For the love of... I pressed the button once! Just a minute.

Sorted.

"This would fit with this, a State Department official telling journalists that Hezbollah disarming is "an issue that should be decided by the Lebanese government"."

Seems that Melanie Phillips' post
"A shadow no bigger than Condi's hand"
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001099.html

"But she has an agenda of her own, as we saw from her eyebrow-raising comments about the desirability of a single EU foreign minister and now from the blockage of Bolton and Wolfowitz. I suspect she is nearer to the State Department view of the world than people might think, although she is smart enough to conceal it pretty effectively. My guess is that she will take whatever opportunity she can to nudge the President ever so gently in the wrong direction. And with Wolfowitz and Bolton out of the way, it will surely be easier to do so."

fits nicely with the latest State Department behaviour.
The US won't come through for the Lebanese wanting freedom.

"Over dinner in Brussels last month, President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac hashed out a strategy to force a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon that included keeping pressure on Damascus and accepting a political role for the powerful Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, diplomats said."

Link

"The US won't come through for the Lebanese wanting freedom."

What would you suggest, 101st airborn? We cant force Hezbollah to disarm. We can pressure them to do so diplomatically, perhaps, with European help. Thats what is being attempted. Why incite the crazy carbombers at this point when we have no stick to whomp em with?

Agreed Mark. The current policy is the correct one.

We can pressure them to do so diplomatically, perhaps, with European help.

I know there's that 'perhaps' in there, but still...

Why incite the crazy carbombers at this point when we have no stick to whomp em with?

They're plenty incited, as the president might say. But letting them take control of a country? Let's not kid ourselves: they're the only ones with guns, they've got Syrian backing, Iranian cash. The current policy is handing Lebanon to Hezbollah.

"The current policy is handing Lebanon to Hezbollah."

Nonsense. It's a lot more complicated than that. See here.

"Let's not kid ourselves: they're the only ones with guns, they've got Syrian backing, Iranian cash"

What, in the history of Lebanon- not to mention the million protestors the reformers put in the streets, leads you to believe Hezbollah can take control of the country? Guns? We're talking about the Middle East, Beirut no less. Its a rare begger that doesnt have a Kalishnivok tucked under his robe. I dont think any of us want to see a civil war, but if Hezbollah made a power grab that is what you'd get. Which is why they wont do it. Even some kind of pyrhaic victory would leave the organization bled and broke, not to mention the blood enemy of the entire Western world. And with an angry Christian/Druze/secular Arab Lebanon boiling under their thumb. This is the same argument being used everywhere in the Middle East, the crazies are just waiting to take over. Its not happening and it wont happen unless we stick our fingers into it in the wrong way and change the dynamic radically.

And besides, what's the alternative?

Re - Management of Barbarism

Colt,

FYI - Our Arabic language source says the Jamestown Foundation's summary is an accurate representation of this doc.

No direct English language translation yet apparently. The link to the Arabic text is dead.

If you're interested here is a link to the Arabic text:

Link Here

What everybody is forgeting is that Hezbollah are the good guys in Lebanon. They are atleast not fascists or Saudi frontmen.

a. seems to be talking about the terrorist group and drug cartel with close ties to both Iran and Syria, who turned out in force to support Syrian occupation (before being given pause by the 800,000+ who showed up in response).

I must say, he has an awfully strange defintion of "good guys".

I thought Bush was a religious-fascist quasi-terrorist. Doesnt that make him a good guy too?

Not if you compare them with the rest who not only have close ties to Syria but also Saudi Arabia. And drug running is the way to make money.

My head hurts.

Welcome to a's Bizarro World, Mark. The rest... "close ties to Syria"... you mean like these people?

Hezbollah showed the whole world where it stood - and it was very clearly a stand for repression, and clearly NOT with the Lebanese people. They most emphatically are NOT the good guys here in any sense - even if a. likes them.

Though I'd be open to having a. demonstrate, with a lot more backup than he has offered to date, that there may be few "good guys" in Lebanon, and/or outline who the foreign power-players are and where their connections go. That would be a productive piece of the puzzle.

Until then, my advice is just to take a.'s opinions on this issue with the appropriately-sized shipment of salt.

Nonsense. It's a lot more complicated than that. See here.

The Druze and Maronite leaders, who make up the bulk of the opposition politicians, are all courting Hezbollah. Amal are still pro-Syria, so they're unlikely to be anti-Hezbollah. The majority of Lebanese political movements are pro-Hezbollah. The rest can and will be bought and/or intimidated.

What, in the history of Lebanon- not to mention the million protestors the reformers put in the streets, leads you to believe Hezbollah can take control of the country? Guns? We're talking about the Middle East, Beirut no less.

Beirut isn't Gaza, and it isn't Baghdad. The disarming of militias was very thorough (though I'm not suggesting that literally every gun was seized).

Hezbollah don't need to make a power-grab. The opposition are lining up to give them power.

This is the same argument being used everywhere in the Middle East, the crazies are just waiting to take over. Its not happening and it wont happen unless we stick our fingers into it in the wrong way and change the dynamic radically.

This isn't a case of a jihadi majority, and I never said it was. The fact is that all significant opposition factions want Hezbollah in government - something that has nothing to do with how we stick our fingers in.

And besides, what's the alternative?

You mentioned the 101st Airborne?

Ron Wright:

Thanks for that.

"You mentioned the 101st Airborne?"

And you think the opposition is lining up behind Hezbollah now?

Colt:

I'm not following you. I think its because you are responding to other people's post and haven't actually stated a position.

Should we bring in the military because (a)Hezbollah is god-awful, (b) Syrian troops need to be removed or © to bring peace, stability and/or democracy to Lebanon?

Patrick

"The fact is that all significant opposition factions want Hezbollah in government - something that has nothing to do with how we stick our fingers in"

There is a significant difference between wanting a group included in a government and wanting them running the country. Shiia and Kurds want Sunnis involved in the Iraqi government. It doesnt follow that they want Sunnis running the nation.
What would you have the opposition do? Is excluding the heavilly armed, zealot militia a wise idea? Is it smarter to poke the bear with a stick, or at least try to feed it a t-bone?

And thus begins the phase in Lebanon where Syria, with Hezbollah's assistance, attempt to run the country from the shadows while Hezbollah itself attempt to use a combination of legitimate means and murder as Syria's prime enforcer and Iran's cut out. Belmont Club considers success unlikely, and so do I. But it will certainly be tried.

The country could end up overcoming that, in a sustained 'rise of the decent people' that steadily pushes Hezbollah (as the recent huge demonstration did) and forces the organization, inch by inch, to change their ways or or be moved to the margins of politics and fully become the criminal enterprise already nascent within (drug-running, counterfeiting, money laundering, credit card fraud and identity theft... back to the convergence of crime and terror here).

Or, Lebanon could turn into a shadowy battleground with various Arab factions backing various parties, a sustained and "stably unstable" state of not-quite-peace but not-quite-war.

Or, it could collapse into civil war again.

The road ahead will be rocky, and the state of the Syrian and Iranian regimes over the next few years will heavily influence the result.

We'll see.

Hezbollah IS in the government, and has been for years.

#19 Mark Buehner

And you think the opposition is lining up behind Hezbollah now?

They are already. Ask them.

But to answer your point, so what? Attacking a country will piss off the locals. That doesn't mean its a poor choice.

Will return shortly.

Hezbollah IS in the government, and has been for years.

Eight MPs?

#20 PD Shaw

Should we bring in the military because (a)Hezbollah is god-awful, (b) Syrian troops need to be removed or © to bring peace, stability and/or democracy to Lebanon?

(A) is the first priority. I wouldn't want to inflict them on Lebanon, but the threat they pose makes it even more important they not have power.

#21 Mark Buehner

There is a significant difference between wanting a group included in a government and wanting them running the country. Shiia and Kurds want Sunnis involved in the Iraqi government. It doesnt follow that they want Sunnis running the nation.

Hezbollah are the strongest group in Lebanon, while the Sunnis are arguably the weakest in Iraq. There's no comparison. Hezbollah isn't likely to accept the scraps from the table, either.

What would you have the opposition do? Is excluding the heavilly armed, zealot militia a wise idea? Is it smarter to poke the bear with a stick, or at least try to feed it a t-bone?

What's the point in trading one barbaric, terror-sponsoring, criminal cartel for another?

The lebanese are god-awful and Hezbollah is made up of Lebanese so it is quite obvious that they are god awful.

Bringing in the military at this moment is also wrong because Hezbollah is now in a situation in which the European communists were between the WWII and Hungary. They were the ones who fought against the invader, did it in a honorable way and won at the end. They seem to be not to corrupt but their plans for the future are not in line with what most people want. If you attack them now the people will support them and you will be fought by everyone but wait a few years and they will be hated or so changed by power that they are no longer a treat.

What's the point in trading one barbaric, terror-sponsoring, criminal cartel for another?

Hezbollah is anti Israeli & anti sunni
Other groups who could be succesful will be anti Israeli & pro sunni

I think we should be for the anti sunni group.

'rise of the decent people'

aka maronites and druzen. Joe, those are not descent people.

Hezbollah are honourable? Wow.

"But to answer your point, so what? Attacking a country will piss off the locals. That doesn't mean its a poor choice."

I could give you about 50 historical examples of why its a poor choice. The only reason Iraq has even a chance to work is because the vast majority of the population was ambivalent about us being there. Make no mistake, sending troops to Lebanon would make enemies of all factions, including the neighbors. I cant think of a much worse idea at this point as we are finally getting a glimmer of respect and perhaps benefit of the doubt in the Middle East. Invading Lebanon would be an unparalleled disaster. Ask Israel how it worked out for them.

Make no mistake, sending troops to Lebanon would make enemies of all factions, including the neighbors.

The Druze, Amal, Hezbollah, the Sunnis... Most of them are already enemies.

I cant think of a much worse idea at this point as we are finally getting a glimmer of respect and perhaps benefit of the doubt in the Middle East.

Are we trying to be liked, or respected?

Ask Israel how it worked out for them.

Israel's plan was scuppered when Bashir Gemayel was killed. I'm not talking about rebuilding Lebanon, just destroying Hezbollah. And if I take your advice, and look at Israel's experience, that wouldn't be too difficult. The only thing that saved the PLO was the American warships that carried them away.

#28

You could argue that you can never fight a war honorable but Hezbollah was compared with the other fighting parties.

#30

The Palestinians don't know how to fight, the shiite do. Beside they probably are close to a majority in Lebanon so a democratic election under American rule in Lebanon will be won by a party which is absolutely not Hezbollah cough

I guess you've never talked to someone who fought Hezbollah.

The palestinians aren't a majority in Lebanon. There is no majority in Lebanon:

Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant), other 1.3%

From the CIA Factbook.