"The United States is willing to consider a Lebanese proposal to move armed forces into Hezbollah-controlled areas but is convinced that Lebanon is not equipped to handle the job on its own, the White House said Tuesday." - AP
The cynical and misleading thing about the above statement is: if the U.S. is convinced that the Lebanese government is in no position to "handle the job on its own" - and is thus unable to force an end to Hizbullah's military power - then how does the US justify supporting and aiding the Israeli position that the Lebanese government "must be held accountable", "must understand" their responsibility over their own territory, etc etc? If the U.S. knows that the Lebanese were in no position to move against Hizbullah by force (not that they should have), then why did it not propose another approach to the problem with Hizbullah, or at least explain to the Israelis the futility of their approach? The Israelis have been striking across Lebanon, targeting infrastructure and the like, at least partly to place pressure on the Lebanese government, a motive which Israel itself has admitted to. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? Israel applies 'pressure' (bombs) on Lebanon in order to push it to do something the US does not believe it is capable of doing, and the U.S. gives its wholehearted support. This by itself makes this war unjustified and the American position either short-sighted, or hypocritical, or both.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
YOU'RE RIGHT!!
It dosen't make sense. nice one fay.
Let me translate:
It means (since Hezbollah is not broken enough) that the Lebanese are not in enough pain to want to do the job.
That's what this war is about. And don't shoot the messenger.
JoseyWales,
You're absolutely right, that is what it means. Im curious how our other readers see it.
Last week, "the State Department notified Congress it wanted to add $10 million to the $1.5 million it provides annually to the Lebanese military."
Let's see...that's roughly 2 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Problem solved, guys.
We can go home now.
Right.
Excellent viewpoint Faysal. I don't, however, expect the Americans to break a sweat deflecting the criticism. The perfect alibi (I agree with the "messenger") lies in citing Centcom Gen. John Abizaid, who..
"..told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday the Lebanese armed force "needs a significant upgrade of equipment and training capability that I believe the Western nations, particularly the United States, can assist with."
Abizaid also said he believes Lebanon can extend government control over the entire country if it gets sufficient help, including an international peacekeeping force with a clear mandate, cooperation from the Lebanese government and "robust rules of engagement."
Faysal:
I thought your original post was insightful. Is the Faysal in the third comment the same guy who wrote the original post--are you schizophrenic? Or are there two Faysals?
The US should know something about the difficulty of disarming militias--in Iraq, after 3 1/2 years, the US has been unable to make a dent in disarming, or even mitigating the negative aspects of, two major Shia militias. For the US to argue that the Lebanese government, in its one year in office, could have effectively taken on Hezbollah would have been first-degree hypocritical.
US support for Israel in its Lebanon initiative was based on two things: trust in Israel and the belief that all terrorists (who are pretty much indistinguishable from one another--Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, same difference) are evil. No clue about history. I will bet you that Bush didn't even know that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for eighteen years-- and that Hezbollah resistance was largely responsible for the Israeli exit. Probably Rice--and Blair--don't either.
The US has done only one thing right in this whole affair--and that is keeping Syria out of the negotiations and picture. Apart from that, what it has done has been counterproductive to its purposes. It couldn't even capitalize on the initial statement of the Arab League countries on Hezbollah. 10 days later those same countries wouldn't allow Rice to visit them. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the Lebanese war later this week in Saudi Arabia. In a speech in the US about ten days ago, the Saudi Foreign Minister ripped (through ridicule) the US for its naivete and its understanding of the New Middle East.
To say that Lebanon had to go through the kind of pain that it has gone through, or that Hezbollah had to be broken (which it hasn't been--in fact the Israeli actions have only served to make Nasralla the Muslim here), (though the Shias in southern Lebanon have been savaged), to have the Lebanese government confront Hezbollah is, in my opinion, nonsense. Far less pain inflicted by Israel could have moved things forward. Indeed, as the Daily Star has pointed out, Israel's original large show of force and extent of destruction has severely undermined its leverage for change. But Israel has made that kind of error over and over again in its history--no genuine sense of proportion.
Thanks, Faysall, for the opportunity to respond to your post. Hopefully, a UN resolution will move Lebanon forward so that the March 14th program is not just a mirage. The Siniora government needs to be strengthened, not emasculated.
Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more with JoseyWales, but that is not surprising since I have pretty much disagreed with everything I have seen associated with his name (at his site, etc.).
Paul
Retired Business School Professor
Midwest US
There are many things that the Lebanese government could have done and should have done without the need for an all out military confrontation with HA.
Did the PM ever take to the air waves to explain to the public the lawless situation in the south?
Did he or his governmet ever intercept the sophisticated weapons sent from Iran through Syria?
Did the Lebanese government stop the illegal activities of HA in the Bekaa?
And the list goes on and on...
Even the last half hearted measure to send troops to the south does not explicitly speak to the issue of disarming HA, how this conflict got started or what we can do to stop it besides using old tired cliches.
As you can see a strong case can be made for the culpability of the Lebanese government in having allowed this conflict to develop and its failure to deal with it after it occured. Obviously such a government has to prove its ability and willingness to keep HA away from the border. There is nothing in the record of this government that inspires respect on this issue.
I guess I do not see any contradictions in the US position:-)
Ghassan:
There may well have been some things that the Siniora government could have more aggressively done with regard to Hezbollah, but given what had already been done in southern Lebanon as relates to military infrastructure in the first five years (2000-2005) since Israeli withdrawal--before the Siniora government took office, I am not at all certain that would have made much difference.
With regard to the US position, there is an article in an online publication called Insight that indicates that there is significant split/conflict between Rice and Bush on issue of policy toward Lebanon situation-- apparently the first real break between Rice and Bush on a foreign policy issue. I think that may help make the case that I have made about the incohereance of US policy. I side with Rice, not Bush; Bush's policy has thus far prevailed. If Rice had prevailed, I think it is likelly we would have already had a cease fire--and also not the break with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan that the Bush policy has created.
Paul again
Another example of the incoherence of US policy courtesy of the New York Times:
Moderate reformers say they are driven to despair by what they see as inconsistencies in Washington’s Middle East policy. For example, in Lebanon lives a black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Washington approves of Israel’s bombing campaign to stamp out his organization, Hezbollah.
There is another black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a different secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, and he lives in Iraq. He is an American friend.
“In Iraq the same kind of group is an ally of the United States, while in Lebanon they are an enemy whom they are fighting,” said Samir al-Qudah, a Jordanian civil engineer. “It has nothing to do with reform, but where America’s interests lie.”
Paul Again
Paul
I am saying that Israel went to war to break Hezbo and/or to pressure the Lebanese into doing it.
If that's not the goal, enlighten me.
Faysal,
Would you think otherwise??
Anyone who believes America is going to help here is naive. I'm always surprised when those hit by American self-interest expect anything BUT that.
American foreign policy is rife with superficial contradictions - we know this from decades of realist political actions. Let's get over 1st year political science and recognize that the States (like any other sovereign nation) acts ONLY in its self interest. Its relationship with Lebanon has and will reflect that simple notion.
Josey,
I absolutely agree you, that is what the war is about. Paul, do you disagree?
raven,
Im not naive at all. I wrote an article a couple of months back warning the Lebanese not to rely too heavily on the Americans. Like any other country, the US acts in its self interest. However, that does not mean we should not blow the whistle on them when they claim a foreign policy guided by moral clarity and consistency, right?
Faysal, Josey, and others:
Thank you both for your respectful responses, which invite critical responses.
I don't think the US really has a clue as to what they are trying to do with their response in Lebanon. Bush and Rice (see insightmag.com) have been fighting over what we should do with respect to Lebanon.
I think the comments regarding US support for Lebanese are well-taken. At this point, only knee-jerk support for Israel is the policy. Hopefully Rice can prevail. We will see will UN resolution.
I very much appreciate the dialogue-oriented principles underlying your comments. This is appropriate for a blog entitled "The Thinking Lebanonese"
Only the Lebanese government can really take on and neutralize Hezbollah, in my opinion--with the support of some type of external force. If that is one's understanding, the combined strategies of the US and Israel have been counterproductive. This is not a war/battle that will be won on the battlefield.
The "breaking" of Hezbollah will not come about through the un-nuanced strategy thus far put forward by the US government (see my previous postings to this blog). Siniora (and his major supporters Hariri and Jumblatt) are so much more sophisticated about the overall political dimensions than Bush and Bolton that it defies one's imagination to try to compare them.
if the U.S. is convinced that the Lebanese government is in no position to "handle the job on its own" - and is thus unable to force an end to Hizbullah's military power - then how does the US justify supporting and aiding the Israeli position that the Lebanese government "must be held accountable"
Because the Lebanese government should have asked for foreign military aid to disarm Hezbollah (in accordance with UNSC 1559 and its own sovereignty) when it became clear that the job was too much for the government to accomplish politically or militarily. The Lebanese government didn't do this because it feared the result of confronting Hizbollah; the result now - quite legal under international law - may be worse than if such a confrontation had occurred. There is no "contradiction". If there is short-sightedness or hypocrisy in this war, it isn't by the Israelis or Americans.
Solomon,
"Because the Lebanese government should have asked for foreign military aid to disarm Hezbollah (in accordance with UNSC 1559)"
The resolution called for disarming Hizballah, which the Lebanese government has been trying to do domestically and through diplomatic means abroad. However the resolution does not advocate, and neither would any peice-loving Lebanese (and intelligent nuanced people with understanding of the complexities of the Lebanese political landscape), disarming them militarily or by use of force. Asking for military help from an outside power to disarm a domestic political and military group like Hizballah would have been a.) political suicide for a Lebanese government already struggling to maintain the fine balance of the nation's new found freedom and democratic unity and b.) (and again it seems this has been repeated a million times now) confronting Hizballah militarily is a sure-fire path to CIVIL WAR.
The Lebanese government didn't do this because it feared the result of confronting Hizbollah
I agree, and their fears are more than justified as we all know. I will repeat again that most Lebanese feared this and did not want to confront Hizballah militarily because they feared civil conflict. Domestic politicians and general public opinion were placing pressure on Hizballah up to right before the war and the political confrontation would have continued to escalate for that matter, to what end no one can say now. However, even THAT wrankled the Hizballah rank and file (see post-Basmat Watan LBC political satirical program riots by Hizballah faithful after the lampooning of Nasrallah on TV). If a sketch comedy political satire show could cause that reaction, military confrontation would have been out of the question. Let's say, however, that Lebanon had asked for military help. In comes X-Y-Z-countries with their multi-national forces to fight along side the Lebanese army. First of all, the Lebanese army as a whole would refuse to carry out military operations against their own countrymen, secondly the Shi'a contigent in the army would splinter off into it's own sub-group supporting Hizballah. You would have a situation where Lebanese are killing Lebanese, something no person who loves his/her country would want to see happen. In that situation, Lebanon and Israelis are all not safe or secure. I mention Israel as well because doubtless they would have been drawn into the conflict one way or another. In fact, it might be worse than it is now.
may be worse than if such a confrontation had occurred.
Civil War in Lebanon is the last thing anyone wants and while it may or may not be worse than the current conflict, if history or experience has taught us anything a new Civil War in Lebanon would be extemely deadly and destructive no matter what the outcome. No price is worth this 'confrontation'. Not to mention, a military confrontation domestically would give green-light to all groups in the country to re-arm themselves if not a.) to defend themselves and their communities or b.) as an offensive for those who still feel the need to express latent sectarian hatred and divisions that still exist from the Civil war. Pile on top of all that the possible involvement of Syria and Iran and so on and so forth a regional war is in possible (if it isn't already). Conclusion: in the Middle East, a new way of doing things must be adobted even with the most extreme groups. We must understand the complex dynamics of culture, politics and history in this region instead of repeatedly and continuously operating as our neanderthal ancestors did (ancient, modern or otherwise). I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the means, but this particular situation requires that the Lebanese people have peace so that they can resolve domestic problems amongst themselves. When that happens, you will have a secure and peaceful relationship between Israel and Lebanon. Did everyone really expect that a year would be enough to resolve such long-standing divisions after 30 years of Syrian occupation? Yes, there is still the problem of Syria and Iran but THAT problem, while still a Lebanese problem by virtue of the support garnered by Hizballah from said countries, should be addressed by the powers that be who should be making THEM pay the price (diplomatically or economically or military or otherwise) for their actions and support of Hizballah. Not the rest of Lebanon which did not want all of this in the first place.
There is no "contradiction". If there is short-sightedness or hypocrisy in this war, it isn't by the Israelis or Americans.
I wonder if short-sightedness is not a product of lack of nuance and sophisticated handling of a complex country and extremely complex relationships between the factions and people within it? The Lebanese people were engaged in democratic national debate on ways to peacefully disarm Hizballah before the war started. While things were moving along very slowly, I think this is anything but short-sited because everyone knows in the end the Lebanese have to share a country with one another. I think the short-sightedness (and carelessness) came on the part of Hizballah for engaging in a needless war at a point of domestic crisis. I also think it is short-sighted of the Israelis for thinking that the military option at this scale and level is going to solve any of their problems, in fact, things will only get worse for Israel if this continues (the Israeli cabinet who has approved an expansion of the war now should know better if only from their experiences in 1978, 1982, 1993,and 1996. None of those military adventures solved any of their problems or made them any more secure). The Americans have not only been contradictory in their stances on support for various groups in the region, as highlighted by Faysal in another post, but suddenly the UN is relevant to the Americans again as a tool of international governance. Convenient for them, despite their discarding of UN power and credibility in deciding to go to war in Iraq and countless UNSC resolutions having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israeli occupation, and resolutions against Syrian occupation of Lebanon etc. etc. That's not to say that Arab countries and many other nations elsewhere have not been as careless about UN resolutions but for the situation at hand America is proving itself (again) quite self-gratuitous. Anyhow, they also have been short-sited by not helping to put a stop to the current conflict in order to give the fragile Lebanese democracy more time to sort out domestic problems.
Having said that, I disagree regarding 'hypocracy'as well. I think the United States has been nothing short of hypocritical in this war by virute of its stance with the Lebanese government it so much admires and supports,yet standing aside as Israel's continued bombardment further puts into jeopardy the very government America has been championing in Lebanon for the last year and a half.
Post a Comment