July 26, 2006
Lebanon’s Premature Liberalism
“This is not Norway here, and it is not Denmark.” -- Lebanese Christian militia leader Bashir Gemayel.
Last month I made a terrible mistake.
A reader from Lake Oswego -- a suburb of my city of Portland -- emailed and asked if he thought he should take his wife and children to Lebanon on their next vacation. I said sure. Just stay out of the Hezbollah areas along the border with Israel and in the suburbs south of Beirut. And make sure your kids understand that Lebanese drivers are considerably more reckless than drivers in Oregon, that they should be more careful than usual when crossing the street.
Needless to say, this was absolutely awful advice.
My friend Sean LaFreniere - who drove with me to Northern Iraq on a whim -- was scheduled to be with me in Beirut right now. (I am at home and he is now blogging from Tunisia and Turkey.) He was slightly nervous, but I told him he did not need to worry. Lebanon could become a dangerous country again. There are warning signs to watch out for, I said, and I told him what they were. At the time (and this was only a few weeks ago) those warning signs were not yet flashing red. Who would have thought war could engulf the whole country, and not just the border, in one day with no warning?
I kept my eye on the country, even so, because potential medium-term trouble was quietly brewing. Many Lebanese Christians, Sunnis, and Druze were getting so impatient with the impasse over Hezbollah’s weapons they threatened to reconstitute their own armed militias that were disbanded after the war. Peaceful and diplomatic negotiation over Hezbollah’s role in a sovereign rather than schismatic Lebanon was not going to last very much longer. Once the rest of Lebanon armed itself against Hezbollah, a balance of terror would reign that could explode into war without any warning. That was the danger. That was the nightmare. That’s why Hezbollah had not been disarmed.
Syria’s Bashar Assad threatened to make Lebanon burn if his occupation troops were forced out of the country. Most Lebanese think that’s what last year’s car bombs were about. After former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, was assassinated downtown, all the car bomb victims were Christian. All the random car bombs exploded in Christian neighborhoods. The idea - or so the Lebanese thought - was to whip up sectarian hatred, to get Christian militias to rearm and retaliate, and to re-ignite the Lebanese war. Assad yearned to burn Lebanon, and he was not shy about saying so. Syria, or so he hoped, might be invited back in to stop the chaos with the soldier’s peace of the Baath.
That plan didn’t work. Hardly anyone wanted a return to civil war. No Christian vigilantes retaliated against Muslims (Sunni or Shia) because they knew it was a trap set by the Baath. That, most likely, is why the siege of the car bombs came to an end.
Sectarian tensions and hatreds run deep in Lebanon, even so, far deeper than those of us in the West can begin to relate to. 32 years ago Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East. But 15 years ago Lebanon was the Somalia of the Middle East. It made the current troubles in Iraq look like a polite debate in a Canadian coffeeshop by comparison. There is no ethnic-religious majority in that country, and every major sect has been, at one time or another, a victim of all the others.
I spent a total of seven months in Lebanon recently, and I never could quite figure out what prevented the country from flying apart into pieces. It barely held together like unstable chemicals in a nitro glycerin vat. The slightest ripple sent Lebanese scattering from the streets and into their homes. They were far more twitchy than I, in part (I think) because they understood better than I just how precarious their civilized anarchy was. Their country needed several more years of careful nurturing during peace time to fully recover from its status as a carved up failed state.
By bombing all of Lebanon rather than merely the concentrated Hezbollah strongholds, Israel is putting extraordinary pressure on Lebanese society at points of extreme vulnerability. The delicate post-war democratic culture has been brutally replaced, overnight, with a culture of rage and terror and war. Lebanon isn't Gaza, but nor is it Denmark.
Lebanese are temporarily more united than ever. No one is running off to join Hezbollah, but tensions are being smoothed over for now while everyone feels they are under attack by the same enemy. Most Lebanese who had warm feelings for Israel -- and there were more of these than you can possibly imagine -- no longer do.
This will not last.
My sources and friends in Beirut tell me most Lebanese are going easy on Hezbollah as much as they can while the bombs are still falling. But a terrible reckoning awaits them once this is over.
Some Lebanese can’t wait even that long.
Here a Christian mob smashes a car in Beirut for displaying a Hezbollah logo. My friend Carine says the atomosphere reeks of impending sectarian conflict like never before. Another Lebanese blogger quotes a radical Christian war criminal from the bad old days who says the civil war will resume a month after Israel cools its guns: "Christians, Sunnis and Druze will fight the 'fucker Shia', with arms from the US and France."
Israeli partisans may think this is terrific. The Lebanese may take care of Hezbollah at last! But democratic Lebanon cannot win a war against Hezbollah, not even after Hezbollah is weakened by IAF raids. Hezbollah is the most effective Arab fighting force in the world, and the Lebanese army is the weakest and most divided. The Israelis beat three Arab armies in six days in 1967, but a decade was not enough for the IDF to take down Hezbollah.
The majority of Lebanon’s people were wise and civilized enough to take the gun out of politics after the fifteen year war. Lebanon was the only Arab country to do this, the only Arab country that preferred dialogue, elections, compromise, and debate to the rule of the boot and the rifle. But Hezbollah remained outside that mainstream consensus and did everything it could, with backing from the Syrian Baath and the Iranian Jihad, to strangle Lebanon’s democracy in its cradle.
Disarming Hezbollah through persuasion and consensus was not possible in the first year of Lebanon’s independence. Disarming Hezbollah by force wasn’t possible either. The Lebanese people have been called irresponsible and cowardly by some of their friends in America for refusing to resume the civil war. Unlike Hezbollah, though, most Lebanese know better than to start unwinnable wars. This is wisdom, not cowardice, and it's sadly rare in the Arab world now. They are being punished entirely too much for what they have done and for what they can't do.
Israel and Lebanon (especially Lebanon) will continue to burn as long as Hezbollah exists as a terror miltia freed from the leash of the state. The punishment for taking on Hezbollah is war. The punishment for not taking on Hezbollah is war. Lebanese were doomed to suffer war no matter what. Their liberal democratic project could not withstand the threat from within and the assaults from the east, and it could not stave off another assault from the south. War, as it turned out, was inevitable even if the actual shape of it wasn’t. Peace was not in the cards for Lebanon. Its democracy turned out to be neither a strength nor a weakness. It was irrelevant.
Holding up as a democracy in a dictatorial region isn’t easy. Chalk this up as yet another thing Israel and Lebanon have in common with each other that they don’t have in common with anyone else in the Middle East -- except, perhaps, for the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Unlike Israeli democracy, though, Lebanese democracy may not have the strength to keep breathing. Already some right-wing American "realists" are suggesting Syria return its forces to Lebanon. (Bashar Assad may be as much a foreign policy genius as his late father.) The March 14 Movement, the Cedar Revolution, may be too weak to survive until the region as a whole is transformed. If the Lebanese, the Americans, and the Israelis are not wise in the coming days, weeks, and months it could die the same death as the Prague Spring in the late 1960s, crushed under the treads of Soviet tanks and smothered until the day the world around it had changed.
When Israel and Hezbollah reach a ceasefire at last, round two of this conflict will commence in short order. No one knows if the Lebanese will be able to keep the gun out of politics after all that has happened. A tiny minority of Lebanese (with help from the remaining Syrian agents) can burn the country to the ground all over again.
“What will become of us?” is the question on everyone’s mind. No one can know what will happen after Israel lifts its siege and the temporary national unity flies apart into pieces. And it will fly apart into pieces. The only question is how far the pieces will fly and how hard they'll land.
During all seven months I spent in Lebanon the overwhelming majority feared an imminent return to civil war. I always told them they were too pessimistic even while I wondered if I was too naïve. Perhaps I’ve absorbed too much of that Lebanese fatalism by spending so much of my time among them. And perhaps my naivete has finally been washed away. I really don't know. It’s an old question that I don’t know how to answer.
Either way, the odds are quite a lot grimmer than they recently were. Lebanon could, indeed, become a free fire zone even if most Lebanese do everything they can to make it not so. Just a few thousand Hezbollah fighters set two countries on fire all by themselves. Don’t discount what bloody mayhem and hell a few thousand armed Druze, Christians, and Sunni can do if they decide to go hunting Shia in revenge for destroying their country. Don't forget, also, that Lebanon is now surging with tens of thousands of furious, displaced, homeless, unemployed, and undisciplined young Shia men enthralled with Iranian-style jihad.
Insha Allah, Lebanon might be okay. Perhaps the status quo ante will return, only with a weaker and even more marginalized Hezbollah seething in its corner and thrown off the border. There may be scattered acts of sectarian violence that threaten to ignite into war and never quite do. Kidnappings could come back in style. Al Qaeda may finally have its turn at the Israeli border if their Hezbollah enemy is no longer there to keep them away. I do not know. The Lebanese themselves do not know. But one thing I do know is that after the first war ends there really could be another.
Don’t take your kids. Stay out until further notice.
Post-script: I was planning a trip to Iran in the near future, but of course I did not see this coming. Iran will have to wait. I’m returning to Lebanon as soon as the airport re-opens. Please hit the Pay Pal button and help me buy airfare.
If you would like to donate money for travel expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, you can send a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 08:03 PMThat was really good.
Posted by: Chris at July 26, 2006 08:12 PMAren't you the one who accused me of hyperbolic exagerration when I wrote "everything could explode at any moment" from the Israeli border?
I was more right than I had any idea. I sure do hope I'm wrong this time. Damn near anything could happen next.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 08:29 PMMy best friend's business partner and family arrived in Beirut for their vacation two days before this all broke out.
He said the biggest impediment to getting back home was the US Embassy.
Posted by: Matt at July 26, 2006 08:42 PMThat was one hell of a writeup, Michael. Great piece. And I sure hope some of the people who've been trolling around in the comments section lately, read it and read it again.
As a Lebanese living in the US, I am constantly amazed at how many people spout out about Lebanon and Israel (from both sides) in complete ignorance. "Why didn't the Lebanese kick out Hezbollah?". "All Lebanese support terrorism. They deserve this. They had it coming" and so on.
It's good to see that a few people out here, stateside, do get it.
And even though the picture you paint for the future is somewhat pessimisstic, I am currently hard pressed to think of an alternative. You are right, this conflict was, in the end, inevitable.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 26, 2006 08:45 PMMichael,
Awesome post, You took out your emotions, but the passion and love for Lebanon are clearly evident. Never lose those.
One point that I would like to have your input on is, what do you suggest Israel do? They obviously cannot allow Hezballah to do as they wish on Israel's soil.
And, once again, Thank you for a great post!
Posted by: Brooklyn at July 26, 2006 08:55 PMMichael, thank you for your continued impassioned analysis. I hope that you're wrong, but I'm afraid that you're right, as you were when you predicted "everything will explode." But please be careful if you go back to Beirut!
Posted by: Rebecca at July 26, 2006 08:58 PMmt: you wrote:
"By bombing all of Lebanon rather than merely the concentrated Hezbollah strongholds, Israel is putting extraordinary pressure on Lebanese society at points of extreme vulnerability."
sorry: this is nonsense.
99% of beirut is untouched. as is most of lebanon.
the iaf and idf has only attacked hizb'allah sites.
and if the lebanese had fulfilled unscr#1559 this op would've been unnecessary.
thewy had 6 (six) friggin years, and never once asked for help.
they had a year since bashar split.
but they monkeyed around.
i think that israel is totally in the right: they werfe friggin attacked - BY LEBANON - n every legal sense.
get real.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 26, 2006 09:17 PMreliapundit: if the lebanese had fulfilled unscr#1559 this op would've been unnecessary.
Obviously this is true.
Now, please tell us (and be specific and exact) how the weakest and most divided Arab fighting force (the Lebanese army) was supposed to defeat the strongest (Hezbollah) when even the Israelis couldn't do it after more than ten years.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 09:25 PMBad Vilbel: I am constantly amazed at how many people spout out about Lebanon and Israel (from both sides) in complete ignorance.
You and me both, buddy.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 09:28 PMHi Michael,
As always, I enjoyed reading your post. You have a unique perspective on Lebanon that is not available elsewhere.
The Cedar Revolution was exciting and promising, but at the end of the day, changed nothing. Hezbollah is the de facto power in Lebanon, while the elected government is merely a powerless bystander. They, in effect, have a mad dog on their property that they can not leash, muzzle or control. Their dog (keeping with the metaphor)went over to the neighbour's and killed and kidnapped the neighbour's kids. And Lebanon couldn't do the neighbourly thing and retreive those kids, nor could it assure its neighbours that it would make sure that the dog never did it again.
As you said,to issue that sort of challenge would have meant war with Hezbollah. Instead, failure to prevail over an armed militia within their borders has made Lebanon the aggressor in this conflict--
after all, the fault always lies with the owner, not the dog......
Stay safe when you return to Lebanon.
Posted by: lin at July 26, 2006 09:44 PMIn our lifetime the Lebanese army will never be as strong as or stronger than Israel's army has been up to now.
As you said Israel's military wasn’t strong enough to defeat Hezbollah militarily so what makes you think the Lebanese military would?
Terrorism cannot be defeated by a force of arms alone.
It is only when the people of Lebanon have the will to fight back against Hezbollah will they stand any chance of defeating the militia.
After almost 20 years of Hezbollah's non compliance with the Taif Agreement it is clear that they will never disarm peacefully. There will be bloodshed before they disarm, as much as Syria was not going to leave Lebanon without bloodshed.
The Israelis know the character of such terrorist groups.
They have tried peace with the Oslo Accord and the PLO started the Intifada as a thank you.
They evacuated the Gaza strip and Hamas bombed Israel from the evacuated territories in response.
They evacuated southern Lebanon and got attacked by Hezbollah as well.
For Israel it is time to fight. For the Lebanese it is time to fully establish the sovereignty of their nation.
Posted by: Freedom Now at July 26, 2006 10:06 PMA thoroughly lucid and insightful evaluation, and based on actual knowledge, rather than dogma or rhetoric. Thanks also for the poise and balance on the Israel issue, something entirely lacking in the blogosphere these days.
One question. It seems to be a popular theory that Hezbollah was under a lot of pressure to disarm, and their move against Israel was designed to lure the Israelis into a massive attack that would remove this pressure. This theory is mostly advanced by anti-Israel partisans who want to demonstrate that Israel is not only guilty of a brutal war of aggression, but are also "dupes" for playing into Hezbollah's hands.
It seemed more plausible to me that Hezbollah simply misjudged the Israeli reaction (indeed, they have said as much)and that their intention was simply to draw Israel into a tit for tit. I was not aware that there was any real pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, but I have no idea.
Did the Lebanese government place any pressure on Hezbollah to disarm? I do remember Emile Lahoud stating, with high arrogance, that Hezbollah was Israel's problem.
Posted by: MarkC at July 26, 2006 10:14 PMMarkC,
Lahoud was appointed by Syria. His constituency is in Damascus. His credibility among his supposed constituency in Lebanon (the Christians) is zero.
80 percent of Lebanon wants Hezbollah disarmed. The only people in Lebanon who dispute this are Hezbollah supporters.
"The government" does not exist as an entity. It is a byzantine confessional system of competing blocs, most of which oppose Hezbollah but can't do much about it any more than you and I can disarm Texas.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 10:21 PMHezbollah is the most effective Arab fighting force in the world, and the Lebanese army is the weakest and most divided.
That's not what I'm hearing.
Stratfor is saying that the Syrian Army is strong enough to subdue Hezbollah, not that they're going to be invited to.
I was talking to an Egyptian immigrant today who said that the Egyptian army is the second strongest force in the middle east, a close second to Israel...
Are you SURE that Hezbollah is so strong?
Clearly the Syrian army is weaker than Iran, and as I said Stratfor thinks that Hezbollah could be suppressed by Syrian forces.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 26, 2006 10:26 PMMark C,
If I may try to answer your questions.
There was indeed pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, from pretty much all the other Lebanese factions. The same factions that were opposed to Syria's presence in Lebanon, that lead to the Cedar Revolution.
You have to disregard the comments of Mr. Lahoud (i'm ashamed to say this) who's nothing but a Syrian puppet. This is a president who's term was extended in an unconstitutional manner, at the point of a Syrian gun (prior to their leaving). He's their man, and, sadly, does not represent anyone but himself and Syria.
Over the past year, the Lebanse were trying to remove whatever Syrian influence remained in the state institutions (including the Army), as well as talking about impeaching Lahoud (or at the very least, removing him from office in some way).
The Lebanese were also talking about disarming Hezbollah. As Michael points out in his article. None of the sunni, druze or christian factions are very happy about Hezbollah being allowed to carry weapons. This was the main agenda of the "national dialogue" that was underway for the past few months.
Having said that, I think Michael is right in his assessment that in the end, the national dialogue was doomed to fail, because Hezbollah was not going to agree to be disarmed. That's their entire reason-d'etre. You take away their weapons, they are nothing. So of course, they were going to resist that at any cost, including starting a civil war (I remember Nasrallah telling other Lebanese factions that anyone trying to disarm Hezbollah would have their arm cut off (I am sure he meant that figuratively, but still)).
So in the end, this crisis was inevitable. There is simply no way Hezbollah was going to let themselves be disarmed peacefully. And Israel was certainly not going to stand by idly while this threat lingered on its northern border, and its soldiers were being kidnapped. And sooner or later, a provocation was bound to happen. And here we are today.
I do think that even though Israel is doing what it thinks is right and what it thinks is good for its security in the short term, this IS actually playing into the hands of Syria and Iran to a certain degree.
(And believe me, I dont say this because I am anti-Israel, or because I want to show them as dupes).
I am right there with you. I have been since you left, and I will be there when you go again. It isn't much, but money is on the way.
Good luck,
Lance
Posted by: Lance at July 26, 2006 10:31 PMUnfortunatly this is one of the cases where Hizbolla gets to choose the place where combat takes place and they have chosen civilian centers.
It leaves Israel to either do nothing or attack as they have. I can not see them do nothing (nor can I demand given what Hizbolla is/was doing to them). There was a graphic (hand drawn, not photo) I saw a few days back with a Hizbolla combatant hiding behind a baby carriage and an Israeli in front of one shooting at each other. To some extent that is hyperbole, but as far as I can see there is more truth there than not.
If the Lebonese army and people wishes to make a real go at it I would support western support such as what we have done in Iraq. I suspect that several western countries would do the same to rid the place from Hizbolla. But, at least from yours and others writing I do not think the situation is such that it will occur (I do not think the ones who could make this work have the will and the ones with the will/desire to fight want to rule). I suspect that Israel will pull out and there will be much talk in the rest of the world with Lebanon fighting.
I may be reading you and the other wrong (what I'm going by wasn't exactly in the context of what is going on now), but the idea of no civil war means there will be a bloody one. Like above, you don't really get to chose if the other person decides to kill you, and once they decide to do so to ignore it (or refuse to participate) makes everything even more bloody and allows the most violent to take charge. Both sides have to tire of war, if one side does and the other doesn't the agressor wins by default.
Anyway - I hope I'm wrong and it works out better than that. I look forward to reading your stuff as this unfolds - much better analysis than anything I've seen on any "real" journalist programs/articles.
Posted by: strcpy at July 26, 2006 10:44 PM"Already some right-wing American "realists" are suggesting Syria return its forces to Lebanon." Name one, just one well known right-winger who thinks this is a good idea.
Bogus claim...
Posted by: Joel at July 26, 2006 10:45 PMstrcpy,
I'd like to point out your Iraq analogy: 3 years of fighting there, with the strongest military on earth, and over 100,000 troops...and the insurgency still rages.
These things aren't easy. And they don't get done in a few weeks. And ultimately, it has been proven over and over again that you cannot completly militarily defeat a local guerilla force.
Hezbollah is not the strongest army in the middle east (not even close). Not in the conventional sense. But they have the advantage of being a guerilla force. Guerilla forces are extremely hard to defeat entirely.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 26, 2006 10:55 PMBad Villbel:
Hezbollah is not the strongest army in the middle east (not even close). Not in the conventional sense. But they have the advantage of being a guerilla force. Guerilla forces are extremely hard to defeat entirely.
I don't expect regular Lebanese or Israelis who oppose Hezbollah think they can be annihilated. But they have to at least get to the point where they are not a military force that deploys fairly advanced and deadly rockets supplied by other states, Iran and Syria.
So if Israel continues to target their supplies and infrastructure, they will stop Hezbollah from dragging the region into another war, at least for a few years. In the end, a moderate Iranian and Syrian government will have the biggest long term effect on Hezbollah.
Posted by: Jono at July 26, 2006 11:09 PMI love this blog and will continue to read and enjoy it regardless if it represents my point of view or not.
There is one more item that disturbs me about this post.
Michael says, "Al Qaeda may finally have its turn at the Israeli border if their Hezbollah enemy is no longer there to keep them away"
Using that logic perhaps we should have kept Hitler as a buffer against the Soviet Union.
...There is no evidence of any substantial support for Al Qaeda in Lebanon. This quote is just a bad statement, which reeks of the scare tactics that I see way too often in such political writing.
Posted by: Freedom Now at July 26, 2006 11:13 PMJosh Scholar: Clearly the Syrian army is weaker than Iran, and as I said Stratfor thinks that Hezbollah could be suppressed by Syrian forces.
Does Stratfor think the Syrian army is stronger than the Israeli army? The Israeli army has never been able to suppress Hezbollah, and it sure wasn't for lack of trying. That same Israeli army kicked the living bejeezus out of the Egyptians.
Syria can only subdue Hezbollah if Hezbollah lets them. Which is possible, but then we're talking politics not war-making capabilities.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 11:18 PMMichael,
Another great post.
I'll also ask: what should be done?
It appears to me that Israel has been clueless in their response (and given the makeup of the government, I guess I shouldn't be surprised). They should never have bombed Beirut, because no matter how many Hezbollah they kill there, or how much equipment they destroy, it isn't worth the political cost. (my response won't address the moral issues - only utilitarian).
If they had wanted the world to see them as weak, they could hardly have done better than sending in tiny forces against long fortified and booby-trapped Hezbollah positions. Hezbollah can now claim that they bested Israel's best (the Golani brigade). Even if the casualty ratio was 20 to 1, it's a victory for Hezbollah.
The 2km buffer zone offered by Olmert is a surrender - Israel will be rightly seen as caving in.
My guess is that the only thing to preserve Israel's reputation (which is, ultimately, a deterrent against further terrorism) is for them to rapidly conquer the entire southern zone, using massive force, giving civilians the opportunity to leave, and then smashing the villages. In other words, fight the military part of the war very quickly, with maximum violence.
At this point, the appearance of Israeli weakness or iresoluteness is dangerous to all opponents of Islamofascism.
But Michael, yuu travel the region. I've never been there.
What should Israel do? Is it still possible for Israeli and international actions to help preserve Lebanon, or is it too late?
Posted by: John Moore at July 26, 2006 11:21 PMBad Vilbel,
Yes, the Iraq insurgency has lasted years, as Hezbollah did in the 90's, both driven by populations opposed to foreign occupation. If hezbollah fought the Lebanese army, they could not portray themselves as the national resistance and their opponents as puppets and collaborators. Military defeat of a guerilla organization is so difficult because the guerillas have legitimacy among their supporters. On that measure, the Lebanese army have an advantage Israel will never have in Lebanon, nor the US in Iraq.
Freedom Now: There is no evidence of any substantial support for Al Qaeda in Lebanon.
That's true in Iraq, too. Doesn't stop them from going there and blowing stuff up.
The day before he died, Abu Musab al Zarqawi accused Hezbollah of being a "Zionist" enterprise because they wouldn't let Al Qaeda hit Israel from their turf.
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it's a possibility that didn't exist before and Israel (and any multinational force) had better watch out for it. Al Qaeda loves to slip into chaotic places.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2006 11:30 PMIncredibly good, but no surprise that you write as Brooklyn so nicely said: "You took out your emotions, but the passion and love for Lebanon are clearly evident." (I wish I knew how you do that!)
However, I'm a bit disappointed in your (lack of) analysis of the Lebanese Army, and especially its composition.
It seems obvious to me that one thing which should be happening is a draft/ call for volunteers to immediately increase the manpower strength of the LA. And to integrate these larger forces.
Deliberately increasing the multi-ethnic security forces, and more roaming on the streets by the local police as well as the LA?
Lebanon is showing that a "people" might well be tested in their willingness to fight for democracy, before they can achieve it.
I wonder, perhaps a military coup? led by some Sunni Druze Christian troika to install martial law? I don't this so likely, but I suspect it would be better than what is actually chosen.
So far, you haven't shown a "Lebanese people" willing to fight for Lebanon, only Shia or Sunni or Druze or Christians willing to fight for themselves.
Switzerland's Canton Confederation model comes to mind, so that each group mostly runs their own affairs in their own canton, but join together against foreign occupation.
Keep up the great work, please -- too bad Iran is on hold; but wasn't that Iran's stalling for more time (to build nukes) mullahs' plan?
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 26, 2006 11:31 PMTom Grey said So far, you haven't shown a "Lebanese people" willing to fight for Lebanon, only Shia or Sunni or Druze or Christians willing to fight for themselves.
This is exactly where the problem with Lebanon has always been. Like many other countries in the Middle East, who were, let's say, "artificially" carved out by the Brits and French after WW1, the tribal and sectarian loyalties remain to this day, more deeply rooted than any sense of patriotism and unity.
I think we're already much better in that regards than we were during the 1975-1990 civil war. But I think there's still a LOT of ground to be covered before the people of the Middle East start thinking of their countries first, and start acting with the kind of ingrained patriotism I see here in the US everyday.
I think THAT is one of the biggest "disconnects" the west has in understanding the dynamics of the middle east. I think you can see the how "not getting this" might have lead to the US's miscalculations clearly reflected in Iraq today.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 26, 2006 11:50 PMSyria can only subdue Hezbollah if Hezbollah lets them. Which is possible, but then we're talking politics not war-making capabilities.
Good point, but that doesn't change my point that Egypt is a large, well equiped army. And Hezbollah is certainly nothing of the sort.
My impression is holding through other discussions I'm having about Egypt's strength, that your sentence "Hezbollah is the most effective Arab fighting force in the world, and the Lebanese army is the weakest and most divided" was wild hyperbole and very misleading to people who don't know the facts about actual armies in the middle east.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:00 AMThe same person suggested that the Egyptian army could be an effective peacekeeping force if it came to a final settlement in the Palestinian territories needing peacekeepers.
I'm not sure if these things would be a good idea. Clearly is an Egyptian (and American by the way) who is very proud of Egypt.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:04 AMJosh, the Israelis beat Egypt repeatedly but have never been able to defeat Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the only Arab fighting force Israel hasn't been able to beat.
The Egyptian army is bigger, for sure, and can (theoretically) conquer more territory. But if I were an Israeli soldier I would far rather face the Egyptians in battle.
(Realize we're talking apples and oranges here, comparing a conventional army with a bunch of guerrilas.)
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2006 12:06 AM. But if I were an Israeli soldier I would far rather face the Egyptians in battle.
I'm not sure why. A hostile Egypt would be a real threat to Israel's existance. Hezbollah isn't, not yet, not by a long shot.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:27 AMCome on, Josh. Israel has beaten the Egyptians before. They have never been able to defeat Hezbollah.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2006 12:32 AMThe problem with "defeating" hezbollah is just that of fighting people who hide among civilians rather than fight.
The problem there is avoiding civilian casualties and not being able to tell civilian from foe. But that doesn't make them a great fighting force, or even a threat, it just makes them terrorists.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:35 AMIn fact, someone claimed that Hezbollah has been dressing their men up in Israeli uniforms in order to confuse the ground troups.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:37 AMI would be completely shocked if hezbollah had, say a daisy cutter to hit Isreali ground troups with (fuel air bomb - the nearest thing to a nuke without being a nuke).
I wouldn't be surpised if Egypt had them, now.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at July 27, 2006 12:41 AMWhen you look at how Egyptian soldiers have performed on the Gaza/Egypt border, the idea of having them as a peacekeeping force in the Palestinian territories is a disastrous idea - if you want them actually to fulfill their tasks.
Posted by: Alcibiades at July 27, 2006 01:12 AMLebanon, Israel and the world will benefit and have a chance to survive in Peace when 2 things happen:
1) Regime Change in Syria;
2) Regime Change in Iran.
They MIGHT NOT even need regime change in Iran if weapons flow through Syria can be TOTALLY stopped.
Posted by: Charles_in_Texas at July 27, 2006 01:23 AM"Last month I made a terrible mistake."
"Just a few thousand Hezbollah fighters set two countries on fire all by themselves"
"but a decade was not enough for the IDF to take down Hezbollah"
thats twisting facts a bit.. but what the heck Generalissimo Totten
There here and they're unusually queer, The SUPER HEZBOLLAH Conquistador Race, 1/2 man 1/2 Ummah!
LOL!
Posted by: R at July 27, 2006 01:41 AMExcellent write-up, man.
I wonder if it's accurate to say IDF can't beat Hezbollah? They didn't defeat them during the civil war, but I thought Israel's withdrawal was forced by international pressure, not superiority of arms. In any case, the effectiveness of targeted bombing against guerilla forces (think Afghanistan, Fallujah) has been established pretty well-- and Israel is using our hardware. All the talk about Hezbollah's incredible fighting spirit seems remarkably similar to what was being said in the media about the Taliban a week before they turned tail.
Posted by: WJA at July 27, 2006 01:49 AMR = Rubin
Posted by: Rubin at July 27, 2006 01:49 AMThe Israelis have confirmed that Hezbollah is fighting like a professional military. Their units are fighting at the company level at the least (Unit size of approximately 100 men), and perhaps in larger formations. Intelligence also confirms there is specialization within the Hezbollah units, including trained infantry, mortar teams, missile squads, and logistical personal. Iran has trained and organized Hezbollah's army into something far more deadly than a militia force. Hezbollah's core 'active' army is estimated at 3,000 - 5,000, with as many as 50,000 part time militia and support personnel that can be called upon to fight (20,000 is the average estimate).Posted by: Alcibiades at July 27, 2006 02:01 AM
So....we are meant to believe that history began with Hizbollah's incursion? What about the Israeli abductions, the sonic boom flights in Lebanese airspace and the murder of Gazan Palestinians in the weeks leading up to that?
Hizbollah is supported in part by Iran, as they are shiites, but anyone who thinks they are proxies for Iran, is either peddling propaganda or ignorant.
Syria is irrelevant in all but the neocon/zionist ambitions.
Posted by: justaguy at July 27, 2006 02:11 AMIran is sending suicide bombers to Lebanon to start a civil war.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 27, 2006 02:17 AMWJA, I think that's pretty much what Michael meant - the IDF in Lebanon wasn't able to secure a decisive victory against Hezbollah and go home.
US hardware has certainly proven supreme on the battlefield, but fighting still goes on in both Afghanistan and Iraq regardless.
I think the bigger issues are whether Hezbollah has safe havens to retreat to when things start to get really tough (like Pakistan for the Taliban), and whether they can get resupplied by Syria and Iran. I wonder if that's why Israel escalated the fighting so much, so fast - limited bombings might allow Hezbollah to hide their key people in or near "safe" areas, and keep bringing in new equipment to replace that being destroyed.
Posted by: Marcus at July 27, 2006 02:17 AMExcellent writeup Michael! This sure is one dangerous mess.
Posted by: Dawnsblood at July 27, 2006 02:20 AMstrcpy at July 26, 2006 10:44 PM,
Human Shield graphic.
BTW any one interested in using the graphic can use the link at my url. It is on Netscape so my bandwidth cost is zero.
Just use the "img" html.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 27, 2006 02:21 AMWelcome back Michael. Boy we missed you. Great post. I appreciate (some of) the thoughtful comments made by your readers.
What would you recommend supporters of Israel do at this point. I think many of them are quite conflicted about the current operations because they really do get that the many of the Lebanese are likely future allies with like-minded values.
If civil unrest did break out in Lebanon when the Israelis leave is it likely to be everyone piling on Hezbollah, or will the Hezbollah be allied with others groups within Lebanon?
Posted by: Sully at July 27, 2006 02:29 AMMichael Totten,
The Israelis could easily defeat Hizbollah. Arab regimes are excellent at dealing with such folks.
Hama in Syria and Black September in Jordan show the way.
The reason Israelis are dealing with these folks with kid gloves is internal and international opinion.
I have read reports of Israeli morale. Wounded men in hospitals can't wait to get back into the fight. They say they enjoy what they are doing. These guys will be Israeli leaders in 20 years.
The peaceniks in Israel are marginalized. The opinion is that the folks on the Right were right. The only option is victory.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 27, 2006 02:40 AMGood post insofar as it explains (along with your previous, invaluable posts from Lebanon) why the war that has broken out was only a matter of time.
Some additional background:
Hizbullah's goal of Israel's destruction,
The extent of Hizbullah's entrenchment in Lebanon.
Hizbullah's overall goal: the takeover of Lebanon.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 27, 2006 03:21 AMMichael, you have described the situation in Lebanon masterfully. But how are the Lebanese's seemingly intractable problems solved? Regime change in Syria and Iran? Israeli occupation? Diplomacy? Civil war? Assassination squads to decapitate Hezbollah? Or are there no solutions? Certainly there are no easy ones.
I know little about Lebanon, but it seems like it once was a cosmopolitan oasis. It will be a terrible tragedy if the promise of the Cedar Revolution is destroyed by the blood cult of Hezbollah. I am eager to read your reply.
Posted by: Fargin_Bastage at July 27, 2006 03:32 AMGood post, Michael.
Soon after you wrote "everything could explode at any moment" Iran issued a threat that, in the event of a US or israeli attack on Iran, they would set off their Hezbollah attack-dogs in Southern Lebanon. It was immediately apparent that Israel would have no choice but to strike Hezbollah to disable this Iranian threat. Should Israel succeed in substantially weakening Hezbollah, it must increase the possibility of Iran backing down in its conflict with the US.
One player that isn't getting the attention it deserves is Saudi Arabia. It was very interesting that Saudi Arabia jumped in yesterday with pledges of $1.5bn to rebuild Lebanon. They're not known for rushing out with the chequebook and we can assume that they haven't suddenly been overcome by humanitarian or charitable urges. So I wonder what their strategic thinking is. Why make this offer now and what message does it send to Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran?
Posted by: Steve M at July 27, 2006 03:33 AMThe West has one hand tied behind its back, because of our squeamishness about killing "non-combatants." Wars are won by defeating an entire population -- not by trying to perform an impossible surgery.
Posted by: Brad at July 27, 2006 03:43 AMWhen you hate, you become what you hate. Love thy neighbor.
Posted by: mayport at July 27, 2006 04:01 AMmayport,
Hizbollah is intent on genocide of the Jews.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/hrw_avibell_230706.html
That love thy neighbor stuff can be over done.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 27, 2006 04:16 AMThe punishment for taking on Hezbollah is war. The punishment for not taking on Hezbollah is war.
Michael,
Very interesting piece, we are all learning as we go here. You just happen to be on the bleeding edge. My hat’s off to you.I asked you back on “My Friend is a Refugee” -
What realistic expectation did lebop and people like him have of curbing HA? What I'm wondering is, did this have any other way to go with HA being a loaded gun in S Lebanon waiting for Iran to pull the trigger?
I mean, it was either (a) or (b) as you note or ( c ) slow strangulation as Hezbollah co-opted the government and Syria realized its strategic ambition of Lebanon as a vassal state.
I have been reading this site over the last week and it seems reasonable. They show a map of Beirut and make the assertion that the damage, to Beirut anyway, is to a very small area of the city. What say you?
Could it be possible that this is the best possible solution? That is, the Israeli’s fight HA and subdue it sufficiently for the Lebanese to establish true sovereignty? That way the internal spiritual damage from Lebanese fighting Lebanese is less.
Posted by: jdwill at July 27, 2006 04:33 AMmayport,
A quick note. If I have learned anything since 9-11, it is that ideas and words are important. Let enough stupidity go on long enough, and there will be real and painful consequences.
High sounding moralistic bumper sticker statements without any context don't help though. You need to spell out what, when, and why. Otherwise someone might confuse you with others who use such statements to suppress critical thinking.
Posted by: jdwill at July 27, 2006 04:43 AMyour praise of hizballah's fighting ability has the ring of BAGHDAD BOB to it. or at least rw apple and that ilk who argued DURING THE AFGHAN WAR that the taliban would defeat the USA.
and that Saddam would use WMD and defeat us.
the fact is we beat the taliban and saddam and the idf is beating hizballah. YUP: they are losing.
nasrallah knows this.
why else would he want a cease-fre and run away to damascus?
israel could have syed in south lebanon and gaza.
it did not flee because of the abilities of the jihadothugs - as you seem to think.
hizballah is being defeated right now.
sure: there is serious fighting in afghnaistan and iraq - mostly becasue the usa did not have the balls to finiosh the jopb: a nuke on torabora would have ended that mess. we should have shot saddam and moki alsadr, too.
fdr and truman knew how to fight wars: RUTHLESSLY UNTIL YOUR ENEMY IS UTTERLY DEFEATED.
PATTON:
"I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy.”
“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”
“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
if the anto syrian pols in lebanon had the courage, they could have asked the un to form a military allaince to disarm hizballah. they never asked.
the lebs are a mix of murderers and cowards. you are a leb-sycophant.
isrsel is doing what must be dome - what unsvr 1559 demanded - and the lebenon and much of thr appeasing world is too cowardly to do: the right thing: kill the enemy.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 27, 2006 05:03 AMthe primary, deep FATAL FLAW of the entire mid-east the last three years has been this:
NOT REQUIRING POLITICAL PARTIES TPO DISARM.
hamas should NOT have been allowed on the ballot unless and until they disarmed.
ditto hizballah.
and ditto moki alsadr's so-called political party.
all of our current problems in leb/iraq/gaza-wb stem from this stupid mistake.
and it is ultimately bush's fault for not demanding it. and then doing something if the party failed.
sharon and abbas and the leb people and the iraqis bear some blame - but bush could have laid down a marker and chose not to. a big mistake.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 27, 2006 05:47 AMThanks again for your writing, Michael. Very worthwhile, as always.
Following up on Joel's comment. You wrote, Already some right-wing American "realists" are suggesting Syria return its forces to Lebanon. He asked that one be named.
Perhaps there is one---or more---but it would be unusual, I think. The `realist' school in foreign affairs tends to back dictators and strongmen, seeking a self-defined `stability' as the goal. This `stability' is generally of an inter-national nature, and often (usually?) ignores and is unconcerned with the stability or conditions within a nation.
Prior to Ronald Reagan's presidency, I'd say that `realists' dominated both sides of the American political spectrum. Since then, and especially with him and with the current president G.W. Bush, `realists' are increasingly dominant on the left and marginalized on the right. Not totally, perhaps, but `realists' tended to oppose U.S. actions in Afghanistan and (to a much greater extent) in Iraq, on the basis that it would upset the stability of that portion of the world. G.W. Bush recently spoke in opposition to Syrian influence in Lebanon (he is generally opposed to and opposed by `realism', and is considered on the `right', at least in foreign affairs). The only "realist" (pro-Syrian might be more accurate) I've noted advocating such a return is David Lesch of Trinity U., San Antonio, who is not known for being on the `right' in U.S. politics.
So, I can buy "realists" advocating a return of Syrian forces to Lebanon, but this does not appear to coincide with the general views on the `right'. Perhaps the closest might be the Pat Buchanan types, but even they are more isolationist than `right' (although often placed on the right by the press, most American conservatives that I know really have little in common with him, at least on foreign affairs).
All that said, I'm open to correction and am looking forward to your comments should you wish to do so, and to your future posts no matter what.
God bless!
Posted by: crosstalk at July 27, 2006 05:57 AMAnd perhaps my naivete has finally been washed away.
-MJT
You're getting there. Expect some help with the airfare in a few days, but please be damn careful. Hizbullah knows who you are now.
Hezbollah is not the strongest army in the middle east (not even close). Not in the conventional sense. But they have the advantage of being a guerilla force. Guerilla forces are extremely hard to defeat entirely.
-VB
Guerillas can be defeated, but it requires cutting the guerilla force off from resupply and isolating them from the civilian population that they hide among. You cannot do this by acting against the guerillas directly, which means that you have to act against the civilians (not by attacking them, but by doing things that are generally considered highly oppressive, like forced resettlement).
One example of this is how the British fought the insurgency in Malaysia- and even then, it took over a decade and there was a lot of brutality that didn't get into the history books. I don't know if that is politically possible in the current media environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Plan
Posted by: rosignol at July 27, 2006 06:06 AMMJT: "Aren't you the one who accused me..."
Yes, and clearly events have proven me wrong with respect to the Israeli soldier's remark. (Though I'm pretty sure he was implying Hizbullah would be the party responsible for the escalating).
In any case, I've read way too much horseshit lately about how "the Lebanese government should have just followed the UN resolution and disarmed Hizbullah, and then all would have been well, but now they're getting what they deserve blah blah blah."
As you note, that would have been impossible to do while preserving the fragile political arrangement.
The only thing I am a bit curious about in this post is this statement:
"Many Lebanese Christians, Sunnis, and Druze were getting so impatient with the impasse over Hezbollah’s weapons they threatened to reconstitute their own armed militias that were disbanded after the war. Peaceful and diplomatic negotiation over Hezbollah’s role in a sovereign rather than schismatic Lebanon was not going to last very much longer. Once the rest of Lebanon armed itself against Hezbollah, a balance of terror would reign that could explode into war without any warning."
I was under the impression from Lebanon experts I know who have been there as recently / more recently than you that Siniora had been having success convincing the public Hizbullah should disarm without fomenting the kind of sectarianism you describe. Your scenario is one nightmare scenario, but the real reason the government never disarmed Hizbullah is because Hizbullah guerillas were/are the defacto dominant military power within Lebanon, no?
Posted by: chris at July 27, 2006 06:13 AMSteve M. asks what the Saudis are up to. There are several answers.
First, the Saudis are, actually, very generous when it comes to humanitarian aid. They are particularly so toward friends and the consider Lebanon to be a great friend.
Second, if they can pull public support away from Hezbollah by funding reconstruction, they're happy to do so. Arguably, they could have been providing funds earlier, to undercut Hezbollah social program efforts.
Third, the Saudis do see Hezbollah as a surrogate for Iran. And Iran is a huge problem for the Saudis. Both vie for the leadership of the Gulf. Iran can (and does) directly threaten Saudi well-being, at least in terms of oil transport. Saudi oil facilities are within minutes' (seconds') reach of Iranian military assets.
Posted by: John Burgess at July 27, 2006 06:27 AMA fine post Michael.
Lahoud was appointed by Syria. His constituency is in Damascus. His credibility among his supposed constituency in Lebanon (the Christians) is zero.
Ah. Another piece of the puzzle.
Thanks.
Rosignol - I'd also add that the Malayan insurgents were largely Communists, who drew much of their support from the ethnic Chinese minority. Their lack of popularity with the majority Malays probably made them easier to isolate.
Another interesting regional case study would be the political struggle against Communism in neighbouring Singapore - like modern Islamists, the Communists were well-funded, dedicated and enjoyed considerable grassroots support, but were eventually outmanoeuvred and defeated. Again, though, some of the tactics used to get there (such as indefinite detention without trial) would be difficult to justify in a modern Western context.
Posted by: Marcus at July 27, 2006 06:57 AMI am Israeli. Michael Totten, may God bless you on your trip to Lebanon.
Only people like you will bring the good Lebanese and the Israelis together.
I will be hitting that tip jar tonite.
Posted by: Marty at July 27, 2006 07:02 AMIt would appear that you advocate that Israel (and by extension, the USA) should just chalk up a few (perhaps a hundred or two) casualties as a payment to the terrorists. We were hit, Israel was hit, you suggest they sacrifice and just move on?
Posted by: judith at July 27, 2006 07:29 AMMichael,
I loved the "civilized anarchy" reference: so true...
I've been reading your blog for about a year now and as a Lebanese in America, have delighted in your excellent reports from Lebanon. Why is it that most "big name" journalists from "big name" newspapers never seem to get Lebanon? Why do such supposed "professionals" never learn to see things beyond their comfort-zone or culturally-imposed boundaries? I wish that articles like yours WERE mainstream news - not the diluted, overly simplistic nonesense spouted in the MSM.
Keep up the good work: looking forward to more...
ZM
Posted by: ZM at July 27, 2006 07:40 AMI've thought for some time that your writings on Lebanon are a terrific insight into the minds of the "cafe" Lebanese -- the folks who really don't much mind what else happens as long as they can sit in the Beirut cafes, send their kids to piano lessons, and do other entirely normal (and understandable) things.
But, as you're demonstrating, the "cafe" Lebanese have not only no counsel for others, but not even for themselves. From their/your point of view, Hezbollah simply must be tolerated, and it's the rest of the world's -- particularly Israel's -- fault that the cafe lifestyle has been shattered.
What can they actually do? They can:
1. Live with Hezbollah and other adventurist Arab terrorists, and the consequences: when the cafe lifestyle is there, it'll be built on sand, and will be washed away every now and then, for long periods of time. While doing this, work for the "international community" to insert blocking forces, hoping to keep the sand castles up longer.
or
2. Crush Hezbollah. What you're missing in the Lebanese civil war analogy was that was a (at a minimum) six-sided conflict. Some of the parties to that conflict are largely gone (the PLO, which was involved in literally all of the largest arab-on-arab massacres -- either on the giving or receiving end).
For more, see the URL.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 07:52 AMMr. Totten said:
"Now, please tell us (and be specific and exact) how the weakest and most divided Arab fighting force (the Lebanese army) was supposed to defeat the strongest (Hezbollah) when even the Israelis couldn't do it after more than ten years."
Why hasn't the Lebanese government asked for help with this problem? Instead, they seem to be coordinating with Hizbullah. Nasrallah says he informed the Lebanese government of the plan to kidnap Israelis and they gave tacit approval.
Incredibly interesting discussions on Counterterrorism Blog and also at Obsidian Wings about Hez, Israel, and Lebanon.
The info from CT is especially bleak regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah and what has to be Israel's response. There doesn't seem to be any way out of this apart from massive destruction on a greater scale in Lebanon by Israel in order to elminate Hezbollah. Chances are, as Israel succeeds in this, Hez sleeper cells will be activated around the world.
Hezbollah apparently has already will increasingly locate its missiles and other armaments in Christian and Druze areas, making them prime targets of the IDF. Unless some powerful agency steps in (and none exist), Lebanon will be destroyed.
Since the Hezbollah goal is to eliminate Israel, Israel has no choice but to eliminate Hezbollah, whatever the cost (borne by its own people and other civilians). I believe it will do this but not much will remain in Lebanon afterward.
If the world were a fair place, we would be hanging the leaders of Iran and Syria for fomenting this.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at July 27, 2006 08:42 AMIf the world were a fair place, we would be hanging the leaders of Iran and Syria for fomenting this.
Asymetric warfare makes the military branch of a terrorist organization hard to hit - but it leaves the supporters of terrorism in a relatively vulnerable position. If the world were an intelligent place, we'd be fighting the strategy of asymetric warfare, not its army or its cities.
The state leaders, bureaucrats and bankers who support Hez would be our targets. As Sun Tsu said:
Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy;
Next best is to disrupt his alliances;
The next best is to attack his army.
The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative.
The world in general seems to have read that advice backwards.
A wise man once said:
The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.
If Bush did what he said he'd do, he'd be another Sun Tsu.
Posted by: mary at July 27, 2006 09:14 AMfrankly I think the "counterterrorism blog" and obsidianwings contain some of the least studied work out there. Both miss the basics and niether reflect what serious military analysts are saying.
The fact is Isael is ulikly and essentially unable to put a serious dent in Hezbollah. Every Hezbollah missile being fired, or destroyed on the ground by Israel will be replaced by syria and Iran.
Iran has been made the big winner in the region by US policy, and this excercisin in power by Iran in Lebanon and the Israeli resposne (needed as it may be) is itself adding to Tehran's power.
What we are seeing however is severe limits in IDF power, and worse, perceptions of power. They can't get into lebanon a few hundred meters without getting mauled and that is new.
The idea of standing up a Christian force to counter Hezbollah is desperate thinking.
Posted by: James at July 27, 2006 09:24 AMYou're missing the point, James: Israel can't get a few hundred meters into the heavily-prepped border areas and fight house-to-house there without "getting mauled" as they destroy the Hezbollards there, sure.
But the way to destroy a heavily-fortified line defense has never been to move along the well-defended line, but to punch through and/or bypass it, cut lines of communication and resupply, etc.
Olmert is, at present, apparently still hoping that an international force will be configured to cut off Hezbollah resupply. That's a futile hope, at present -- the IDF is going to have to punch through, at least to the Litani, whether it's during this round or the next.
In terms of the rest of the Lebanese (usually referred here as the "Christians," as though the Druze, Sunni, and [sadly few] anti-Hezzie Shiites aren't involved) being unable to take on Hezbollah, that's simply nonsense. Unwilling until now? Sure. Probably still unwilling? Yup. Unable? Nah. And as Michael Totten's at least suggesting, that's likely going to be happening shortly, whether it's while the IDF is still engaged in the South or not.
It won't be "great". It'll be horrible, ugly and messy. But, unlike the "Cedar Revolution," -- where the Christans, Druze, and Sunni largely "took guns out of politics" while Hezbollah built up not only their guns, but their fuhrerbunkers and missiles -- it might well be based on reality, rather than the reassuring fiction that the Lebanese could have a decent, democratic, civil society while accepting Hezbollah as a legitimate part of it.
Vichy Lebanon was a nice dream, I guess, but it was just a dream.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 09:43 AMJames-
The problem with your thinking ("a few hundred meters") is that the Israelis haven't really tried to destroy Hezballah.
Is it a strong force? Yes. Could it be defeated by the IDF, fairly easily? Yes. This would essentially consist of utterly destroying every town south of Beirut, every building, every road, every bridge, and killing anyone who is in that area or who is attempting to enter that area.
Everyone knows how to effectively deal with an Arab guerilla force that is militarily inferior- you do what the Syrians did at Hama. You ignore the civillians and slaughter everyone.
Of course, a little thing called morals gets in the way there.
On a totally separate note-
I've often held that associating liberalism (in the political philosophy sense) with the Hobbes-Locke chain fundamentally misrepresents the picture. Yes, both agree that government derives from people. But Hobbes is writing in chaotic time and is worried about his life, while Locke is writing in relative peace. MJT alluded to this in his post, but the fact is, we've been supporting liberalism and democracy in the ME with no governmental bodies to support them. Locke is able to write what he does about the rights of man because of a lack of chaos. That lack can only derive from a respected government, which is lacking in most countries in the ME at this point.
Michael-
I'm sorry to watch what is happening to your adopted country. I had hoped for better for Lebanon.
What I am curious about is why after the fighting started, Lebanon didn't join the fight in whatever limited way it could. If most of Lebanon wants Hezbolla removed, couldn't the army supply advisors to the IDF? It may help avoiding civilian areas (assuming that they exist). It would also quiet down the international community a little.
Posted by: John Davies at July 27, 2006 10:04 AMJohn Davies,
Short answer: 35 percent of the army is Shia, and maybe 15 percent of the officer class is Syrian-appointed.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2006 10:07 AMMichael Smith asks:
Why hasn't the Lebanese government asked for help with this problem? Instead, they seem to be coordinating with Hizbullah. Nasrallah says he informed the Lebanese government of the plan to kidnap Israelis and they gave tacit approval.
Just because you don't think they asked for help doesn't mean they really didn't. You need to be a bit more informed before making posts like this.
For the past year, the Lebanese government had been doing just that. PM Siniora, despite being severly undermined on the local political scene by Hezbollah, the Aounists, and the pro-syrian camp, went to the US, met with president Bush and asked for support in getting resolution 1559 implemented. I'm too lazy to go digging around for archive links, but it should fairly easy to find.
Various anti-syrian leaders did the same thing, during the past year. Walid Jumblat (leader of the Druze community and vehemently anti-syrian) also made a trip to Washington, during which he decried Hezbollah and asked for help from the international community in disarming the group.
The maronite patriarch was in the US with a similar message only DAYS prior to the current hostilities.
Our leaders were doing what (little) they could.
Fine, i get it. It wasn't enough and Israel needed to make a point. I don't necessarily blame Israel for that. But let's not sit here making up falsehoods. Let's not start playing "revisionist history", please.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 10:44 AMCaveman gives us the kind of story that's not reported much in the mainstream media:
http://blissstreetjournal.blogspot.com/2006/07/siege-of-mari.html
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 10:58 AMShort answer: 35 percent of the army is Shia, and maybe 15 percent of the officer class is Syrian-appointed.
And maybe another part of the picture is that there isn't a will to do that among the rest. At least, there hasn't been -- and unless the Beirut Lebanese fail to notice that, so far, the devastation in Beirut has been limited to Shiite areas the collective size of a race track, there may not, yet, be sufficient motivation.
The notion that any military force that has a significant Lebanese Shiite component is going to take on Hezbollah is both a nonstarter, and suggests as to how the Hezbollah problem is going to have to be solved.
As to the requests for "help" in disarming Hezbollah, all of the requests I've heard of were either openly or barely not openly for more money, or pro forma calls for vague "international" "help."
That said, I could be wrong. If Siniora or Jumblatt asked for troops and/or guns to get rid of Hezbollah with, I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong, once I see a credible cite. But, so far, the asking for guns and troops in Lebanon appears to have only come from Hezbollah, which has gotten both from Iran.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 11:05 AMMr. Totten, Lebanon is an adopted country of mine as well, I visited there for the first time in May for a few weeks and fell in love with Lebanon. As an American, I am deeply sorry for the inaction and indifference of my government towards Israel and its actions towards Lebanon and its people. The general attitude here in the US is very pro-Israel, but the information we are being given is misleading, to say the least. This situation is forcing me to think seriously what it means to be American and reevaluate my future relationship with the United States.
When the situation stablizes I am seriously considering going back to Lebanon and help rebuild. Do you have any ideas as to NGOs I could work with, or ideas to help rebuild? Also, I was planning on going to Iran later this year or early next year, before that country too is engulfed in conflict. Why are you postponing your trip to Iran?
Posted by: Lebanon Lover at July 27, 2006 11:06 AMBad Vilbel said:
"Fine, i get it. It wasn't enough and Israel needed to make a point. I don't necessarily blame Israel for that. But let's not sit here making up falsehoods. Let's not start playing "revisionist history", please."
Asking a question is not "making up falsehoods"; nor is it "playing revisionist history". It's simply an effort to get information from those who purport to be knowledgeable of the situation in Lebanon.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 27, 2006 11:23 AMMr. Rosenberg,
I don't think you can go and openly ask for guns and weapons against what, in the end, is your co-countrymen without risking civil war.
Which is something the Lebanese anti-syrians were VERY afraid of (having learned our lesson between 1975 and 1990). I don't think civil war would've helped Lebanon, and i certainly don't think it would've helped Israel.
In the end, a military solution was never going to be an effective one against Hezbollah (as Israel is discovering now). Do i like that? Not one bit. It sucks. But it doesn't do you or me any good to live in a fantasy world. We have to be realistic and figure what (if anything) WILL work. And I still think in the end, like it or not, it will have to be some combination of a diplomatic solution and military PRESSURE (not necessarily action).
It's so easy to make fantastical comments not based in realism. Here's an example: Why is the US still having trouble subduing the insurgents in Iraq? Why are they still unable to foster a strong Iraqi state? They have all the weapons in the world, and then some. 140,000 troops on the ground. etc. etc....it'd be nice if someone could snap their fingers and have that overwhelming military superiority give instantenous results. Unfortunately, that's often unrealistic.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 11:23 AMMr Smith:
Why hasn't the Lebanese government asked for help with this problem? Instead, they seem to be coordinating with Hizbullah. Nasrallah says he informed the Lebanese government of the plan to kidnap Israelis and they gave tacit approval.
This does not look like a question to me. It looks like a statement.
I have seen no evidence of "coordinating with Hezbollah". The prime minister of Lebanon has repeatedly condemned their actions and asserted that he had no prior knowledge of Hezbollah's kidnapping plans.
Are we to believe Nasrallah's every words now? That guy is a liar of the first degree and it serves his purposes, at the moment, to appear to undermine the lebanese government by making such statements.
I apologize if my tone seemed somewhat short. But I really get frustrated reading this constant stream of "Why hasn't the Lebanese government done anything about Hezbollah."
I've explained over and over (as has Michael Totten, and countless others) that the Lebanese government did what it could (which wasn't much). The will was there. The means were not. Which is why i agree with mr. Totten in the assessment that the current crisis was, in the end, inevitable. I don't think there is anything Israel or Lebanon could've done differently to avoid it.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 11:29 AMMr. Joel Rosenberg,
I can't help but notice the pejorative connotation of your use of "go native" in your post regarding Michael's comments. As per dictionary.com, "This expression is closely associated with the often contemptuous view British colonists had of indigenous peoples." While the phrase could well be used in a less-negative manner, the way you bandy it about I have trouble seeing how you don't intend it as the equivalent of saying Mr. Totten has taken off his clothes and put a bone in his nose.
Posted by: rrkent at July 27, 2006 11:54 AManother great post michael, i think we should look at the picture which is that these are skirmishes between US and iran like before the main band comes on the stage they throw in an appetizer group to warm people. what is happening is there is power struggle between US and iran,syria all over middle east and it exploded in lebanon through indermediary channels. one thing should not be forgotten iran have been at war with US the day they have taken US embassy diplomats hostage for 400 days,by killing 250 narines in beirut by their proxy hezbollah. if US wants to achieve its middle east goals it has to deal with iran and syria sooner or later. a showdown is inevitable.
Posted by: a kurd in california at July 27, 2006 12:24 PMOne thing, Michael, that I think you've missed despite your insider's perspective on Lebanon's democracy, or perhaps because of it, is how irrelevant that democracy was - not only now, but all along. The Lebanese government has long struck me as less a real government than a sort of "government in exile" of the type many dictatorships have. It was an elected body that could not control the country's military (Hezbollah being the dominant armed force in the country), could not control its own territory, could not keep its people safe, etc. The de facto government of Lebanon for the past 6 years has been HA, because they were the ones with the powers of enforcement.
If Iran had attacked Israel and Israel responded this way, would anyone be calling it collective punishment because not all Lebanese support the Ayatollah? No - because a state attacking a state is an act of war. To my eyes, it's clear that the real state power in Lebanon is HA and that the democractic government is a fig leaf that HA has decided not to crush because it's convenient for international opinion. And I can emphathize with the dispair of the Lebanese and still support Israel's actions.
In Israel there is a saying that "we have no other country." What that means is that if Tel Aviv was bombed the same way as Beirut has been, most Israelis (not all, but most) wouldn't flee the country like the Lebanese you are describing, but would rebuild it, because their attachment to their country cannot be severed. The Lebanese who are fleeing are demonstrating what Israel already knows - that they do not love their country enough to want to fix it. It was painful for Israel to give up the Gaza territories - painful, and pundits predicted a civil war! - but they did it, despite the "impossibility" of it. It would have been painful for Lebanon to remove its own problem - Hezbollaland - but unlike the Israelis the Lebanese were concerned with their personal lives and not the good of their country. That's not a moral judgment - most people are like that - but it's silly to think that the average Lebanese would EVER have risked going against HA. Strongly worded letters to the ineffective democratic institutions are not action, and the Lebanese had no desire to take action.
Israel didn't have to do this now, but the inability of the Lebanese to ever disarm HA meant that they were going to have to do it eventually no matter what.
As to Israel pulling out 6 years ago and now going back, the morale in Israel is VERY different. Israel now knows what the Right has said all along - that even if you give in to every demand, even if you pull communities out of Gaza and retreat from Lebanon and try to appease the killers, they aren't going away. Anyone who thinks that HA would disband if only Israel gave back Shabaa Farms and released some murderers from prison is living in a dream world where the experiment of the last 6 years never happened.
Posted by: lamedzayin at July 27, 2006 12:28 PMRE: the Saudis. They're protecting their investments, or at least trying to salvage some, while showing loyalty to their Sunni brethren. Saudi investment has played a big role in Lebanon's recovery mirage (the economics was real, but it could not last).
The longer-term question, as the Saudis buy a swathe of military equipment ($16 billion in purchases last week, another $26 billion rumored to come shortly) and appear to be refocusing on Iran, is whether they will also pay and arm their Sunni brethren in Lebanon once the fighting starts.
If they do, Hezbollah will have much more of a fight on its hands. But remember, too, that this is the Saudis. If they step in with armed aid, Michael's bit about al-Qaeda in Lebanon is very likely to come true.
Zarqawi's dream of an offensive against the Shi'ites may yet come true after his death, and elsewhere. Ah, irony.
Posted by: Joe Katzman at July 27, 2006 12:31 PMA wonderful post, as usual, Michael. But depressing as hell. Maybe I just missed it, but as far as I can see (both from the post and from your responses to the various comments) there simply is no solution to Hezbollah. (Ignoring the ultra-extreme approach of genocide against the Shia in Lebanon, of course.) Is it really that bad? Or have I merely overlooked something?
Stay safe!
Posted by: wj at July 27, 2006 12:44 PMI enjoyed your comments above. Thanks. I have a question that I wonder if you can answer. When the Israel-Hizbolah war was first reported, I heard repeatedly that Hizbollah had entered Israel, killed 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2. Then as the incident was repeated and called the incident that provoked the violence or started the war, the 8 dead soldiers seemed to disappear. People say only that the kidnapping of 2 soldiers provoked the war. What about the 8 dead soldiers? Did I miss something? Why did the press stop talking about these 8 deaths as part of the cause?
Posted by: Tatiana at July 27, 2006 12:44 PMwj,
There may be no solution other than regime-change in Iran. I am very reluctant and sorry to say this, but I fear that's how it is.
Ask me again in a couple of months, though. Things are changing fast and none of us know what will come next.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2006 12:48 PMEvery crisis is also an opportunity. Perhaps Hizbollah will be disarmed this time, with international troops and the Lebanese armed forces patrolling the Shia areas.
There will be violence, but as in Iraq it may not be strong enough to snuff the flickering fire of freedom in the Levant.
Democracy is always stronger than people think.
Posted by: TallDave at July 27, 2006 12:55 PMOn the Al Quaida plea on TV today: didn't the Lebanese Sunni militia blow up a church or two and even the Russian embassy a few years ago (mid 90s or so)? How are these Sunni groups related to AQ? What is AQ's motivation for making the statement on TV? Are they seriously thinking their fighters will appear in Southern Lebanon?
Posted by: Tatiana at July 27, 2006 01:09 PMIt's my understanding (and I could easily be wrong) that Hez and Hamas have the support of their local kinsmen partly due to their "military" prowess, but mostly due to their "social service" operations. These function as a sort of welfare/relief agency, spreading around great gobs of money in the process.
As I understand it, that money ultimately comes from Iran. It seems to me that cutting off that supply of money is the only way to ensure that Hex, or something like it, does not reappear after the military operations shut down.
If Hex and Hamas did not have strong local support, they would find it much harder to operate. The key is to cut off their support. This cannot be done by local military action.
The world needs to remove the (quite rational, in the short term) reasons why the local population supports these organizations, replace them with reasons to NOT support these organizations, and (perhaps) supply other, more beneficial outlets for popular support. So:
1) Cut off the money from Iran.
2) Discredit Hez and Hamas in the eyes of their present supporters.
3) Give their supporters other dreams.
Any suggestions on how to do any of these things?
Posted by: SteveA at July 27, 2006 01:11 PMBrad: "I have seen no evidence of 'collaborating with Hezbollah'"
There was an item on Stephen Pollard's blog about an interview with Nasrallah and his cooperation with the Lebanese government.
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002728.html
Posted by: Alasdair at July 27, 2006 01:13 PMMichael said: Don’t discount what bloody mayhem and hell a few thousand armed Druze, Christians, and Sunni can do if they decide to go hunting Shia in revenge for destroying their country.
Michael, the IDF destroyed our country, make no mistake.
Posted by: Lira at July 27, 2006 01:19 PMFrom the interview with Nasrallah...
"...I told them [the Lebanese government] on more than one occasion that we are taking the issue of the prisoners seriously, and that abducting Israeli soldiers is the only way to resolve it. Of course, I said this in a low-key tone. I did not declare in the dialogue: 'In July I will abduct Israeli soldiers.' This is impossible."
Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"
Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."
Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"
Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will."
Posted by: Alasdair at July 27, 2006 01:20 PMAlasdair,
Everyone knew that Hezbollah would kidnap Israeli soldiers. I wrote about it myself months ago on this blog. This was no secret. Anyway, they have been doing it for years.
The fact that Nasrallah mentioned it in public doesn't mean anything. It may be news to you, but it wasn't news to the Lebanese or the Israelis.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2006 01:23 PMAs you said Israel's military wasn’t strong enough to defeat Hezbollah militarily so what makes you think the Lebanese military would?Israel's military is certainly strong enough to defeat Hez militarily, what it doesn't have is the political will to do so. The notion that the people surrounding Hez are mere uninvolved civilians, and not willing allies, is a destructive meme. Get over it and destroy totally any area with Hez soldiers. Human shields do it because they don't believe they'll actually have to suffer for it. Make them suffer. Sure, the Europeans will whine about it, but they won't do anything just like they won't do anything but whine about Iran and Syria. Posted by: Bob Smith at July 27, 2006 01:26 PM
Thanks for the 35% Shia note on the Leb Army.
Here's what a more fierce anti-Hez Leb people/ gov't could do: call for new volunteers/ draftees of non-Shia folk who would swell the 70 000 (?) or so up to 100 000; with all 30 000 new Sunni Christian Druze folk being trained to disarm terrorists.
I saw the lovely Lebanon babes of last year in MJT pictures; and Spirit of America; and the big crowds against Syria followed by huge crowds for Syria followed by even more huge crowds against Syria.
How many of the young men under 40 have tried to join the Leb Army in order to disarm Hezbollah? I don't think very many.
I don't think Israel will be allowed to "do it", because "it" would mean killing too many not-fully guilty Shia who are not provably Hez supporters.
But hopefully the anti-Hez Lebanese people will be able to when Israel leaves.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 27, 2006 01:26 PMThe reason Israel has not been able to defeat Hezbollah is because of political, not military, constraints. If they fought Hezbollah the way we fought WWII -- i.e., all-out, without handwringing over every civilian casualty -- they could easily wipe them out as a military force.
To make it stick, though, would require going after Hezbollah sponsors Syria and Iran.
Posted by: Dana H. at July 27, 2006 01:33 PMI got the solution for getting rid of Hezbollah.. Napalm, and lots of it!
Then again, that's my solution for everything....
Posted by: annie nomus at July 27, 2006 01:37 PMShit Michael you need to get on CNN,MSNBC or FOX. That was a very honest though pesssimestic picture of what's really going over there.
Posted by: tommy in nyc at July 27, 2006 01:37 PMlamedazyin,
You can't fault any civilians for fleeing when bombs are landing on their hands. I'm pretty sure Israeli civilians in northern Israel have also fled to the more secure parts of the country over the past 2 weeks. It doesn't mean either populace doesn't like their country enough.
In fact, we DID rebuild our country after 15 years of civil war, between 1990 and 2006. And I guarantee you we will rebuild it again after this is over.
Your argument makes very little sense.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 01:38 PMSteve A,
You are absolutely correct. Hezbollah and Hamas bought the loyalty of their constituents mostly by being the sole providers of social benefits, education, healthcare, etc. to an otherwise neglected and impoverished constituency (be it the Shia in Lebanon, or the Palestinians neglected by years of corruption in the PLO).
In the case of Hezbollah, most of that money comes from Iran.
Cutting off that supply (how do you do that though?) would go a long way in discrediting Hezbollah (although that would take time).
In parallel, if the Lebanese government, with major financial backing from the Saudis and the international community, did over time, provide jobs, services, etc to the south of Lebanon, that would go a long way in regaining the loyalty of the Shia and would undermind Hezbollah's appeal.
Sadly, this approach requires a long haul, and is made further difficult when bombs are falling and infrastructure is being demolished. Which is why i think the current events are playing directly into the hands of Hezbollah.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 01:44 PMAlasdair,
As Michael already replied. Nasrallah has been boasting about kidnapping soldiers for many years. That does not constitute "collaboration". Furthermore, I still don't understand why people are quoting Nasrallah. He's a liar. Now all of a sudden you believe him?
This is the same guy that claims Hezbollah is intact. Do you believe that too?
Find me ACTUAL evidence that a lebanese state institution somehow aided and abetted Hezbollah's kidnapping of the 2 soldiers.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 01:48 PMI don't think you can go and openly ask for guns and weapons against what, in the end, is your co-countrymen without risking civil war.
That betrays, I think, a clear misunderstanding: there is going to be a civil war in Lebanon. The situation that ended up with the rest of Lebanon in a Concordat with the Hezbollah-supporting Shiites made that a necessity; Hezbollah was not going to be disarmed by Lebanese joining a useless army that is disproportionately Hezbollah-supporters, anymore than it was by the same people chanting along with the hot Lebanese girls in their facepaint, as decorative as they were.
Tom Grey: you're looking for improbably clean solutions. Less sanguine solutions to the problem of Lebanon might have been possible if the Lebanese had seen the necessity years ago; they're not possible now. The implicit request that Israel be held back now so that the Lebanese can get back to business as usual will, if acted on, only make things worse later on, just as the IDF cleaning out Hezbollaland now is more difficult and bloodier than it would have been in 2002, and will be more difficult (although likely less bloody, for Israel) when (not if) the IDF has to go north of the Litani to fumigate the south.
Mind you, I don't object to the Lebanese wanting a cease-fire. The rockets that would be brought in from Syria during it won't be aimed at Beirut, after all.
But the moment that the first rocket was launched at Haifa, it should have been clear to the Lebanese that they'd been wrong: Hezbollah is willing to fight Israel to the last Sunni, Christian, and Druze.
Talldave: you and/or I won't live to see an Arab democracy, with the possible exception of Kurdistan (for very, err, loose use of the term "Arab"). There never has been one (unless you believe Dhimmi Carter that Arafatopia and Hamastan were/are), and the best shot during our lifetimes wasn't Lebanon, but Iraq. I wish it were otherwise, but wishing doesn't make it so.
rrkent: I stand by what I said, not the spin you've put on it. If Michael Totten chooses to take offense at what I think is a reasonable view of his views, let him do it all by himself, without you egging him on. He's a grownup.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 01:49 PMIt seems to me that Lebanon needs a civil war. I don't say this lightly and I wish it wasn't necessary, but there is no way to allow Hezbollah to remain as an armed militia and there is also no way they'll voluntarily disarm.
The problem is that the Lebanese army is too divided, weak, and untrained to handle the task. But there is another Arab country that has been in a similar predicament, has the training, personnel, and might be willing to help out. As I see it the Lebanese government should seek out the support of the Iraqis. The Iraqi police may be a mess, but the Iraqi army seems to be highly regarded for their capabilities and, maybe more importantly, their non-sectarianism.
The thing is you need to establish a new core to the Lebanese military. One that views their responsibility as being to their country first. That core can be trained to deal with rogue elements no matter who they are. That core needs to be started now so that it will be the focus of the energies of those who would otherwise tend towards secterian violence. If it is successful then the Lebanon that the 80% you claim oppose Hezbollah will have something to both disarm them and on which they can base the future of a non-sectarian nation.
Just the thoughts (and probably wishful thinking) of an Israeli American who would love to see the Lebanese solve their "Hezbollah problem".
Posted by: Boaz at July 27, 2006 01:52 PMI keep hearing about how going after Iran and Syria is the only way to properly defang Hezbollah. While I agree with that premise, I'd like to explain why that is not likely to happen anytime soon:
Israel does NOT want the Syrian regime destablized or overthrown.
There is no clear replacement for the Assad regime in Syria at the moment, just like there was no clear replacement for Saddam in Iraq. The only Syrian opposition group that's worth a damn is the Muslim Brotherhood.
Toppling the Assad regime would turn Syria into another Iraq. A haven for Al-Qaeda types. An unstable country, very likely torn by civil war, or even more likely, controlled by a group even more hostile to Syria than Assad, namely the Muslim Brotherhood.
The USA does not want a regime change in Syria for the very same reasons. While their hands are full in Iraq, they cannot afford to have yet another unstable country threatening both Israel and our own troops in Iraq.
This is why Israel and the USA are currently NOT in a good bargaining position. This is why this mess is playing into the hands of Syria and Iran. Those 2 countries have basically proven to themselves that they can stir up trouble, whenever convenient, and threaten Israel and The US in Iraq, with very little consequences to themselves. (They don't give a shit if Lebanon is demolished every time they kidnap a soldier, believe me).
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at July 27, 2006 01:54 PMMichael,
Thanks for the post. I've found your blog very informative. I wanted to ask you (and any Lebanese out there) about one of your points:
"Most Lebanese who had warm feelings for Israel -- and there were more of these than you can possibly imagine -- no longer do."
Assuming this is true, how exactly where those warm feelings communicated to Israelis? From what has happened, it's clear that it was not through the political realm - Hizbollah, a party sworn to Israels destruction, was part of the government; and the two countries were still technically at war.
Was it through the cultural realm? Were there joint Israeli/Lebanese art projets? Musical exchanges? Plays about everyday Israelis performed in Lebanon?
Was it through the personal realm? Were Israelis invited to visit Beirut? Did Lebanese travel to Tel Aviv, or even make a point of meeting Israelis when outside the region?
Was it through the educational realm? Were children taught anything about the Jewish religion? Were high school students taught about the geography and demographics of their neighbor?
Maybe those "warm feelings" are so hard to imagine because they weren't well expressed.
We always read in the press how Israeli actions create hate in the hearts of Palestinians and (now) Lebanese. But what does Arab hate create in the hearts of Israelis? And just imagine what a little Arab love could create...
Posted by: Shoshanah at July 27, 2006 01:55 PMBad Vilbel: I apologize for laughing, but I couldn't help it. Your suggestion that Hezbollah will be put down by nationally-funded jobs programs was voiced just yesterday by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed.
A friend of mine who is, by temperament (although he's changing) a Democratic liberal said something like, "Sheesh -- he just looked in the Democratic playbook under 'Violence', and it said, 'promote government-sponsored job programs.'"
As to which Lebanese government institution aided and abetted the Hezbollah kidnapping -- and, for that matter, the rocket attacks -- why, that's easy: all of them. Read your own government officials repeated admissions that they didn't do anything to control Hezbollah.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 01:55 PMYou (and others) have seen an essential truth:
Israel and Lebanon (especially Lebanon) will continue to burn as long as Hezbollah exists as a terror miltia freed from the leash of the state. The punishment for taking on Hezbollah is war. The punishment for not taking on Hezbollah is war. Lebanese were doomed to suffer war no matter what.
Unfortunately you (and the Lebanese) continue to shrink from the inevitable conclusion: the only way Lebanon can ever have peace is to defeat Hizb'Allah utterly. The Lebanese people (not just their military) must take up arms [again] and kill them. It won't be easy, but it is simple.
The majority of Lebanon's people were wise and civilized enough to take the gun out of politics after the fifteen year war.
No, Michael. The majority of Lebanon's people were foolhardy. The gun was obviously NOT taken out of politics, since Hizb'Allah kept theirs and never stopped using it. The only thing most Lebanese did was ensure they would remain unable to protect themselves.
Sometimes being civilized means being willing to fight for your own civilization, rather than be overwhelmed by savages.
Posted by: mariner at July 27, 2006 01:58 PMIt seems to me that Lebanon needs a civil war. I don't say this lightly and I wish it wasn't necessary, but there is no way to allow Hezbollah to remain as an armed militia and there is also no way they'll voluntarily disarm.
Well, of course they do, as of course Hezbollah won't. Despite all their talk about health services and food kitchens, the Hezzies are every bit as aware as the non-Hezzie Lebanese that Mao was right: political power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.
The difference is that Hezbollah was willing to do something about it. How large are the Christian, Druze and Sunni militias at the moment.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at July 27, 2006 02:00 PMThe bunker system is exposed, now. And, the sites the IDF hit were all parts of this underground encampment. Missiles, fuel storage. Food. Water. Bunkers. Built under the noses of the UN. Probably with some knowledge among the Lebanese.
Israel didn't just bomb from the air. But, yes, thousands of missiles has rained down on Israel, now. But her population doesn't flee. Nor does the MSM report much of it.
Instead, yesterday, through a Kuwaiti source, an Israeli newspaper wrote that Nasrallah was in Damascus. He was wearing civilian clothes. (A burka?) And, he was meeting with Assad. And, with the FM from Iran, who came to Syria.
There were reports that there was pressure being put on Assad, to allow re-supplies to get through to Lebanon.
WHile Israel has retaken the Wazari River. And, shored up it's strength around the Shaba Farms. And, Golan.
Ahead? A lot more pressure on the network that was used to shuffle in everything that's being blown up by the IDF.
It also seems that the IDF has listened into Nasrallah's conversations; since these intercepts have made it into the press reports. Or at least up to the Net. (Which is all I read, anyway.)
Today, Iran began calling for a "cease fire." It seems "Plan B" is to try to use the old european community to pressure Israel to pull back.
But that landscape may have changed?
When this is finally over, and I hope it is over soon, the three kidnapped soldiers will be returned. And, Assad, at least, will learn he gets no bonus points. No returned geography.
What Nasrallah does ahead, I do not know.
But a crimp in his recruitment happens if there's a curtailment of re-supplies into Lebanon. Let alone, how much stomach would the Lebanese have, to see Hezbollah's strength rebuilt?
There's been a change in landscape.
When you get back to Lebanon, and you could fly into Ben Gurion, tomorrow; you'd see a country facing war with courage. And, I don't think the Israelis are in any mood to be shoved around. Let alone shoved around by the likes of Kofi Annan; and the idiots in paris.
But it's the future. One never knows what can happen next. But, always, pray for the best.
Posted by: Carol Herman at July 27, 2006 02:02 PMJoel,
You say you're looking for improbably clean solutions. Less sanguine solutions to the problem of Lebanon might have been possible if the Lebanese had seen the necessity years ago; they're not possible now.
People keep saying this and forgetting that until March of 2005, there was no Lebanon. There was a Syrian occupation. So "years ago" is not a valid comment. We couldn't have done shit "years ago" because we were under occupation.
I do agree with this statement though:
The implicit request that Israel be held back now so that the Lebanese can get back to business as usual will, if acted on, only make things worse later on
Which is why I would like to find some sort of solution to this that does not take us back to the status quo. Problem is, i don't see a solution from my vantage point. And i am not convinced that the current Israeli response is working. Let's agree on that maybe? We need SOMETHING ELSE.
Boaz:
You say Lebanon needs a civil war. Disregarding the callousness of such a statement for the moment, and putting an entirely "business" hat on. I still don't think that's a solution.
Lest you forget, we already had that civil war you speak of, 1975-1990. Repeating it is not going to get us to a new place, but more likely, will take us right back to where we are today (if not worse).
You also say:
The thing is you need to establish a new core to the Lebanese military. One that views their responsibility as being to their country first.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. That is exactly what Lebanon needs. Unfortunately, Lebanon, is still living in the tribal and sectarian loyalties of the past (albeit not as badly as we used to). This is also exactly why we cannot have a civil war, which would return us even further back into the world of sectarian and tribal loyalties.
As an Israeli, you should understand (and i hope i don't come off condescending here) that your best bet is a democratic, strong and unified Lebanon. Not a divided and weak one.
For the past 50 years, you've had exactly that: a divided weak neighbour, with sectarian loyalties that have made it very easy for Syria, Iran and even you Israelis to create proxy militias, and turn them against each other.
See Wretchard at Belmont Club.
He speculates that he has a hopeful answer: the IDF kills many of the Hez cadres, which, unlike missiles, are irreplaceable in the short term. He speculates that the IDF have a plan; what it is; why it might work.
He calls his post: Pulp Fiction.
I hope it's true.
I'm copying my question in comments to Neo-Neocon's article (http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/) discussing this piece.
You strike me as thoughtful, realistic, and willing to be hopeful, so... with the stated 'IF's, is there a 'realistic' hope?
Quote following:
I appreciate your commenting on Mr. Totten's very lucid piece. It is obvious to me that:
Lebanon's helplessness is
America's helplessness is
Israel's helplessness.
I, for one, am not happy about America-Israel-Lebanon helplessness, especially in the face of Hizballah-Syria-Iran.
My IF'y question:
IF Hizballah's military is crushed,
- AND -
IF Syria is crippled (destroy air force and tanks),
- AND -
IF Turkey, et al, interdict Iranian arms shipments by air,
- AND -
IF the Bekaa Valley is under some imaginable anti-Syrian Lebanese Army control...
...would Lebanese pluralism & democracy have a chance?
Posted by: jf at July 27, 2006 02:12 PMHmmm.
Now, please tell us (and be specific and exact) how the weakest and most divided Arab fighting force (the Lebanese army) was supposed to defeat the strongest (Hezbollah) when even the Israelis couldn't do it after more than ten years.
Ask for help?
I don't believe at all that anybody wants to garrison either southern Lebanon or any part of Lebanon. But a military operation to take down Hezbollah in coordination with the Lebanese government AND citizens, that could have been possible.
Frankly it would have been extremely difficult politically for the USA to have refused a direct plea for help from the Lebanese right after their Cedar Revolution. The political momentum coupled with highly experienced