"Who will defend Lebanon in case of a new Israeli offensive?" he asked. "The Lebanese army and international troops are incapable of protecting Lebanon," he said, flanked by Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
That's from Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. It just begs the question… would Lebanon need defending if Hezbollah didn't go around starting conflicts?
Hmm…
Now to answer his question… wouldn't the Lebanese army defend Lebanon if such defense were needed? As I understand it, they weren't involved in this ordeal because Israel wasn't attacking with the intent to hurt Lebanon but, rather, with the intent to hurt Hezbollah who was using Lebanon as their playground. So really, if Lebanon was in need of defense, it was against Hezbollah making them a target. Seems to me that Israel was actually helping them out in this regard. I don't recall hearing anything about the Lebanese army going in and stopping Hezbollah from keeping the conflict raging.
Maybe that just didn't make the news… but I doubt it.
An interesting question… but he's really got a point. You're talking about an armed forces of 75,000 total vs. one of more than double that number. Admittedly, with international forces, it might be a slightly more level playing field, but international forces (true international forces… not neighbour countries who also have scores to settle) are currently unlikely to take on anything other than a 'peacekeeping' role.
So, on a very basic level, when it's 2 on 1, chances are that things are going to work out to the advantage of the 2-man team… taking thermonuclear devices out of the equation (and they're on the side of the larger numbers, anyway)