Peacekeeping or Peacemaking?
There is an excellent look at Peacemaking & Peacekeeping over at OPFOR by 'Major P' that considers what any international force placed in southern Lebanon should look like. With any immediate ceasefire, they will necessarily be 'peacemakers' vice 'peacekeepers' and the forceshould be constituted as such.
Among the aspects considered by Major P are Size, Composition, Command Relationships and Mission.
Composition: it needs to be made up of units from countries that have solid military capabilities but do not have a dog in the fight. Given those two criteria, the list grows real short, real fast. Take out the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. Take out any Arab country. Take out Turkey. Take out France (too close to the problem). Take out Russia and China.
I suggest these countries be invited to step up and assume some responsibility: Germany, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Chile, India. Those are responsible nations with professional militaries, and they have some experience with these sorts of efforts.
His suggestions are reasonable though surely he is in a decided minority (among the thinking of those tasked with actually forming such a force).
I would add to his observations one more category: Motivation.
Any force from any nations absolutely must possess the motivation and willingness to enter into battle with and engage Hizballah in order to achieve the stated mission of disarmament. Period.
While that is precisely what Major P implied by the aggregate of his other points, it is sufficiently important to warrant explicit consideration.
For without the motivation/willingness to engage, all other points are meaningless and of little value. No sense skirting the issue. Step up or step off.