UNIFIL is the U.N. "peacekeeping" force that has been stationed in southern Lebanon since 1978, and it is only one in a long list of such forces whose existence is guaranteed not by success in carrying out its mission, but by the gratifying effect that it has on the consciences of committed internationalists. The mandate of the enlarged force that was created by the adoption of Resolution 1701 — the ceasefire resolution that halted last summer's war — expires on August 31st, and the U.N.'s new secretary-general could have used the occasion to examine whether UNIFIL is doing its job. Instead, he urged the Security Council to renew UNIFIL's mandate and issued the same nonsensical statement that the U.N. has been regurgitating since 1978: that UNIFIL must continue because "recent events have tragically shown that much work remains to be done." Ban Ki-moon went one better and said: "The swift and effective deployment of UNIFIL has helped to establish a new strategic military and security environment in southern Lebanon."

If the word "effective" was removed from that sentence, there would be some truth to it. There is indeed a new security environment in southern Lebanon, but it is certainly not one that portends peace. UNIFIL's size was increased from a few thousand to almost 14,000 troops with the approval of 1701, and the new "robust" and "enhanced" force was supposed, at long last, to fill the power vacuum in southern Lebanon and prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its terrorist nation on Israel's northern border.

But the new UNIFIL has of course done nothing. Actually, worse than nothing: In the year since the end of the war, Iran and Syria have been rearming Hezbollah at a torrid pace, this time with better weaponry than before, and UNIFIL has barely even pretended to be interested in disrupting the arms flow. UNIFIL's rules of engagement prevent the border with Syria from being patrolled, and UNIFIL blue-helmets have neither the desire nor the means to confront Hezbollah.

A year ago Resolution 1701 was upheld by the international community as a guarantor of lasting peace. UNIFIL's continued existence is an example — like the West's anemic diplomacy toward Iran — of the refusal of those who most emphatically insist on diplomatic solutions and soft power to uphold any standards for, or breathe any life into, diplomatic and soft power initiatives. I wonder how many of the editorial pages that last summer demanded the approval of 1701 will revisit the subject of southern Lebanon in the coming weeks, on the first anniversary of the resolution?

I wrote on UNIFIL for NRO here.