tell France and its conservative government (that should be a big Bush ally, but for convenient political reasons has been used as a Bush scape-goat) to shut up.