Swedish Toast

There was an article in the New York Times yesterday saying that what is needed in the Middle East is a well-armed multinational force to police the Israeli-Lebanese border. I agree with the article's assertion that the fighting needs to stop immediately, but here's an idea: how about a multinational force that is not armed. While the concept of peacekeeping is linked with having enough might to convince the aggressor that he will suffer if he does not comply, isn't there a more fundamental logic that suggests more guns will not bring about more peace?

If you have to eschew that fundamental logic in order to get to the point where you are convinced you must kill or be killed, you are beyond any desire for resolutions. Then it's just the 'Chicago way': "they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." Damn it, we just can't learn from Sean Connery!