Hezbollah takes a hit

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_militant_12

Israel and the US are getting blamed, naturally, but it seems interesting to me that this happened in the middle of Syria. Sacrificial lamb to stir up the troops, given the way Hezbollah has been marginalized recently? Perhaps some insight from our resident experts?

[Prime Junta]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_militant_12

Israel and the US are getting blamed, naturally, but it seems interesting to me that this happened in the middle of Syria. Sacrificial lamb to stir up the troops, given the way Hezbollah has been marginalized recently? Perhaps some insight from our resident experts?

I'm inclined to think it was Israel, for two reasons.

One, they're really good at this sort of thing, Imad Moughniyeh has had a big ol' bull's eye painted on him for a quite a while, and Israel badly needs to get back at Hezbollah for the black eye they got back in '06.

Two, this won't serve Syrian interests.

Syria's strategic objective in Lebanon is to prevent the country from falling into the Franco-American orbit and concluding a separate peace with Israel. To do this, they need allies in the country, the strongest of which is Hezbollah.

So, as long as Hezbollah itself doesn't break with Syria (which hasn't happened so far, AFAICT), they will not do anything that would actually damage the organization. Moughniyeh was under Syrian protection, and he was one of the Hezzies' most important leaders. Killing him does two things that are very much against the Syrian interest: (1) it reduces the Hezbollah's trust in the value of Syrian protection, and (2) it removes a major Hezbollah asset from the table. If the Hezbollah leadership starts to feel that they have to watch out for daggers from the Syrian direction as well as the Israeli one, it will completely change the picture, and not to the Syrian advantage.

Conversely, if Syria wants to fire up the Hezbollah base, it would do something that would not do any real damage to them, but would seriously piss them off. For example, they might set up a sniper on a roof and shoot somebody in Hezbollah demonstration... with the Lebanese army present. This could easily escalate into more shooting, and the Lebanese army would get the blame -- and Hezbollah as an organization would not have suffered at all. (Yes, I'm referring to something that may well have happened a while back.)

(Also, incidentally, I'm not sure "blame" is the right term. I'm sure Moughniyeh would've done the same to Tzipi Livni, given half a chance. He knew what kind of game he was getting into. What pisses me off about the situation is that so many people who want nothing to do with the whole mess suffer and die regardless.)

[Squeek]

I like Hezbollah TV's take on it: With all pride we declare a great jihadist leader of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon joining the martyrs ... The brother commander hajj Imad Mughinyeh became a martyr at the hands of the Zionist Israelis.Their logic is always good for a laugh over here in Orange County. Their way of looking at things compared to ours over here reminds me a lot of that old TV show It's About Time (http://www.tvparty.com/recits.html).

[Prime Junta]

Yeah, it's always fun to laugh at stuff like that. From a safe distance.

[Squeek]

They do tend to keep their distance, don't they? Except when they're committing murder, anyway. Hezbollah are the violent sick clowns of the modern world.

[POLYGON]

This can stir up more tension in the air as tomorrow is 14th Feb the day Rafik El Hariri was murdered, and 14 march are preparing a mass demonstration in Beirut, so having the other team (8 march) in the funeral in Beirut too could prove really dangerous. Things in Lebanon are real tense more than ever, especially after the latest Junblatt PR which clearly called for war and threatened to burn everything. So killing Moghineyeh at this time is especially not good. I, and everybody in Lebanon, hope that Hizbullah keeps their cool as they always did.

[Prime Junta]

They do tend to keep their distance, don't they? Except when they're committing murder, anyway. Hezbollah are the violent sick clowns of the modern world.

Ah, all that righteous anger. Feels good, doesn't it? A sweet ol' adrenaline rush straight into the limbic system. Mmm, sweet...

Seriously, though -- the Hezzies are no more sick, violent, or clownish than any government at war -- including the US or Israeli ones. They're fighting a war for a cause they believe is just, and they're doing it more cleanly and with greater discipline than most people in that region; they just don't have the official status of a government -- even if unofficially they look a lot like one.

[Prime Junta]

This can stir up more tension in the air as tomorrow is 14th Feb the day Rafik El Hariri was murdered, and 14 march are preparing a mass demonstration in Beirut, so having the other team (8 march) in the funeral in Beirut too could prove really dangerous. Things in Lebanon are real tense more than ever, especially after the latest Junblatt PR which clearly called for war and threatened to burn everything. So killing Moghineyeh at this time is especially not good. I, and everybody in Lebanon, hope that Hizbullah keeps their cool as they always did.

Is the funeral going to be in Beirut and already tomorrow?

[POLYGON]

Hezbollah did not threaten immediate revenge. But its al-Manar television, which broke into Quranic verses after the announcement, broadcast another statement from the Shiite Muslim militant group, saying a funeral will be held on Thursday.
That what the bit of news dte gave states, but form our local media I knowthat the funeral will be in a different region from the 14 March demonstration, but with such tension in the air you'll never know what happen...

[Prime Junta]

Indeed. We're all hoping for the best. Hang in there, willya?

[magerette]

I can't imagine living in the kind of perpetual adrenaline fight-or-flight state that it must take to survive in the Middle East right now, and if I were the praying kind, I'd pray that the pain and unrest of everyone over there could be resolved. I hope the demonstration doesn't go wrong, and that as Polygon says, people keep their heads and no more lives are lost or martyrs created.

As far as the actual act, it seems to be riding a crest of political violence that won't quit. One keeps wondering how many such incidents the world community can endure before something gives in the way of a greater and more organized tide of actual war.

[Squeek]

Seriously, though -- the Hezzies are no more sick, violent, or clownish than any government at war -- including the US or Israeli ones. They're fighting a war for a cause they believe is just, and they're doing it more cleanly and with greater discipline than most people in that region.Except instead of distinguishing themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and having bases of operation, they actually try to blend in with non-combatants. Oh, and they teach children truisms like, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky Mouse look-alike.

Defend it all you want, PJ. It's sick, cowardly and moronic.

[dteowner]

My conspiracy theory wasn't really aimed at Syria, PJ. I was going just a little more tinfoil--militants killing militants. You've got a guy that's been in hiding for over a decade. Even though he's pretty high on the food chain, it's got to hurt his effectiveness to stay firmly in the shadows. Sometimes your best gambit is to sacrifice your queen.

Recently, Hezbollah seems to have been marginalized a bit. Similarly, more Arab nations are playing nice with Israel these days than usual. Even though the peace talks won't amount to much, the fact that both sides are even acknowledging there's someone on the other side of the table would have to be considered progress. What better way to put a monkey in the wrench than to pin a prominent assassination on "the Zionists"? No peace, a good "flag wave" for Hezbollah's recruiters, and a solid step back to more traditional power structures.

That said, I don't know that it would be a major surprise to me if Israel really did do it.

[dteowner]

*sigh*
Yep, make sure you chalk up all those Iraqis that were killed by other Iraqis and put it on the US's tally. It's our fault that Habib thought it would be fun to blow himself up in a crowded market. The Sunnis killing Shiites and Shiites killing Sunnis--yep, put that on our tab, too, cuz we secretly told them to do it. Even if we had our fingers in the pie like PJ likes to say, we didn't pull the grenade pins.

Numbers are so easy to throw around, and they make such a nice simple flag for the sheep to follow. Where were you when Saddam was slaughtering his own citizens at rates widely believed to be 10 times those numbers you're laying at our doorstep? Didn't hear a peep, cuz you didn't give a crap until the opportunity to throw tomatos at the US presented itself.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic. ;)

[zakhal]

Great many of those deaths are caused by the post-war mismanagement of iraq. After the country was taken there was no "plan" what to do next. They had not prepared for it and they made som big mistakes like firing most of the nations civil/army service (millions of people) just because they belonged to the baath party. Everyone who worked in iraqi goverment belong to it from blummers to policemen - it was requirement. They joined the party just to get the job.

After firing most of the civil/army service the country turned into total chaos and anarchy. The chaos was so bad that stuff that noone could possibly imagine happened. US troops had to protect everything even hospitals. As soon as they had to leave it due to other work it was assaulted by mobs who stole everything from it.

Who would have thought that you have to defend hospitals with arms because othervice som people will come and rob it clean leaving dead and wounded patients to lie on the floor?

Luckily US is finally giving the old baathist a chance to work again so iraq is getting back its civil/army service. But the damage is allready done and lots of people have died.

[chamr]

Except instead of distinguishing themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and having bases of operation, they actually try to blend in with non-combatants. Oh, and they teach children truisms like, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky Mouse look-alike.

Defend it all you want, PJ. It's sick, cowardly and moronic.

*sigh* Let's not start throwing stones from our glass house again, k? No one's "defending" Hezbollah here. No one likes them. But to think of ourselves as vastly superior to them and their cause is naive at best and dangerous at worst. Even if none of our direct actions as a nation over the last 200+ years were "sick, cowardly and moronic", you must admit that we've thrown plenty of money and support at lots of folks that were indeed "sick, cowardly and moronic". Just a short list:

The Shah
Manuel Noriega
Agusto Pinochet
Joseph Stalin

Does it makes us morally superior to have done it "from a distance", as you chastise Hezbollah for, using money, covert operations and third party arms dealers? Hmmm???

[chamr]

*sigh*
Yep, make sure you chalk up all those Iraqis that were killed by other Iraqis and put it on the US's tally. It's our fault that Habib thought it would be fun to blow himself up in a crowded market. The Sunnis killing Shiites and Shiites killing Sunnis--yep, put that on our tab, too, cuz we secretly told them to do it. Even if we had our fingers in the pie like PJ likes to say, we didn't pull the grenade pins.

Damn tootin' we're responsible. You don't roll into town, shoot the place up, fire everyone in charge, sit back and let the mayhem ensue and then shrug your shoulders and say, "not my fault". At least responsible adults don't. The post "war" phase was so badly mismanaged by us that it's criminal. If we think we have the right to storm a country and take down its government, we better be damn well prepared to step up to the plate and make sure the innocent suffer as little as possible. We didn't do that and, in some cases, made their lives much, much worse than they were under good 'ole Sadaam. Maybe I just hold our country to a higher standard than you, but I find that embarrassingly unacceptable. That nobody by Scooter Libby has gone to jail for this whole fiasco is flabbergasting and sad. And wholly un-American.

when Saddam was slaughtering his own citizens at rates widely believed to be 10 times those numbers you're laying at our doorstep?

That's just convenient speculation.

[Eliaures]

Our oppression by the British before our revolution was nothing as compared to the oppression experienced by the Palestinians at the hands of Israel with America's support and prior to that the British. We lionize our split from the British and the fight for freedom and democracy that it represents. Why do we see the fight against oppression by other cultures as any different? Because they use terrorism? When you have little power and little access to the methods to fight back, you might be driven to use such desperate measures. Don't forget, Manachem Begin was a "terrorist" and used terrorist methods against the British. The British considered our use of guerrilla warfare during the Revolutionary War as cowardly and against the laws of good form. Was it wrong to gather the support of the French without which we never would have won our war against Britain? You take who's ya can get and when the Western world completely marginalizes the plight of the Palestinians, well, they turn to Syria and Iran.

I'm not saying I support the use of terrorism, my heroes against oppression have been Ghandi and King. It takes extraordinary courage to refrain from fighting violence with violence when you are getting dogs sicked on you, stomped on, and shot at. I'm not entirely sure I could do that, I have a streak of revenge in my heart. When I'm wronged, I often want to strike back. Which takes us back to "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations". I know how wronged I feel when a cop pulls me over for some traffic violation, I can imagine how I'd feel after years of similar treatment and much worse as a Palestinian in Israel.

[magerette]

Good points and an excellent parallel, Elliaures.

Please recognize this isn't a personal attack on anyone, dte or Squeek--I understand you have a right to your opinions and feelings however much I see things differently, but I have to bring up the situation in Africa, where in Darfur alone estimates are between 200,000 and 400,000 dead in tribal warfare. Also right now Kenya and Chad are filled with kids killing other kids with machetes,and the slaughter and complete instability of their governments is alarming the whole continent--are we sending troops over there to right the wrongs? Have we ever? Wonder why that is. It's strange the Mideast gets all our benevolent intervention.

[Squeek]

No one's "defending" Hezbollah here.Wrong. You jumped into a conversation where Hezbollah was being defended.

Chamr, being the first to emphasize something valuable, like taking responsibility, is admirable, but it's simply not enough to achieve peace. Everybody in this mess is emphasizing what they feel is right while refusing to consider other points of view. That's a lot of the problem.

There are strict realities in this world, and some of those need to be kept straight in order to make war or peace. I'm all for trying to reach common ground, for instance, but sometimes it's simply not the correct effort. Good intentions just won't cut it.

The thing I hate about war is all the killing, especially when it's innocent people that are getting killed. The right way to try to make peace is to keep all the distinctions about every single one of those deaths straight and never buy into the idea that there's any value whatsoever in rationalization.

It's easy to claim you're on the side of peace. Unfortunately, most of the efforts made only promote more violence, immediately or eventually. Chamr, your efforts seem very well intended, but your approach will never promote real peace.

[dteowner]

Who would have thought that you have to defend hospitals with arms because othervice som people will come and rob it clean leaving dead and wounded patients to lie on the floor?Indeed, who would have thought... People are acting like animals, and harming fellow Iraqis in the process. Clearly, blame the US for expecting people to be civilized.

[Squeek]

....are we sending troops over there to right the wrongs? Have we ever? Wonder why that is.Like the way we sent troops into Somalia along with all that food to save all those starving Muslims over there? Or when we sent all those troops over to Kosovo to stop the slaughter? Or when we posted all those troops along the Soviet Union border to prevent their expansion into Western Europe?

What were the results of those things, magerette? How would you propose doing stuff like that correctly?

[dteowner]

Damn tootin' we're responsible. You don't roll into town, shoot the place up, fire everyone in charge, sit back and let the mayhem ensue and then shrug your shoulders and say, "not my fault". At least responsible adults don't. The post "war" phase was so badly mismanaged by us that it's criminal. If we think we have the right to storm a country and take down its government, we better be damn well prepared to step up to the plate and make sure the innocent suffer as little as possible. We didn't do that and, in some cases, made their lives much, much worse than they were under good 'ole Sadaam. Maybe I just hold our country to a higher standard than you, but I find that embarrassingly unacceptable. That nobody by Scooter Libby has gone to jail for this whole fiasco is flabbergasting and sad. And wholly un-American.



That's just convenient speculation."Convenient speculation" accepted by that wonderful body everybody is so busy kissing up to, the glorious United Nations. "Convenient speculation" that led to Saddam's execution following a public trial.

And while we're talking about "responsible adults", "responsible adults" don't blow themselves up in crowded markets, either. By your logic, the City of Indianapolis should be blamed for the Hovey Street thugs that shot and killed 2 young women AND their year-old babies a couple weeks ago. Clearly, that couldn't have happened in a city of "responsible adults", right, and you're blaming the government, right?

[dteowner]

Please recognize this isn't a personal attack on anyone, dte or Squeek--I understand you have a right to your opinions and feelings however much I see things differently, but I have to bring up the situation in Africa, where in Darfur alone estimates are between 200,000 and 400,000 dead in tribal warfare. Also right now Kenya and Chad are filled with kids killing other kids with machetes,and the slaughter and complete instability of their governments is alarming the whole continent--are we sending troops over there to right the wrongs? Have we ever? Wonder why that is. It's strange the Mideast gets all our benevolent intervention.Certainly a valid question, but I'd work the flip side of your point and ask why the folks ripping the US for 100,000 casualties aren't going completely ape over the African slaughter. If you're out to save the world, bitching at the US over Iraq is small potatos. Which tells me these folks are more interested in a situation where saving humanity and slamming the US are in one neat package than they are truly saving humanity.

[magerette]

Certainly a valid question, but I'd work the flip side of your point and ask why the folks ripping the US for 100,000 casualties aren't going completely ape over the African slaughter. If you're out to save the world, bitching at the US over Iraq is small potatos. Which tells me these folks are more interested in a situation where saving humanity and slamming the US are in one neat package than they are truly saving humanity.

Some are, of course, guilty as charged, but in fact there's a fairly large group of people worldwide deploring what's going on in Africa. Spielberg just resigned (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=76118&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=TopNews&rpc=23&sp=true) his position as artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing over the Chinese refusing to pressure Sudan for a resolution there.
In a statement, Spielberg said he had made "repeated efforts" to encourage the Chinese government to bring its influence to bear on Sudan to end the "continuing human suffering" in the conflict-strewn western Darfur region. China is a leading oil customer and supplier of weapons to Sudan and is accused by critics of providing diplomatic cover for Khartoum as it stonewalls international efforts to send peacekeepers into Darfur. At least 200,000 have died and more than 2.5 million have been driven from their homes in the five-year conflict.
Also both the United Nations and the African Union have responded to the situation there as one involving genocide, though not particularly effectively.

I think that shows that the world community doesn't pick only on the US. All the world powers are seen as being accountable for their actions to the larger whole of society on this planet, and one of the most powerful nations invading and decimating perceived resistance in a major oil-producing country on what's later shown to be primarily manufactured evidence is not exactly small potatoes either.

I understand the desire to defend our actions, and I don't hate my country for it's mistakes, but it is more than plain at this point in time that the Iraq war was a mistake, a very costly one for all involved, which no amount of damage control can erase. If we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it.

[chamr]

@squeek and dte: huh? what in blue-blazes are the two of you talking about?

I'll start with squeek: um, I wasn't laying out a peace plan, or even advocating for some well-intended, non-violent but ultimately doomed approach as a general foreign policy. I was saying that our international interests are much better served if we, as the citizens of this country, look at those that oppose us without the blinders of false moral superiority. Abdicating our responsibility to keep an eye on the folks that run things in our government by buying into their childish PR campaign of "We Good. Them Bad." is very dangerous. Not just in a government-watchdog sense. But in a national security sense. As an example, by being misled into the war in Iraq, we've created a new place for terrorists to set up shop, plan and execute strikes against us. Before we kicked down the door and ran Sadaam out of town, he ran a pretty tight ship in regards to terrorism. He didn't want to have nothing to do with it. He may have been a looney toon, but he liked the little world he'd set up there and was smart enough to know that sponsoring terrorists on his soil was a one way ticket to trouble. By failing miserably to effectively fill the power vacuum once he was gone, we gave our enemies a brand new playground.

@dte: uh, are you saying that my argument would support blaming a city for a single criminal's actions? Are you also saying that because terrorists use human bombs that we’re off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for our actions? First the kook in Indianapolis scenario: let's see. Where to start. How do the citizens of Indianapolis equate to us sending our military into Iraq and deposing Sadaam? Can you please explain that to me? Now the "responsible adults": so, are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing? And how does that work exactly? Aren't we as the shining beacon of democracy the world looks up to supposed to take the high road? Or at least a higher road? Are you really suggesting that we use our enemies worst actions as a guideline for our behavior?

[magerette]

It's Squeek, not screeg, chamr. :)

screeg hangs out in the games areas.(And that may be the wiser course. ;) )

[Prime Junta]

Except instead of distinguishing themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and having bases of operation, they actually try to blend in with non-combatants.

Yah, damn them. Why don't they fight fair, and line up in the open so they can be mowed down safely from the air?

Oh, and they teach children truisms like, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky Mouse look-alike.

Nope, that would be Hamas. You know, Palestinian Sunni, not Lebanese Shi'a. Annoying, these little distinctions, aren't they?

Defend it all you want, PJ. It's sick, cowardly and moronic.

Squeek, it works. That means it's not moronic.

As to "cowardly..." well, I'd like to see you try their technique of taking out Merkava IV's. That involves sitting quietly in a tunnel as it rumbles over you, then popping up, sighting carefully with an RPG-7, and shooting. You have exactly one shot, and you're almost certain to be shot down yourself immediately after, whether you succeed or not.

I would very much like to see them disarm. I don't want them to succeed in their stated ultimate goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic republic (whatever that may mean).

But calling them stupid, sick, and cowardly is simply untrue. Stupid sick cowards are easy to beat. Smart, courageous, and determined people aren't. The Hezbollah are very little of the former and a great deal of the latter. They deserve your respect, even as enemies.

[dteowner]

@dte: uh, are you saying that my argument would support blaming a city for a single criminal's actions? Are you also saying that because terrorists use human bombs that we’re off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for our actions? First the kook in Indianapolis scenario: let's see. Where to start. How do the citizens of Indianapolis equate to us sending our military into Iraq and deposing Sadaam? Can you please explain that to me? Now the "responsible adults": so, are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing? And how does that work exactly? Aren't we as the shining beacon of democracy the world looks up to supposed to take the high road? Or at least a higher road? Are you really suggesting that we use our enemies worst actions as a guideline for our behavior?Criminals kill innocents with bombs, you blame the government for the deaths (which I think we all agree equals the US given the weakness of the official Iraqi leadership right now). Therefore, criminals kill innocents with guns, you blame the government, right? Seems like a remarkably good parallel, doncha think? I imagine you'll point out that no comparison/analogy is ever perfect. Fine. This one looks pretty close to me, but it sorta forces you to put a fair share of the Iraq blame where it belongs -> on the Iraqis doing the killing, unless of course, you're planning a protest to throw out the Indy mayor and/or chief of police.

[chamr]

It's Squeek, not screeg, chamr. :)

screeg hangs out in the games areas.(And that may be the wiser course. ;) )

Ooopsie! Corrected. Thanks...

[Prime Junta]

My conspiracy theory wasn't really aimed at Syria, PJ. I was going just a little more tinfoil--militants killing militants. You've got a guy that's been in hiding for over a decade. Even though he's pretty high on the food chain, it's got to hurt his effectiveness to stay firmly in the shadows. Sometimes your best gambit is to sacrifice your queen.

That's a possibility: if the rest of the Hezbollah leadership had decided that Moughniyeh had become a liability, this would be the maximum-value way to get rid of him. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, but going by what I know about Moughniyeh (i.e., that he's about as evil and psychopathic character as they come), we can't rule it out.

Recently, Hezbollah seems to have been marginalized a bit.

A bit, yes. The March 14 movement has certainly gotten more vocal in talking against it. But, again AFAICT, there's been no fundamental power shift there -- they're still the most effective fighting force in Lebanon, and, if push comes to shove, they will command the near-unbroken support of the biggest ethnic/religious group in Lebanon. IOW, (AFAICT), they're not on the brink of collapse or anything.

Similarly, more Arab nations are playing nice with Israel these days than usual. Even though the peace talks won't amount to much, the fact that both sides are even acknowledging there's someone on the other side of the table would have to be considered progress. What better way to put a monkey in the wrench than to pin a prominent assassination on "the Zionists"? No peace, a good "flag wave" for Hezbollah's recruiters, and a solid step back to more traditional power structures.

Except... the Hezbollah is a bit player on the Israel/Arab stage. If Israel and Syria sort out their differences over Golan, and if there is genuine progress on the Israeli/Palestinian front, the Hezb won't even be invited to the discussions. They're an immensely powerful player inside Lebanon, they have the capability to put the hurt on Israel (at huge cost to themselves), but internationally they don't really count for much.

Moughniyeh's assassination will further destabilize the situation inside Lebanon, but the Hezzies don't need any help in recruiting (the Lebanese Shi'ites are already behind them) and I can't see how they could *possibly* hate the Zionists more than they already do. Having your homes razed to the ground a couple of times will do that far more effectively than having some guy in Damascus blown up that you've only seen in pictures.

That said, I don't know that it would be a major surprise to me if Israel really did do it.

As stated, I think it's the most likely solution. Another possibility is that Nasrallah and Fadlallah decided that he'd become a liability and decided to cash him in... but, off the top of my head, I can't recall them doing anything like that before, except to people who actually turned traitor, naturally. These guys are pretty damn loyal to each other, and it would take a lot to break that. But, then again, they're also cool-headed and think strategically, so if they decided there was more to be gained by getting rid of him... who knows?

[chamr]

@dte: ah... thanks for clearing that up.

And, yes, I'm one of those that thinks a government should be responsible for creating conditions that significantly up the risk factor for an innocent person to be killed. Call me crazy, but I think it's kinda central to a government's purpose to actively work to avoid such conditions rather than create them and then blame the boogie man for being a bad guy. Talk about cowardly...

[dteowner]

You mean for example during the first gulf war (and that is not the 1990 one) , when Saddam attacked Iran, backed up by the US goverment? When he used chemical weapons against Iran and US military gave him the coordinates, where to fire them? When Rumsfeld and Cheney were Saddam's advisors?

I protested against that very well.

How can you know, when I was silent and when not?No, I think it's fairly obvious that I'm referring to Saddam gassing the Kurds. Were you leading that protest parade, too? The common thread I see in your examples so far is anything involving the US. I'd honestly be happy to be proved wrong. I respect people of principle, even if I don't agree with them. It's hypocrites and people with agendas that I question.

[Prime Junta]

Wrong. You jumped into a conversation where Hezbollah was being defended.

I was defending Hezbollah... against your ridiculous assertion that they're "sick," "moronic," or "cowardly." What you don't seem to realize is that that doesn't mean I'm rooting them for win the power struggle in Lebanon, turn the country into an Islamic republic, and then proceed to march in triumph to Jerusalem.

The Middle East is an extremely nasty neighborhood politically. Everyone who has been in power there over the past century or so -- *everyone* -- has innocent blood on their hands. However, that's the reality we and they have to live with. If there's ever to be a hope of things getting better, your kind of silliness has got to stop first.

[dteowner]

Edit: @DTE The main issue is not that the US-government are to be blamed because they are a kind of government in Irak now. They are to blame because they caused the situation, in which all of this happens. One is responsible for the results of one's actions too.I agree with that up to a point. I don't think anyone can be held responsible for the actions of nutjobs. There's no practical way for anything/anyone to identify them nor control them, so it's not really fair to be deemed responsible when they snap. By my eye, anyone that will blow themselves up in a market full of innocents is officially a nutjob. Those death squads going around executing people for attending the wrong mosque are nutjobs.

[Prime Junta]

I agree with that up to a point. I don't think anyone can be held responsible for the actions of nutjobs. There's no practical way for anything/anyone to identify them nor control them, so it's not really fair to be deemed responsible when they snap.

That's clearly not true. Saddam managed it just fine. Bashar al-Assad is managing it just fine too.

Yes, I know these aren't exactly your ideal bosses and soundly deserve a hanging -- but if you want to hang them, you had damn well be sure to have *some* plan for maintaining order afterwards. Colin Powell came up with the Pottery Barn rule of military interventions -- "you break it, you own it." That's you and Iraq right now, and that means that you do bear a hefty slice of responsibility for every one of those car bombs.

[dteowner]

I wouldn't say Saddam managed it. "Killing everyone" isn't managing, although I'll certainly admit it's effective.

A big part of the problem is simply that we don't understand the folks we're saving. Some smart guy pointed that out to me here. The US (or maybe I should limit it to "I") assumed that giving the Iraqis freedom from Saddam's oppression would result in rainbows and unicorns. Instead, it's like a substitute teacher for a class of 3rd grade delinquents. The kids are running wild and the substitute has neither the authority nor the background knowledge to properly deal with it. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the sub for the chaos, and it's not practical (politically sell-able) to give the kids the spanking they dearly deserve.

[Squeek]

As far as I can tell, your point is this, chamr: Maybe I just hold our country to a higher standard than you.To which I would respond, maybe and maybe not. For what it's worth, I think I'm probably the strongest advocate for peace in this thread.

And you're expressing your position by posing this question and making a case against what you assume is the answer:

...are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing?

I certainly don't think that, nor do I know of anyone who thinks that. So I suppose I could just as easily ask you what you're talking about. But there's no need. I think I understand.

I would agree that our international interests are better served without blinders of false moral superiority, but that doesn't make me blind to what is obviously moral inferiority, either. If you think there's no such thing or that it's a distinction not worth making, then you're being foolish, just like PJ.

Maybe you can't see a difference, but I'll tell you who can -- terrorists like Hezbollah. That's why they deny it so vehemently.

@ PJ: I see that as the same side fighting the same jihad against the same enemy. But yeah, it was Al-Aqsa TV. As far as your defenses of Hezbollah, you're welcome to your point of view, but I can't help but wonder what's going on in your head.

[chamr]

@dte: sorry, but the "nutjob defense" is just the lazy-man's easy way out. We did know what we were getting into. The military and the Bush administration knew what they were getting into. They were not a clueless substitute teacher suddenly overwhelmed by mischievous 3rd graders. They were told on several occasions by many experts in many fields and even within their own operational areas what they were getting into. They chose to be blinded by their rigid, neo-con ideology and to cover-up their mistakes as best they could as it all started going down hill. In other words, the "leaders" did a very, very bad job of leading. There should be accountability. We should take responsibility. Throwing our hands up and saying "but they're all nutjobs over there in the Middle East" is lazy and cowardly. We must face the hard lessons of letting ourselves as a citizenry be lead down the garden path, do our best to see that justice is done and reparations made, and try our damndest not to make the same mistake twice (or for the umpteenth time, in this case) if we are to be able to look at ourselves and have pride in being one of the greatest democracies history has ever seen. We can't rest on our laurels. We can't think it's someone else’s fault or problem. We have to take charge. Take ownership. Now, of course, if you’re not interested in maintaining our place as a great country that is a source of inspiration to millions around the globe and would rather just sit back and let folks like the neo-cons turn us into a semi-Fascist, semi-Imperialist state, than I guess no effort needed on your part.

@Squeek: I completely agree that there are distinctions to be made. I have no beef with that. I have a beef with the point of view that is black and white to the point of being counter-productive. When you are so completely dismissive of our enemies and characterize them as “sick, cowardly and moronic”, you are engaging in a vitriolic, short-sighted and terribly flawed way of thinking that, IMHO, contributes to our (the good old US of A, that is) problems, rather than reducing them.

[Prime Junta]

I wouldn't say Saddam managed it. "Killing everyone" isn't managing, although I'll certainly admit it's effective.

Saddam didn't "kill everyone" -- he only killed people who opposed him, and their families to be on the safe side. The point is that there were no Islamist terrorist movements active in the part of Iraq that Saddam controlled: they moved in, organized, and started killing after the invasion. Remember 2003? There was a general breakdown in order, a lot of looting and criminality, but no insurgency to speak of. It took over a year for that to get its act together and start blowing up people in a serious way, and that could only happen because there was a power vacuum.

Could the USA have filled that power vacuum after the invasion? We'll never know for sure, but you guys sure didn't even try. I'm inclined to think not -- you need a great deal of local knowledge, and a great, great many boots on the ground to do that, and you had neither. Given your level of knowledge and the resources you were willing to commit to the invasion, it was bound to fail.

And that, dte, is where the blame lies. It was bound to fail, several people who knew better told you it was bound to fail (remember the French?), yet you went in anyway.

A big part of the problem is simply that we don't understand the folks we're saving. Some smart guy pointed that out to me here. The US (or maybe I should limit it to "I") assumed that giving the Iraqis freedom from Saddam's oppression would result in rainbows and unicorns. Instead, it's like a substitute teacher for a class of 3rd grade delinquents. The kids are running wild and the substitute has neither the authority nor the background knowledge to properly deal with it. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the sub for the chaos, and it's not practical (politically sell-able) to give the kids the spanking they dearly deserve.

Absolutely. But "I didn't mean to" isn't an excuse. If you go and invade a country, it's damn well your responsibility to do a bit of homework on what kind of country it is.

[Squeek]

When you are so completely dismissive of our enemies and characterize them as “sick, cowardly and moronic”, you are engaging in a vitriolic, short-sighted and terribly flawed way of thinking that, IMHO, contributes to our (the good old US of A, that is) problems, rather than reducing them.So you don't think teaching kids slogans like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky-Mouse look-alike on TV is sick? You don't think it's cowardly to position troops around hospitals and densly-populated civilian centers? You don't think the logic that's kept the Middle East in its funk all this time is moronic?

Then please never run for political office, chamr.

[Prime Junta]

So you don't think teaching kids slogans like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky-Mouse look-alike on TV is sick? You don't think it's cowardly to place troops around hospitals and densly-populated civilian centers? You don't think the logic that's kept the Middle East in this funk for so long is moronic?

You know what the irony is, Squeek? This message is *exactly* the logic you're decrying -- painting all of "them" as sick, barbaric cowards that you cannot *possibly* talk to or (gasp!) compromise with, only fight.

Like it or not, the Hezbollah isn't going anywhere. Neither is Hamas. You can't beat them militarily, and you can't fence them out (what with rockets and all). If you want peace, you'll have to talk to them. If you discover that there's no way of reaching a compromise with them, this low-key blood-letting will go on, however much you rail at it. Simple as that.

[Squeek]

This message is *exactly* the logic you're decrying -- painting all of "them" as sick, barbaric cowards that you cannot *possibly* talk to or (gasp!) compromise with, only fight.I could ask you to quote me, but we both know I never said any of that.

Let me ask you a few things about Hezbollah, PJ. Why is it what they're fighting for so important? What would happen if they were utterly defeated? Is their fight really worth fighting the way it's being fought?

[chamr]

So you don't think teaching kids slogans like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky-Mouse look-alike on TV is sick? You don't think it's cowardly to position troops around hospitals and densly-populated civilian centers?

That's a silly straw man tactic you're trying there. Don't try to transfer the argument to claiming I'm in support of such tactics. You're better than that, I hope.

[Squeek]

Chamr, those are exactly the things I was referring to when I called Hezbollah sick, cowardly and moronic. Didn't you read the thread before you jumped in?

[magerette]

Like the way we sent troops into Somalia along with all that food to save all those starving Muslims over there? Or when we sent all those troops over to Kosovo to stop the slaughter? Or when we posted all those troops along the Soviet Union border to prevent their expansion into Western Europe?

What were the results of those things, magerette? How would you propose doing stuff like that correctly?

Sorry Squeek, I missed this post of yours.

While I'm not the scholar I should be to debate this in depth with you, I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. I think it's laudable if the US provided some measure of humanitarian aid in these cases, and hope we will always do so when it's necessary. And I understand you to be saying that these examples show the US in a positive role in world affairs.

However you are stretching the concept of humanitarian intervention if you are comparing Somalia or Kosovo to Iraq.

In Kosovo, the US participated with other NATO forces, (according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#NATO)):
..the NATO nations were mostly led by centre-left and moderately liberal leaders, most prominently U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema...

And while the reasons given were humanitarian, apparently not all were in agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia) about that.

Here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somolia) on our Somalia role:

The civil war disrupted agriculture and food distribution in southern Somalia...The resulting famine caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorise the limited peacekeeping operation United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I). UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self-defence and it was soon disregarded by the warring factions. In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, the United States organised a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. This coalition, (Unified Task Force or UNITAF) entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II).

Both these examples are slightly different than invading Iraq, disrupting its infrastructure, and becoming embroiled in a lengthy civil war.

Our involvement in Iraq is of course more complex than I can sum up in a few words, but its clearly strongly tied to economic factors and the Bush/Cheney agenda.

If, on the other hand, you were comparing Somalia to Darfur not Iraq, we've done absolutely nothing officially there despite appalling conditions, possibly because of the presence of strong Chinese interests or possibly because right now our military isn't capable of it.

In fact, the examples of US international benevolence you cite are from the nineties and earlier, i.e., pre-Bush. I'm not saying the US always wears a black hat, but the white one just doesn't fit the current circumstances.

[dteowner]

If the sub shot the old teacher, he IS to blame.

Seeing Irakis as children, moreover as children, who deserve a spanking may be a part of the problem.You're taking the metaphor a little too seriously. After all, there's only a few militant groups using children as combatants in Iraq, as told to me by a guy that was there and saw it first hand.

Now, I would wonder about the whole "shot the teacher" thing. I'll grant you the point, but I would say the school administration (which would be the rest of the world via the UN in our little story) made it clear that the old teacher was guilty of molesting his kids, and he patently refused to unlock the door to his office where some of the aggrieved children said he had a variety of whips, chains, and ball-gags. So, the sub is probably guilty of vigilante justice, but the administration certainly didn't mind the old teacher being out of the picture without any effort (nor responsibility) on their part.

And now I think we've pushed the metaphor about as far as it will stretch.

[Prime Junta]

I could ask you to quote me, but we both know I never said any of that.

Generally speaking, when people call other people sick, insane, and cowardly, it sorta rules out negotiating with them. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I'm glad to stand corrected.

Let me ask you a few things about Hezbollah, PJ. Why is it what they're fighting for so important?

That's not an easy question to answer in a few lines... but I'll try.

First, let's get something out of the way: important for whom? My answer is from the point of view of "important for them and their supporters," not anybody else.

You have to understand where the Hezzies come from. For this, a very, very short lesson in Lebanese history and political geography is in order. Unfortunately I'll be cutting a lot of corners, so apologies in advance for that.

Lebanon was originally a part of the Syrian province of the Ottoman empire. It always was ethnically and religiously fragmented. One of the bigger religious groups there were the Maronite Christians -- Catholics who follow the Eastern rite. For a number of complex reasons, they had a special relationship with the French. When the Ottoman empire was starting to come apart at the edges, these Maronites came up with the idea of an independent Lebanon -- a Christian Arab state, specifically run by the Maronites. Fast-forward a few decades, to World War I and beyond; the Ottoman empire collapsed, the map of the Middle East was redrawn, and, with French help, these Maronites got pretty much what they wanted -- a prime slice of Syrian coastline, a good deal bigger than the land they were actually sitting on; eventually culminating in independence in 1943.

Now, this Maronite apple had a bit of a worm in it. Southern Lebanon, and a hefty chunk towards the north-east, was predominantly Shi'ite in ethnicity. The Shi'ites always were the pariahs: the Maronites got along reasonably well with the solid, civilized Sunnis of the coast, the Druze on their mountain a bit to the south, not to mention the Orthodox Christians, and even the Jews. However, the Shi'ites were basically a big bunch of illiterate smelly peasants chiefly known for flagellating themselves for Ashura. Except... a handful of rich, powerful, and civilized "feudal" Shi'ite families that were well at home with the Lebanese elite, and kept their coreligionists quiet.

Everything went more or less OK, until this be-turbaned guy called Moussa Sadr had some weird ideas for social justice and stuff. Naturally he got killed for it, but he did found a party, called Amal ("Hope") specifically to advance the Shi'ite cause. Amal also started to do a bit of social work among the Shi'a, building schools, hospitals, and that sort of thing. Of course, everybody knows that teaching peasants to read is bound to be nuthin' but trouble, and sure enough, trouble ensued.

Namely, the Lebanese Civil War. I'll skip over that, 'cuz it would be a *very* long trek. Suffice it to say that during the Civil War, the Amal split. The splitters were backed by the recently victorious Iranian revolutionaries: the Hezbollah. Again, a long and bloody story with most everybody fighting everybody else, and kidnapping various white people for politics and/or money on the side. The main point is that the Hezbollah's roots are here: in the historically disenfranchised, oppressed, and generally picked-on Shi'ites, whose historical experience had taught them that nobody -- *nobody* -- looks out for them, other than themselves. At its core and center, the Hezbollah is a Shi'ite self-defense party, army, school system, hospital system, and social services system.

Then... the Israelis invaded. After being alternately oppressed and massacred by the Ottomans, the French, the Maronites, *and* the Palestinians (the PLO in South Lebanon is another nasty chapter you might want to look at), they now had to contend with the Israelis. They came in after the PLO, but they didn't make much difference between one BMWB and another either. This turned the Hezbollah into something of a national resistance movement: it directed its activities against the Zionist enemy.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

So, after this history lesson, to your question: why does their fight matter? It matters because their historical experience teaches them that if they lay down their arms, *somebody* is going to oppress, evict, and/or massacre them. They don't trust the Maronites to give them their fair share of power, they don't trust the Israelis not to invade again, and they certainly don't trust the French or the Americans. They sorta trust the Iranians because they're coreligionists and sufficiently far away; they trust the Syrians only as far as they can spit them.

The way they see it, they're fighting for their homes, their religion, their identity as a people, and their dignity. The Israelis like to say that "if they put down their weapons, there will be peace; if we put down our weapons, we will be massacred." The Lebanese Shi'ites have almost as much justification to say the same thing. Almost, because unlike the Jews, they have not experienced anything like the Shoah. And that's who the Hezbollah stand for.

What would happen if they were utterly defeated?

They can't be utterly defeated -- because the Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shi'ites are one and the same. You would have to kill about half the Lebanese population to "utterly defeat" the Hezbollah, and even if you wanted to, you would not have the means to do so. Or, OK, I suppose some slightly smaller massacre would do it, but the point is that Hezbollah is so deeply embedded into Lebanese Shi'ite society that you cannot defeat it without killing enough Lebanese Shi'ites to make a demographic difference. We're talking a million or two here, not a piddling few hundred thousand.

Is their fight really worth fighting the way it's being fought?

They think it is. And that's what counts here.

[Squeek]

Yes, doing such things this IS sick, cowardly and moronic.

But it is also sick, cowardly and moronic to attack other countries on the basis of lies, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

So Hesbollah is sick, cowardly and moronic and the US-goverment is sick, cowardly and moronic.

How does describing your enemies like this help to find a solution?.I agree that it’s best not to describe anyone in those terms, especially when peace is the goal. But we can't very well ignore that some things can only be considered deplorable.

I won't compare Hezbollah to the US Government, but I'll agree that we never should have trusted Bush and supported his going into Iraq. We need to fix what's wrong over here. You can believe there are plenty of Americans who intend to do that, bkrueger.

@ magerette: I was only responding to you, and you were talking about Darfur:

...I have to bring up the situation in Africa, where in Darfur alone estimates are between 200,000 and 400,000 dead in tribal warfare.

[Squeek]

That's not an easy question to answer in a few lines... but I'll try.Wow. Nice history lesson. Thanks for making me smarter.

[chamr]

Chamr, those are exactly the things I was referring to when I called Hezbollah sick, cowardly and moronic. Didn't you read the thread before you jumped in?

Of course I did. I guess you are utterly failing to see my point, so let me try to make this real simple:

When you said "Hezbollah are the violent, sick clowns of the planet" and "it's sick, cowardly and moronic" when referring to the above tactics, did you mean that all of Hezbollah and Hamas are "violent, sick clowns" and all of their actions can be characterized as "sick, cowardly and moronic"?

If yes, then you've proven my point. You have a broad-brush, one-size-fits-all, myopic view of them and their cause which, imho, is misinformed and is counter-productive to the solving them as a problem and addressing the circumstances that support them.

If no, then you need to improve upon how you communicate your displeasure for certain actions and learn to better distinguish between a given event or behavior and the larger context it's a part of.

[Embolus]

Nothing is more nonsensical than the Middle East. Defending the “beliefs” and holy jargon spewed forth there is a waste of both time and intellect. Sadly, we live in a world where civil, developed and flourishing nations are targeted for their success. And their peace. Such is not the case in the Middle East. Their inferiority complexes lead them to blame anything but themselves. And when confronted with truths, they react with violence.
Its sad how they grasp onto delusions, believing themselves pardoned from wrong. No part of the world is quite so swayed by the ignorance of religious misinformation as the Middle East. Keep a military eye on them, keep flourishing nations safe. But don’t give them media attention; it is a waste of time.

Israel is marginally exempt from this view

[Squeek]

...you need to improve upon how you communicate your displeasure for certain actions and learn to better distinguish between a given event or behavior and the larger context it's a part of.OK, I'll keep that in mind in the future.

[Prime Junta]

Embolus, that was an impressive display of the kind of post-colonial arrogance and ignorance that I thought had already died out. To top it, you don't even seem to be aware about how silly you sound.

[chamr]

Our oppression by the British before our revolution was nothing as compared to the oppression experienced by the Palestinians at the hands of Israel with America's support and prior to that the British. We lionize our split from the British and the fight for freedom and democracy that it represents. Why do we see the fight against oppression by other cultures as any different? Because they use terrorism? When you have little power and little access to the methods to fight back, you might be driven to use such desperate measures. Don't forget, Manachem Begin was a "terrorist" and used terrorist methods against the British. The British considered our use of guerrilla warfare during the Revolutionary War as cowardly and against the laws of good form. Was it wrong to gather the support of the French without which we never would have won our war against Britain? You take who's ya can get and when the Western world completely marginalizes the plight of the Palestinians, well, they turn to Syria and Iran.

I'm not saying I support the use of terrorism, my heroes against oppression have been Ghandi and King. It takes extraordinary courage to refrain from fighting violence with violence when you are getting dogs sicked on you, stomped on, and shot at. I'm not entirely sure I could do that, I have a streak of revenge in my heart. When I'm wronged, I often want to strike back. Which takes us back to "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations". I know how wronged I feel when a cop pulls me over for some traffic violation, I can imagine how I'd feel after years of similar treatment and much worse as a Palestinian in Israel.

QFT

Lovely post, Eliaures. Thanks for such a level-headed and fresh angle...

[POLYGON]

Nothing is more nonsensical than the Middle East. Defending the “beliefs” and holy jargon spewed forth there is a waste of both time and intellect. Sadly, we live in a world where civil, developed and flourishing nations are targeted for their success. And their peace. Such is not the case in the Middle East. Their inferiority complexes lead them to blame anything but themselves. And when confronted with truths, they react with violence.
Its sad how they grasp onto delusions, believing themselves pardoned from wrong. No part of the world is quite so swayed by the ignorance of religious misinformation as the Middle East. Keep a military eye on them, keep flourishing nations safe. But don’t give them media attention; it is a waste of time.

Israel is marginally exempt from this view

So u're suggesting taking a part of the world and pretend it's not there, also what do u mean by "keep a military eye on them"?destroy as much as possible if they pose a threat on the "flourishing of your nation"?
And if Israel is exempt form this view then can u tell me, a Palestinian, why am I in Lebanon and not able to go back to my homelands?


As for the discussion in the thread, Hezbullah IMO is the only rational party in Lebanon, while others always try to spark the flame for a new civil wars to settle debts for other countries, Hizbullah keeps swallowing hits to avoid this nightmare and they keep on saying that their rockets and weapons won't be used in a civil war....although they are the strongest, they even grew stronger since August 2006 and now they even own Anti-planes missiles(or whatever they are called), so even the untouchable air power of Israel(which was their only advatage in July 2006) won't be safe if a new war is to be started between Israel and the Hizb

[dteowner]

I never did finish a thought I was having since we got a little sidetracked in America bashing. POLYGON was kind enough to bring the thread back around and give my feeble brain a poke.

It would seem to me that Hezbollah would have an interest in maintaining unrest in the Lebanon area. Their power and influence stems from being the polar opposite of Israel in the classic "us'ns and themzes" setup. If Syria and the PLO manage an uneasy truce with the evil Zion, that will undercut the religious underpinning of Hezbollah's nationalist movement. I realize we're not talking the same flavor of Islam, but it's still Qurans and Torahs on speaking terms. Not really an ideal precedent if you're trying to stay in power, particularly since (as you point out) they have no formal international political clout.

Perhaps I put too much stock in my belief that ALL governments and religions (including the good ol' US of A) are in the self-preservation business. Heck, I think a significant factor in Dubya's decision to do something about Saddam was that the US economy was hiccupping at the time and he figured nothing distracts and galvanizes Joe Redneck better than a nice quick war. Worked well for his Daddy in Kuwait. Unfortunately, Iraq has been neither nice nor quick, so Dubya's misdirection blew up in his face. I don't see Hezbollah being any different--just a different set of "themzes" to galvanize the sheep. Of course, their job is a little easier, given that you've got 2000 years of blood feud to work with over there.

That's why I put on the thick tinfoil hat and wondered if Hezbollah might have worked a little scam of their own. Certainly, by my thinking, the Israeli government would get a lot of "pot stirring" from an assassination of that magnitude as well. Too many governments in that area gain from the polarization such a killing causes.

[Eliaures]

By the way, I used to be a supporter of Israel until I saw a film of some IDF soldiers taking a child and bashing his arm with the rock he just threw at them. I think it represents the overreaction of all of Israel to the Palestinians. They threw rocks at us so let's bash their arms and bulldoze their houses. They shoot lil un-guided rockets at us, let's bomb 'em, send tanks, and cut off all food, water, and fuel.

[Prime Junta]

It would seem to me that Hezbollah would have an interest in maintaining unrest in the Lebanon area. Their power and influence stems from being the polar opposite of Israel in the classic "us'ns and themzes" setup. If Syria and the PLO manage an uneasy truce with the evil Zion, that will undercut the religious underpinning of Hezbollah's nationalist movement. I realize we're not talking the same flavor of Islam, but it's still Qurans and Torahs on speaking terms. Not really an ideal precedent if you're trying to stay in power, particularly since (as you point out) they have no formal international political clout.

That's certainly a part of the truth, if not the whole truth. Hezbollah is a big organization, with political, military, and social wings. As long as there's a clear external threat, it all coheres nicely; however, if the justification to maintain arms goes away, they'll need to integrate with the rest of Lebanese society and become something rather like one political party among many -- even if a big and powerful one. While some people inside Hezbollah certainly regard this as a desirable outcome, a quite a few don't. Going from being a hero of the Islamic Resistance to a social worker may seem like a bit of a downgrade to some.

But you got the core of your analysis right -- it all ties in with the bigger Middle Eastern picture. If Israel, Syria, and the Palestinians (not to mention the USA and Iran) sort out their differences, Hezbollah becomes unnecessary; as long as they don't, they'll keep up the fight. If you want Hezbollah to stand down before that, you will have to give them something that's worth more to them than not standing down -- and that something would have to be something pretty significant.

[Prime Junta]

A few more quick thoughts about this paragraph. As I said earlier, you got the big picture right, but some of the details are wrong. In particular, the claim about the Hezbollah's religious underpinnings and their relation to the bigger political picture is sticking in my craw.

As I said earlier, at its core, the Hezbollah is the Lebanese Shi'ite army, self-help organization, and quasi-government. That means it has a 100% overlap with that religious identity. No change in the international arena could change that.

Moreover, because of this core nature, the Hezbollah is pretty ambivalent about the whole Palestinian struggle. Sure, it talks the talk -- being allied to Iran pretty much makes that a requirement -- but it doesn't really walk the walk. There may be some cooperation between them and Hamas, but they don't appear to coordinate their actions on any large scale, and there's no indication that the Hezbollah would be willing to get killed over the West Bank and Gaza. Sure, if there was some kind of realistic plan for actually wiping out Israel for good, then they'd be interested, but if there isn't, they're not going to make futile gestures in that direction.

What I'm getting at is that despite the connections with the bigger picture, the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict is a separate one, with separate grievances and a different internal dynamic. The bigger picture matters indirectly: Hezbollah gets its guns and butter from Iran via Syria, and Iran and Syria only provide them because of the Syrian-Israeli-Palestinian (plus American-Iranian) mess. If that figure gets defused, the external support for Hezbollah will dry up and the tension will drop overall; this means that staying armed and militant becomes less attractive and becoming civilian and political becomes more attractive.

But it isn't really a matter of religion as much as plain ol' identity.

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_080214154023

Looks like everyone behaved, but there's some pretty fiery rhetoric coming out of Hezbollah.

[Prime Junta]

Not just Hezbollah. Jumblatt seems to have been hitting the water pipe a bit too much too.

But this could turn ugly. If Nasrallah says there will be retaliation, you can pretty much bank on it. Once *that* goes down, Israel is pretty much bound to retaliate in some way, and pop goes the weasel again.

My guess is it'll be something smarter and nastier than just lobbing some Katyushas over the border. Something like blood for blood, car bomb for car bomb. I've heard it rumored that the Hezzies have been quietly building a (counter-)intelligence network in the Palestinian territories and Israel itself. Perhaps we'll see if there's something to that.

I wonder if Intrade is taking bets on who's the lucky one?

[Squeek]

Hezbollah needs to fix this. The only way out of this mess is for Hezbollah to take the moral high ground and accept full responsibility. For all those who are concerned with fairness and the need to accurately lay the blame, I can only say get over it. Fixing this mess will be well worth it in the end.

I think a lot of the opinions expressed here have been very human, but Eliaures' last post may have been the simplest and clearest expression of the facet of human nature I see standing in the way here:

By the way, I used to be a supporter of Israel until I saw a film of some IDF soldiers taking a child and bashing his arm with the rock he just threw at them. I think it represents the overreaction of all of Israel to the Palestinians. They threw rocks at us so let's bash their arms and bulldoze their houses. They shoot lil un-guided rockets at us, let's bomb 'em, send tanks, and cut off all food, water, and fuel.The thing is, sometimes people get into conflicts where there’s no moving forward because no response is adequate. The only way out of those binds is for an existing precondition to change. Hezbollah has to buy into that, because there's just no other way out.

That may not be fair. That's tough, and I mean that without insensitivity. It may be that true justice won’t come around till later, but in the meantime it's worth it to solve this crisis; and the only way to do that is to stop mischaracterizing murder and insisting that it’s the only acceptable solution.

The truth is Hezbollah is wrong about a lot of things without knowing it, especially its assumptions about the United States and Israel. Its case can be made (and some have made it here) and the equity of Hezbollah’s point of view can be argued (as some have argued here), but the truth is that Israelis and Americans are good people too.

[Prime Junta]

Hezbollah needs to fix this. The only way out of this mess is for Hezbollah to take the moral high ground and accept full responsibility. For all those who are concerned with fairness and the need to accurately lay the blame, I can only say get over it. Fixing this mess will be well worth it in the end.

Accept full responsibility for what?

The thing is, sometimes people get into conflicts where there’s no moving forward because no response is adequate. The only way out of those binds is for an existing precondition to change. Hezbollah has to buy into that, because there's just no other way out.

That may not be fair. That's tough, and I mean that without insensitivity. It may be that true justice won’t come around till later, but in the meantime it's worth it to solve this crisis; and the only way to do that is to stop mischaracterizing murder and insisting that it’s the only acceptable solution.


I agree. They should stand down, disarm, stop yammering about the Cheba'a farms, and join the Lebanese polity. If they did, my respect for them would go up immensely.

Just like my respect for Israel would go up immensely if they stood down, dismantled the settlements, and withdrew to the 1967 borders (or their close practical equivalent).

Thing is, I don't see either of these things happening. They would be an immense leap of faith -- giving up a great many strong cards you hold, and only getting a vague hope that the goodwill gained by this leap would end up gaining more than the immediate, concrete losses of influence that the leap itself would entail. In reality, nobody acts like that.

The truth is Hezbollah is wrong about a lot of things without knowing it, especially its assumptions about the United States and Israel. Its case can be made (and some have made it here) and the equity of Hezbollah’s point of view can be argued (as some have argued here), but the truth is that Israelis and Americans are good people too.

Squeek, I fear that you may be the one who's mistaken about Israel and America, not Hezbollah. The goodness of individual Israelis or Americans doesn't count for much, when the government thinks nothing of razing entire regions to the ground -- repeatedly.

[Squeek]

Squeek, I fear that you may be the one who's mistaken about Israel and America, not Hezbollah. The goodness of individual Israelis or Americans doesn't count for much, when the government thinks nothing of razing entire regions to the ground -- repeatedly.We're not good people too? PJ, you're an ass.

[Prime Junta]

I didn't say you weren't. I said it's irrelevant that many of you are, as long as the governments you've elected keep doing what they're doing.

[POLYGON]

Imagine this PJ, what if Israel retreated behind the borders of 67 and dismantled the settlements, and then Hizbulah disarmed and became only a political party, and then Israel occupied the lands it retreated from earlier and continued with the settlements...how will Hizbullah get his weapons again??
The thing is Hizbullah's power is increasing day by day it didn't just come in one day, there's a huge problem of trust from both parts..

[Prime Junta]

Walp, the NY Times seems to think it was Israel all right. What with the victory laps, mystery smiles, non-denials and all. Also some ideas of what to expect in terms of retaliation (i.e., you might want to steer clear of Israeli embassies and Jewish community centers).

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/world/middleeast/15israel.html?ex=1360731600&en=f7547142bda824ad&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ]

[dteowner]

It's never wise to gloat. Guilty or not, gloating just makes you a massive jackass.

Some incredibly perceptive guy recently pointed out that governments are all about self-perpetuation. If the Times is to be believed, Olmert gave the pot a huge stir just to stabilize his position and keep the (violent) status quo intact. The guy probably had earned a good killin', but dammit it's retarded to gloat about it. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise these folks have been killing each other for 2000 years if this is par for the course. I wonder what the official US opinion on this will be. Can't say I've ever been a strong supporter of Israel and I'm certainly no friend of BMwB's, but I'd be really disappointed if our stance is *wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more* just because we're officially an ally.

[V7]

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise these folks have been killing each other for 2000 years if this is par for the course.

Thats the sort of lazy analysis the talking heads like to throw around. Sure there's been fighting on and off in the region over the last 2000 years, there's also been periods of relative peace lasting longer than european settlement in the United States.

[dteowner]

You're right. I should have said that they've been killing each other "off and on" for 2000 years and nearly constantly for the last 60. That level of detail clearly would have changed the entire complexion of the point. With such a sloppy summary, I've besmirched centuries of regional rainbows and unicorns and wholly invalidated my pointless contribution to the discussion. My humble apologies.

[Zaleukos]

It's not exactly one connected conflict for those 2000 years though. Much of the fighting there was due to the place being a crossroad between various empires (Turkey, Egypt, Byzantium, Crusader outposts) more than anything else. Otherwise you have the same tribal/feudal kind of structure that can be seen for instance on the Indian subcontinent (another place where politics largely is a family matter).

Arab-Israeli violence is for instance fairly limited to the last 100 years, if for no other reason than the diaspora displacing most jews to other parts...

[V7]

My point was the people of the middle east are not substantially difernet from anywhere else, Europeans have spent most of the last 2000 years killing each other, so have Africans and Asians, the Americas haven't been at it as long simply because they haven't been around as long. Taking a condecening stance in relation to violence is other regions is not constructive or conducive to changing that behaviour.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

It would seem to me that Hezbollah would have an interest in maintaining unrest in the Lebanon area.

Personally, I'm far beyond the "seem".

To me, it's a clear fact.

They and Syria can only win from that.

If the Lebanin falls, then Syria has a direct contact to Israel - a direct war zone.

And if my assumption is right that they "seem" to support Iran secretly, then I see a collection of states that are fighting against Israel. And for that, they want to erect a direct line, a direct "war zone" for better maneouvres of their "troops" and weapons.

To me, they consider the Lebanon small and weak, like a child one can strangle.
And strangle they want and do.

Maybe they just want to expend the territory of Syria, or build a new state for the Hezbollah, but so far they do *everything* to weaken the Lebanon and keep it at ... unrest.

This is almost as if someone was applying the doctrine of constant war of the book "1984" directly towards this rather small country.

For me, everything is clear, because I project the possible influences far into the future and try to deduce what might come out of this.


And as a last note: If you can make a state break up into several territoried controlled by some Warlords, then you have a weak country. You can easily put these power-hungry warlords against one another while ... exploiting the country's resources, for example.

Like what happens with some African countries right now. Or Afghanistan.

The so-called "Middle Eastern" might be no different to that.

[dteowner]

My point was the people of the middle east are not substantially difernet from anywhere else, Europeans have spent most of the last 2000 years killing each other, so have Africans and Asians, the Americas haven't been at it as long simply because they haven't been around as long. Taking a condecening stance in relation to violence is other regions is not constructive or conducive to changing that behaviour.There's no condescension in stating a fact. As you hint at, the US has been in some war or another for its entire existence, although our situation is, in fact, a little different from the Middle East since we tend to pick different people to kill every twenty years or so rather than 2000 years of tribal warfare (and since I got called out for summarizing previously, allow me to expand that I'm overextending the true definition of "tribe" by (mis)using that word for not only various Arab groups in the area that aren't truly tribes, but also the Jews and a variety of other historical local cultures which were detailed rather nicely by Zaleukos--wouldn't want to let my desire not to post a novel every time mire a good discussion in silliness).

Finally, since the entire point of the statement was that, given the history (which I believe you have stipulated for me quite nicely twice now), the behaviour is highly unlikely to change, it would seem rather stupid for me to contradict myself with something that's "conducive to changing that behaviour". I don't have formal debate training like many folks here at the Watch, but I'm pretty sure contradicting yourself would weaken the point just a bit.

[chamr]

the Americas haven't been at it as long simply because they haven't been around as long.

Oh, I'd say between the virtual genocide we layed on the natives and that little spat in the 1860's we've held up our end of the deal so far...

[Prime Junta]

Imagine this PJ, what if Israel retreated behind the borders of 67 and dismantled the settlements, and then Hizbulah disarmed and became only a political party, and then Israel occupied the lands it retreated from earlier and continued with the settlements...how will Hizbullah get his weapons again??
The thing is Hizbullah's power is increasing day by day it didn't just come in one day, there's a huge problem of trust from both parts..

That's the problem exactly -- without some degree of trust on either side, nobody's going to disarm, and I can't see any way the trust could be rebuilt under current conditions. The only possibility it could start to unravel is between Syria and Israel -- Syria is stable enough to be able to enforce its end of any deal that gets reached, and weak enough that Israel doesn't need to be mortally afraid of it. But until then, I remain pessimistic.

[Prime Junta]

It's never wise to gloat. Guilty or not, gloating just makes you a massive jackass.

Some incredibly perceptive guy recently pointed out that governments are all about self-perpetuation. If the Times is to be believed, Olmert gave the pot a huge stir just to stabilize his position and keep the (violent) status quo intact. The guy probably had earned a good killin', but dammit it's retarded to gloat about it. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise these folks have been killing each other for 2000 years if this is par for the course.

That's the problem right there. I won't shed any tears for Moughniyeh, but I sure hope Olmert & co factored in Hezbollah's inevitable retaliation when they gave the go-ahead for that one. 'Cuz in the bigger picture this seems about as smart to me as throwing rocks at a Hell's Angels club house window. Assuming, of course, that your intention is not to stir up trouble.

[dteowner]

Assuming, of course, that your intention is not to stir up trouble.Yep! The scary part to me is that I honestly don't think that's a safe assumption in that region. And I'm pointing fingers in pretty much all directions with that accusation. The US has been too busy with Iraq to meddle in Lebanon much recently, but I expect our alliance with Israel has drawn us into a few things, so there's probably one of those fingers pointing right back at us as well.

[Prime Junta]

Yep! The scary part to me is that I honestly don't think that's a safe assumption in that region. And I'm pointing fingers in pretty much all directions with that accusation. The US has been too busy with Iraq to meddle in Lebanon much recently, but I expect our alliance with Israel has drawn us into a few things, so there's probably one of those fingers pointing right back at us as well.

The trouble is that everyone who is anyone will have meddled in that region. Some have succeeded to some limited degree (in the sense that they retain some influence with some parties there), others have failed more or less completely; everyone has made enemies. As it is, the best we can do is hope that things don't get completely out of hand and there is a possibility for normal people to lead some kind of normal lives.

BTW, what the hey's wrong with you, dte? You've been making a lot of sense lately. Stick with the script already, willya?

[dteowner]

Well, there's always the outside chance that I've actually learned a little something here. More likely, I'm just too old and tired to put up a good fight recently. It doesn't help that the figurehead of my country and my ideology is a retard--makes it a fair bit tougher to don my +3 shiny armor of righteous indignation and defend the battlements.