Lebanon as a test for NATO vs. EU

It's possible a multinational force will be called into southern Lebanon, but who should be part of said force? Israel has said it wants troops with "military capabilities and combat experience," but perhaps they'd settle for a force that has trained for combat - as opposed to simply peacekeeping. Either way, this rules out a typical U.N. crew.

Who can do it?

This could be a chance for NATO to further solidify its minted-in-Afghanistan reputation as an organization that is not only needed after the Cold War, but outside of Europe. NATO has taken care of business in Kosovo and now Afghanistan, but it's going to have to keep proving its relevance as critics continue to question it. The alliance says it's stretched too thin, so it would have to dig deep for this mission.

The bloc that truly has something to prove is the European Union. Its Rapid Reaction Force wouldn't be suitable for what looks to be a lengthy stay, but Lebanon would be a fantastic opportunity to show the world that the EU actually has a Common Foreign and Security Policy. All 25 states' representatives could meet, decide to send Polish troops, and that would still show more cohesion than Poland (or wherever) sending troops on its own or through the U.N. or NATO. A contingent involving more states would of course be preferable.

The EU has shown its economic prowess, as a bigger market than either the U.S. or Japan, and its economic muscle, blocking U.S. mergers and fining Microsoft. But power still involves military might. The EU has gone out of its way to argue that its CFSP exists to compliment NATO, not replace it. Well, now's the chance to compliment NATO's overstretched forces.

Is either organization up to the challenge?