So, obviously, the use of the words U.S. backed makes much more sense. Mea culpa.
I checked back on previous US military assistance to Lebanon - it was running about US$ 38 million per year steadily in 2004 and 2005. (This probably includes a whole grab bag of stuff including drug war, etc.)
I am wondering if that would still qualify as "U.S. backed." I don't think so.
During and after the 2006 battle, the UAE and other Arab countries also provided aid, including helicopters. There's an even more detailed list here of what they got.
They apparently got 45 tanks from Belgium, but they probably bribed the journalist not to use the phrase "Belgian-backed" as that would destroy confidence.
Its also interesting to note that the one article mentioned that arm sales/assistance for the West was hampered before because of possible Syrian infiltration of the Lebanese military. Its only recently they could even become "US-backed" because before they were "Syrian-occupied."
I am wondering if that would still qualify as "U.S. backed." I don't think so.
During and after the 2006 battle, the UAE and other Arab countries also provided aid, including helicopters. There's an even more detailed list here of what they got.
They apparently got 45 tanks from Belgium, but they probably bribed the journalist not to use the phrase "Belgian-backed" as that would destroy confidence.
Its also interesting to note that the one article mentioned that arm sales/assistance for the West was hampered before because of possible Syrian infiltration of the Lebanese military. Its only recently they could even become "US-backed" because before they were "Syrian-occupied."
No comments:
Post a Comment