The Best Way To Support Lebanon Is To Rid It Of Hezbollah
It’s a tough love, to be sure, but David Ignatius details the administration’s risky strategy of slow diplomacy; the idea is to help Lebanon in the long term by allowing Israel to continue to hammer Hezbollah as long as it is politically possible (the Lebanese government is too weak to take on Hezbollah itself), knowing full well that the short term picture is going to get uglier still:
The administration’s strategy is to let Israel do the dirty work of breaking Hezbollah, and then move in a foreign “stabilization force” to bolster the Lebanese army. Once Israel has pushed the guerrillas north, this international force would help the Lebanese army deploy to the southern border with Israel and the eastern border with Syria. The plan is for a beefed-up successor to the existing United Nations force in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL.
The administration’s informal deadline for getting a U.N. mandate for this new international force is July 31, when UNIFIL’s current mandate expires. The French now command that force, and the U.S. hopes they can remain in that role, with new troops coming from such robust military powers as Italy, Turkey and Canada.
Siniora has privately warned the Bush administration that by bombing so many targets in Lebanon, Israel is undermining its own strategic goals. Lebanese are angry with Hezbollah for starting the war by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and most want to see the militia under government control. But Siniora has angrily asked why the Israelis are hitting Lebanese airports, ports, roads, villages, facilities and other targets that primarily impact civilians. And he has denounced attacks on the Lebanese army, which even the Israelis say is the key to long-run stability and security.
Some Bush administration officials share Siniora’s concern about the scope of Israeli attacks. These officials are said not to fathom Israeli targeting decisions. The administration is understood to have communicated this concern to Jerusalem.
The Lebanon crisis has put the administration in a double bind. U.S. officials know they need to move quickly toward a cease-fire to preserve any chance for the Siniora government to regain control of the country. But they don’t want to move so quickly that they prevent Israel from completing its primary military mission of destroying Hezbollah’s arsenal of missiles and pushing the Shiite guerrillas back from the border. The administration’s two-track approach is perhaps summed up in Augustus Caesar’s famous admonition: “Make haste slowly.”
Note Egypt’s frustration with Syria in the following passage:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will head for the Middle East this weekend to try to animate this diplomacy. She has no plans to stop in Syria, and that’s a sensible decision. It’s up to the Syrians to demonstrate that they can play a positive role — not least to their Sunni Arab neighbors, who are angry about President Bashar al-Assad’s alliance with Shiite Iran and its proxies. A recent claim by Syrian intelligence officials that they have no control over Hamas leader Khaled Mashal is said to have infuriated Egypt’s intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, who responded indignantly: “Don’t give us that! We are not Mauritania! We are Egypt!”
Supporting Israel and Lebanon at the same time is a tricky task — especially at a moment when the bombs are flying between one nation and the other. Unless the administration moves quickly to demonstrate that it supports the Siniora government, and not just Israel, its larger strategy for diffusing the conflict may begin to unravel. Administration officials recognize that a stable Lebanon cannot be achieved by military action alone. But for now, all the world sees is Hezbollah rockets and Israeli bombs.
The bottom line remains what it has been for some time now: the ceasefire will come when southern Lebanon is controllable by the peacekeepers. The bombing of the bridges and other infrastructure that so infuriates those who wonder why Israel is not limiting itself to military targets is a strategic decision – it does no good to get rid of Hezbollah if they can easily infiltrate back in. Only when the peacekeepers are in place will the bombing of these targets be lifted…
Has any attempt been made to reach out diplomatically to Lebanon and get them on board with this rooting out of Hezbollah? If it has, maybe I just missed it. If it hasn’t, I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable if it had.
From the article I cited:
Siniora has privately warned the Bush administration that by bombing so many targets in Lebanon, Israel is undermining its own strategic goals.
Sounds like they’re in contact, to me…
The idea that Israel can “rid Lebanon of Hezbollah” strikes me as seriously delusional. In the recent elections, Hezbollah politicians overwhelmingly won the vote in Southern Lebanon, picking up every seat in parliment from that region. How do you rid a region of a group that the vast majority of the population supports? Particularly if you are Israel, the very country that the group in question exists to oppose?
Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for decades and it wasn’t able to dismantle Hezbollah. But now they’re somehow magically going to drive the group out of Lebanon? It doesn’t make any sense. Sure, Israel can destroy some of Hezbollah’s artillery and kill some of its leaders, and that’s a good thing. But at the end of the day, Hezbollah will still be there, and it’s support among the people in Southern Lebanon will likely be even stronger, particularly given all the destruction Israel has caused.
Honestly, I don’t know what the best course of action is. No one does. That’s why this is such an intractable conflict. But I think people need to face some basic realities here. Israel’s military campaign may be necessary, but the odds of it solving anything are next to none.
Perhaps…but if you can’t get rid of it, you can push it back, and occupy the south with peacekeepers, and at least not let it have the freedom to fire rockets at will…
I don’t think that the plan is for the Israelis to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. I think that they are going to make it look like they are going to consider a ground invasion for as long as they can, so that they can continue airstrikes.
If everyone is assuming that the Israeli’s ‘next step’ is invasion, it diminshes the impact of the bombing. The world is focusing on dealing with the idea of invasion and will be more apt to wait to take action, assumin gthat thye will have to repond to invasion.
If the Israelis said they had no desire to invade, then the focus would be on the bombing itself, and the urgency of dealing with the situation would be diminished as it would be evident that despite the violence there is no chance of escalation. Giving the UN the belief that they have time to procrastinate would not be prudent.
It is clear that the Lebanese govt is supportive of the actions. I know, they are threatening to fight with Hezbollah against the Israelis, but ONLY if they are invaded. (I do think that the Lebanese govt still holds a big card in this matter: the position to abstain from declaring war with Israel cannot be held long, while the Israelis continue to bomb Beirut. Clearly the Lebanese currently have more to fear from Hezbollah, than Israel.) I think the wish of the both Lebanon and Israel is that they want a peace-keeping force in Southern Lebanon, and that the closer they get to appearring on the brink, the more likely it will occur.
If the Israelis invade and the Lebanese govt declares war-it will be an open invitation to every jihadi and their brother, to come and fight, and reclaim Lebanon from the moderate Lebanese.
Anon Lib, like ever other Lib, states simply that the course we take is hopeless, yet has no other. Well, we GAVE peace a chance long enough, over long. Now we are giving war a chance. And that chance is NO chance? Sorry to dissappoint you but no, military action DOES have salutory effects on the ground and not infrequently it is the only course that can. Simply stated, many Hizbollites must be killed. Gee, that couldn’t possibly help, could it? It’s just that damned old cycle of violence.
Feh.
It is the “peace process” so enamored of so many for no good reason that has proven pointless. THIS is what reform of a tribal world looks like. THIS is progress. No wonder the progressives oppose it so.
Sorry to dissappoint you but no, military action DOES have salutory effects on the ground and not infrequently it is the only course that can.
Oh please, I’m no pacifist, and I didn’t suggest that Israel should not have reacted militarily. But the “salutory effects” of military action can often be negative, i.e., they can make the situation worse not better, particularly if they’re not thought through very well (see Iraq). My fear is that Israel is commiting a strategic blunder right now and that its actions will have the ultimate effect of strengthing Hizbullah and derailing Lebanon’s nascent democracy.
As for my not having a plan to solve the problems of the Middle East, I think that puts me in the same boat as, well, everyone else in the world who isn’t a fool or a liar. It’s a complex, intractable problem that doesn’t lend itself to any easy solutions. The question is not whether Israel should have reacted militarily to Hizbollah’s aggression. They should have. The question is whether the particular military strategy they are following is the best one.
[...] Decision '08 [...]
I think Condi’s trip to the ME is a harbinger of good tidings.
The chess board has been completely shifted, beyond previous comparisons. Give credit to the neo-cons, if Iraq is still in play, Saddam is launching scud missiles at Israel, and negotiations would have to deal with him, distracting from larger matters.
Condi can sit down at a table with Jordan and Lebanon, and express her condolences over their victims of both state-sponsored terrorists and stae sponsored assassins. Iraq can sit at the table too, and express their disappointment over the meddling of Syria and Iran, through terrorism. Egypt, having suffered the assassination of Sadat by Islamic jihad(suggested to be a puppet of Iran as well) and having the vp of Sadat in power, needs no reminders of what terrorists are willing to do. I sincerely doubt that Lebanon will decline to complain about Iran and Syria.
Then we come to the Saudis-no friends of bin-laden or Iran. As crazy as Ahmidinjad is, I’d better he has already considered the option of attacking and destabilizing saudi oil production, to increase his own countries assets-’oilfinger theory’.
Factor in that now that the terrorists organizations have gained hold over the Palestinian govts, the very people who would make the case to the Arab govts, are their enemy. But the funding that had been pouring in is now being shut off. While terrorism may work as ideology, it does not work as government.
suddenly money that countries have been pouring into the region, can now be spent elsewhere.
I think the neo-cons were successful, although in hindsight it looks more and more like the Arthur Fonzerelli school of diplomacy. The US kicked the ‘jukebox’ becuase the record was stuck, and Bush will wind up being the guy to say ‘eeehhhh’.
All the players and money are simultaneously repositioning.
(all bets are off if the Israelis go into Lebanon.)
add this too, the refugee situation must be resolved for any lasting peace.
Previously hard to do, becuase it would mean diverting funds. Now the funds have been effectively cut off-and a new project may flourish.
Saving Lebanon by destroying it? Yup that makes sense. Byzantine logic.
The Lebanese have made it pretty clear. Aoun is sitting this one out, the Lebanese have yet to declare war on Israel, despite ample reason to have already done so.
Clearly they fear Hezbollah, more than they fear Israel.
“Saving Lebanon by destroying it?”
No, they’re only going as far as the river, which constitutes about 20 miles of territory. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Lebanese borders, but that represents less than 20% of the country’s entirety. So your statement here is not only incorrect, it’s fatuous.
I have this incredible idea…. it might just work
UN should mandate israel return to its original pre ’67 borders. Grant true palestinian autonomy. I wonder what would happen.
The Best Way To Support Lebanon Is To Rid It Of Hezbollah?
How about “The Best Way To Support Lebanon Is To Rid It Of Isreal!
This is elaborately contrived political doubletalk. Americans need to get their heads out of the sand to see the real reasons why Israel invaded, yes – invaded Lebanon. The push toward the Litani River is to usurp the water resources, not to mention, the control of oil (BTC Pipeline).
Israel will probably have to deal with Hezbollah in the long-term, because this resistance movement fights it does not tuck tail and run. The best way to support Lebanon is by allowing the TRUTH to be told – Israel’s unprovoked attack on a nation and a people that it utterly HATES and DESPISES.
1) Israel is posing a much bigger threat to Lebanon than Hezbollah is
2) Israel is the reason why Hezbollah exists in the first place (Ironic, isn’t it: Israel is now hunting down it’s own bastard child, how touching..)
3) The idea of Hezbollah actively using civilians as a human shields is a stupid one created by the Zionist-controlled media that some people regard as a dogma nowadays.
4) Saying the Lebanese people should fight Hezbollah along with Israel, which is coincidentially bombing them out of their homes at the same time is the dumbest suggestion you can ever make.
So I’d say get rid of the Israeli invasion first, THEN have a little word with Hezbollah afterwards.
how dare do any1 offend hezboalla they are the only reason that lebns ppl are still alive . the reall terror comes from israel , they kill children women and old ppl this is not a war its the biggest crime and we are all in it coz we are all watching lebonan gonig down and we are not moving but god is beside u hezbelalla and he will allways support u.
This is the reasoning that people can’t understand. So many of these comments are from disillusioned Americans that are actually taking the American Media reports as 100% complete FACT. You all are being fools for doing so. Do any of you actually KNOW someone being personally affected by this crisis in Lebanon? Does anyone here personally know of the dozens of dead bodies that are being left to rot in the sun because no one feel safe to put them in mass graves due to the dangerous severity of Israel’s campaign? What about those that have not died from a direct attack, but from the repercurssions of these attacks? My Brother-in-law passed away in Lebanon from inability to receive adequate medical care (i.e.: Some Oxygen to breath in throughout the thick smoke that was inundating Southern Lebanese homes) because Israel had blown out the local hospital. You people that are supporting Israel disgust me, and if you keep on supporting Israel, I hope you all do not turn hypocritical and back down once the Israeli PM and other Israeli officials have been tried for War Crimes. I hope you continue to support Israel even when numerous European and Middle Eastern countries (Critical to our economic prosperity and health) act upon our decision to go against the opinion of the world and cause a ceasefire. It seems that while Americans half a century ago used to be proud to fight for justice, instead they would rather sit back from the comfort of our own home and regurgitate the propaganda that their favorite Jewish media source spewed to them. I am not an Anti-Semite and I am not Pro-Hezbollah, but when people are condoning the cleansing of innocent Lebanese civilians because “it’s good for them [and us]“, I can’t sit back and be a yes man as well.