Last July's cease fire was a mistake.

The UN resolution was a mistake.

The UN presence is a mistake.

Even though they yelled and screamed against the UN, Hezbo and Syria got a reprieve then, and a nice target to shoot at now.

Awaiting "very strong" UN and world condemnation any second now.

"Very strong". Yeah right. That's going to make the Syrians tremble in their boots and rethink their strategy. The only solution is a military one. If only the US wasn't in that quagmire to the east, it would have the ability to go after Assad. Pity!

I know I risk getting flamed here, but on what basis are you assuming that the Syrians are behind this? For that matter, what evidence is there that Syria is behind Fatah al Islam? Isn't it possible that both take orders from Al Quaida, and not Syria? There would be some inconsistency in Syria's supporting both the Sunni extremists of FAI and the Shi'ite Hezbollah, although that doesn't make it impossible.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not whitewashing Syria, and I'm convinced they're behind the Hariri and other assassinations. However, it's also possible that there are independant elements at work, and rushing to judgement doesn't serve anybody's interest.

The thing that surprises me, if this wasn't Hizb, is that the picture portrayed in previous threads was that the Nasrallah guys had southern Lebanon pretty much locked down. This bombing of the UN would go against that somewhat, plus wouldn't it be kind of a slap in their face to pull off an attack right on their back patio? Especially when they have had 'good relations' with UNIFIL.

One news source threw al Qaeda into the mix. That I could see. Al Q does not seem to be intimidated by anyone in Lebanon. Their marching orders don't originate in Iran, correct?

You know those nature movies of lions fighting hyenas over a kill? Hizb and al Q going at each other be a parallel. Al Q in Iraq seems to kill any and all, but the Shia get the worst of it. But if Hizb does not make a move against anyone in the aftermath, would that point to something larger here? Someone in a prior thread proposed that Hizbullah may at some point emulate the Gaza takeover by Hamas. And one of his points was that Hizb would have to get rid of the UN first.

Too much for me to figure out. I'll follow along with all the great commenters here to get some understanding.

MarkC,

I suppose it's technically possible, but the timing of events is far too coincidental for them not to be orchestrations by Syria/Iran.

Just a few days ago the Italian Foreign Minister visited the region and tried to strike a deal whereby Italian troops serving with Unifil would not be targeted. In return he offered dialogue and cooperation with the radical militias and their patrons.

Seems he didn't coordinate with the Spaniards. As they've just discovered.

This is UNIFIL's test. The French, once they had their arms twisted into supplying troops, recalled the 1982 debacle and insisted upon very robust rights for UNIFIL troops to defend themselves. If nothing happens, everyone will know UNIFIL is an easy mark, and the attacks will increase in frequency until the troops depart, leaving Syro-Iranian thugs to take up the slack.

MarkC

Short answers to your question, why is Syria the top suspect:

1) Fits the recent escalating pattern of destabilization re Hariri tribunal and influence in Leb.

2) Entry point for weapons and explosives: only one and it is Syria. (Unless we're talking one-time unsustainable smuggling and/or things stashed away from 30 years ago).

3) Who's publicly rejecting the role of the UN in Leb (re tribunal, and Leb-Syrian borders etc)?

"Last July's cease fire was a mistake."

Nor Hezbollah nor Syria wanted war last year. Hezbollah just wanted chips to continue playing the game. It was Israel that pro-claimed war, not Hezbollah. The opposite being true, every single one of Nasrallah's speeches and Hezbollah statements made during the war demanded a cessation of violence. P.S. When some-one invades another (something alot of you here think Hezbollah did first last year), they invade with brute military force, attack numerous military outposts and carry on doing it until the other side is defeated, occupied or other objectives are fulfilled. A kidnap operation is not invasion. IDF kidnaps Palis - militants, civilians and politicians alike - every single day, you don't see everyone screaming invasion.

"The UN resolution was a mistake."

It wasn't a mistake, it was meaningless.

"The UN presence is a mistake."

Maybe. All I know is that every single country that committed UN troops to the region first asked for security and safety assurances from Hezbollah. Basically, they didn't go against Hezbollah's will. Now they are in 'control' of the south - alongside the Lebanese Army. Never under Hezbollah supervision has any attack like todays occured. Kinda shows you what values Hezbollah consists of.

"Even though they yelled and screamed against the UN, Hezbo and Syria got a reprieve then, and a nice target to shoot at now."

I don't see the point of Hezbollah or Syria committing such an act. Syria wants to come back? It was never situated in the south - ever. Hezbollah wants to get rid of the UNICEF? They can do that with one statement demanding the UN retrieve or face harsh military consequence. These are just third-parties trying to destabilise the region after failing to do so in the North - now shifting it to the Shi'a heart-land.

"Awaiting "very strong" UN and world condemnation any second now."

Thats politics for you.

As long as the Syrian regime faces no punishment for its actions, this is only going to escalate. This is not a maybe.

I know we've been through this over and over, but it is also the people of Lebanon's responsibility to tell Hezbollah that enough is enough.

They got the Syrians (mostly) out.

The anti-Hezbollah protests should be non-stop until they are disarmed and the weapons are under the control of the Lebanese army.

After what Iran has gotten away with in Gaza they probably believe that the West and the UN cannot react quickly enough or forcefully enough to prevent the vilolent subversion of Lebbanon.

Iran and Syria don't fear sanctions...they fear direct, forceful action. The West, faced with the fait accompli of a re-Syrianized Lebanon will dither and fulminate but do nothing to roll it back. That would require true will, backed up by violent action.

The moves in Gaza and Lebanon are the equivalent of Hitler remilitarizing the Rhineland and invading the Sudaten. There is a chance to stop this strategic move by Iran if the reation is soon and forceful. If there is only talk and talk of threats of actions never taken the Iranian/Syrian axis wins their gambit.

Poor Lebanon. I fear it will be abandoned by Europe and the US.

MarkC,

There would be some inconsistency in Syria's supporting both the Sunni extremists of FAI and the Shi'ite Hezbollah, although that doesn't make it impossible.

Where is the inconsistency? Nobody is claiming that Syria's regime is composed of Sunni al-Qaeda types, or Khomeinist Shi'ites. Just that they are using those groups. One need not agree with someone to work with them.

Certain people (not you, this is a general comment) claim that Sunnis and Shi'ites, religious and secular, etc, cannot work together, however similar their goals might be. And yet the United States military is currently working with Sunni Arab nationalists to fight al-Qaeda.

A kidnap operation is not invasion. IDF kidnaps Palis - militants, civilians and politicians alike - every single day, you don't see everyone screaming invasion.

Well, no, because it is difficult to claim that you are both occupied and invaded.

You have to wonder about the logic there. Because the blessed palestinians say they aren't being invaded, an armed assault across a sovereign border in which soldiers from that country are killed and kidnapped, is therefore not an invasion.

When does Palestine Chic become more than a fetish? When Mahmoud Abbas decides the definition of an invasion.

rico,

Leaving aside who's right and wrong, my point about the UN (since July 06) is that the cease-fire and the resolutions were temporary non-solution that solved little or nothing.

Things are bound to blow up, as we are witnessing right now.

Re Hezbo, I agree they have no incentive to activate the southern front now.

Syria however is another matter and have as much plainly. The Katyusha rockets on Israel last week were very likely Syrian inspired as are the Islamists in the north.

Other than Hezbo, the only people armed and capable of pulling crap like that in the South are the Syrians and or their Iranian allies (via locals or Pali proxies) with again ALL weapons coming through Syria.

Michael and Josey are right about escalation by Syrian-backed forces if they are not punished now.

Mark C, the roadside bomb fits the pattern of Hizbullah attacks on Israeli forces up to 2000. And Hizbullah was and is Syrian-backed. Further, as to Fatah al-Islam, their top leader was in a Syrian jail until released a couple of years ago. Other Fatah al-Islam terrorists came to Lebanon through Syria.

Dumb question but... why would Syria or Hizbollah want to kill UN soldiers? Aren't the UN forces, in an indirect way, protecting Hizbollah from Israel and giving them free reign of the south?

From a logistical standpoint, it seems like these guys are somehow behind it. But strategically the logic of this attack is a bit unclear (not new in Lebanon, I know).

MikeB,

At this juncture Hezbo, no, can't be happy but they also can't say no to their masters (nor stop their agents).

Thinking out loud here: what would happen if UNIFIL pulled out, and the Lebanese army did NOT replace them?

[Syria may think it would be back to the good old days, with a "controlled" Hezbo facing Israel in the south. I am not convinced they're right.]

I guess that's what I'm asking -- would hizbollah do something that seems against their interest to please Syria? And I don't quite get how further chaos in the south, where Syria/Iran-proxy Hizbollah supposedly controls things, is going to convince the UN to let Syria return to Lebanon. I'm wondering if I am missing something -- because if not this just seems like a smoke+mirrors type of deal that really is pointless. Maybe it just buys time? Just wondering what others thought.

MikeB,

The point is to get UNIFIL to leave Lebanon. I'm sure it will work if there are more bombings. Even the U.S. Marines ran away when Reagan was president. Don't think the Syrians have forgotten about that one. Of course they haven't.

If Reagan wouldn't fight back they figure nobody will short of a full-blown Syrian military invasion, and they're probably right. The assholes of the Middle East can do almost anything they want right now without facing consequences. We (meaning the entire rest of the world) are proving that to them over and over again, almost weekly.

It's going to get uglier and uglier.

Michael,

If Reagan wouldn't fight back they figure nobody will short of a full-blown Syrian military invasion, and they're probably right.

Reagan had other fish to fry, and a Cold War to win. Bush doesn't. This is Bush's "generational war". This here, right now. The only reason we (US) haven't gone after Hezbollah yet, is because we want to give democracy in Lebanon a chance. If the Syrians decide to make themselves at home in Lebanon, they'll be very, very sorry. Likewise, if a civil war starts up, and HA comes out on top. Hezbollah is gonna regret that, a lot.

If democracy fails in Lebanon, all bets are off. That's my opinion.

PS-I don't think Reagan would have withdrawn from Lebanon in 1984 if he'd known how bad things would get in the ME, after that. Hindsight is 20/20 and we fortunately do know what the cost of past mistakes has been.

Craig: Reagan had other fish to fry, and a Cold War to win.

Agreed, but Assad and friends don't see it that way.

MJT, your answer to Craig is correct but begs the question....how do we get Assad to "see it that way"?

Short of starting over and putting the Marines back in Leb. with a more assertive ROE, what do we do?

I've heard / read virtually every possible answer but none of them seem a) feasible at this time or b) worth anything.

MikeB,

Dumb question but... why would Syria or Hizbollah want to kill UN soldiers? Aren't the UN forces, in an indirect way, protecting Hizbollah from Israel and giving them free reign of the south?

Hezbollah's first aim is not to have free reign in the south, but to wage war on Israel. That doesn't mean all war, all the time (like al-Qaeda), but it does mean their own security is a means to an end.

You asked what driving UNIFIL out of Lebanon does for Syria. Well, it is one of several measures that makes the Lebanese government and army look weak. Others include the bombing campaign in Beirut and the Nahr el-Bared fighting. Already the government looks weak. Most Lebanese don't seem to mind that, but Syria probably hopes they can change that.

A war between Israel and Hezbollah is the best way to accomplish that. If UNIFIL leaves, a war with Israel is more likely. And if that happens, it will provide an opportunity for Syria to reassert 'protection' over Lebanon.

Similarly, Syria's goal here is not it's own security from Israeli bombs, but viability. Lebanon is vital for Syria's independence from Iran. Ironically, Syrian control of Lebanon makes a break in the Iran-Syria alliance more possible.

As for Reagan not fighting back, I'm reading Michael Smith's "Killer Elite". An elite SOF unit collected information and put together plans for a response against Islamist terrorists. According to the book, a senior White House aide said Reagan would approve the plans if they ever reached him, but the Pentagon would kill the plans before they could. And they did.

Already the government looks weak. Most Lebanese don't seem to mind that

To clarify: presumably Lebanese would prefer a stronger government, but thus far they seem to prefer a weak, mostly democratic Lebanese government to a strong, entirely odious Syrian dictatorship/occupation.

Sadly, I think Michael is right. Will there be a breaking point that brings reasonable freedom-loving people together? I certainly hope so.

As long as the Syrian regime faces no punishment for its actions, this is only going to escalate.

>>>>>

Serious punishment isn't on the table. The 'international community' (meaning the US) isn't going to provide more than rhetorical support, some equipment, and a few advisors to Lebanon because we need all deployable forces in Iraq, and when Iraq is pacified, we will need those forces to deal with Iran.

Baby Assad has several more years to engage in mischief before he faces real consequences, and he knows it. His plan, as near as I can tell, is for Syria to remain #2 on the US's to-do list- always on the list, but never a high enough priority to take action against right now.

This is a big part of the reason I favor a decapitation strike- drop a JDAM on Assad's bedroom, leaving the rest of the Syrian Mafia intact, and sending a note to Assad's successor that failure to leave the neighbors alone will result in an express-delivery JDAM for them, too.

...if we'd been adding a division a year since 2001, the badguys on this planet would be treading a lot more carefully.

Michael,

The United States Marine Corps are ordered to lay down arms or leave. As a rule, they do not "run away" in numbers large enough to merit historical consideration.

Reality is largely irrelevant in my profession, I'm sorry to say.

Reality begins with you, my friend.

Agree with Patricks comment that the Marines did not "run away", rather, they were ordered to leave. Net result was the same, though it was an act of political cowardice, not Marines running away from a fight.

Just so we keep this in mind, it's not just a matter of US political will to prosecute the war against Islamists, it's also a matter of having the troops. We don't. We could, but we don't. A lot of people seem to miss that distinction.

The US is a big country and could field several million soldiers without breaking much of a sweat. We barely have a million active and reserves right now, though, and it would take a couple years for new recruits to be trained, equipped, and deployed in large numbers. Our enemies know this perfectly well, and also that there is politically no chance that such a mobilization will happen anytime soon. That's why they do seemingly crazy things like send barely-disguised Iranian SF to fight in Iraq, or have the Syrian government support Hamas/Hizbollah/etc more or less in the open, as well as continuing to contest Afghanistan.