Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.
I hope Sen. Obama doesn't seriously believe that the conflict in Lebanon comes down to electoral reform, a fair distribution of services, and the patronage system. Or that shouting "hey, Hezbollah, what you're doing violates UN resolution 1701" is going to have any meaningful effect on the situation. H/T Michael Totten, who thinks that Obama's expressed sentiments potentially spell disaster for Lebanon.
UPDATE: Noah Pollack writes: "In the Lebanon crisis, Obama is rhetorically cornered. Since his prescription for the Middle East is diplomatic engagement, every disease gets re-diagnosed as something curable through talking."
You do realize that, hmmm, there is another guy in office right now? What is Bush's response, other than "words"?
Bush has authority NOW to do something... so if you want the USA to act, why are you not criticize Bush for failing to act?
Even the most conservative of us - and perhaps those especially - knows by now that Bush failing to act is generally better than Bush acting. There's no point in inviting another screwup.
As a lame duck, unpopular president, Bush is relatively constrained, but I think his administration at least understands the problem.
Did you miss the part where he says,
we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah
And I really think it's weak to criticize Obama for his statement while rationalizing away Bush's inaction. Bush understands the problem? How do you know? And so what if he does, if he won't act on his understanding.
In Obama's statement, he makes it clear that he understands that Iran &Syria are arming Hezbollah, and he understands that Hezbollah is trying to foment war. I believe his argument is that the Lebanese will be more resistant to such a hostile take-over by these external agents if the economy and government were strengthened.
In any case, exactly what specific actions would you want a President Obama, Clinton or McCain to do?
davidbernstein wrote
You are absolutely correct. Talking only works when both sides want a peaceful resolution to a problem or one side has been utterly defeated by the other. Only one side wants it here.
I don't understand how Obama thinks that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are going to be "talked out" of their firm commitment to destroy Israel and spread Islam by the sword if we in the West remain so stubborn as to not "see the light" on our own. This is a problem that has vexed our Presidents, Democrat and Republican, for over 50 years. Is it too much to ask of Obama how he is going to achieve through talking what no one else has accomplished and what he is planning on doing if his talking doesn't work?
Maybe, someone who has stated he will "save us and save the world" has a plan for this, but personally, I am exceedingly uncomfortable with anyone who is going to "save me" without even asking me if I want to be "saved" or telling me what being "saved" entails.
I am a Catholic but I think I would be even more uncomfortable with being "saved" if I were Jewish. It has frequently not worked out too well for them. At least, the Protestant faith believes they received a pretty concrete plan from Jesus Christ on how to be "saved" and what you had to do to get there. If Obama is going to "save" me and "save" the world, can't I have, at least, a clue on his plan so I can maybe decide for myself if I want to be "saved" or think his plan for "saving" me will work ?
What Frank said.
Actually, this is a cop-out. This is NOT a new development, this has been an ongoing situation throughout Bush's term... Maybe you give him a pass NOW because he's a lame-duck, but that does not justify his inaction during the rest of his term.
What a truly visionary President should do (including that gross incompetent currently sitting in the White House pretending to be a commander in chief) is pull out all American forces out of Iraq and send them due west on a blitzkrieg strike into Damascus where they take out the entire Syrian leadership. The Syrians can figure out on their own who will replace President Assad because before the dust even settles, it will be time for Phase Two: Operation Alexander.
In Operation Alexander, our American forces divide into two groups before they leave Syria and one group will recross Iraq and strike at Tehran from the north while the other group will recross Iraq and strike at Tehran from the south. Both groups will envelop Tehran simultaneously and decapitate the Iranian leadership.
Again, the Iranians can figure out on their own who will replace their leaders because our American forces will continue eastward to Afghanistan to link up with existing allied forces and deliver a fatal blow to Al-Quaida. If need be, all American and allied forces will invade northwest Pakistan and destroy Al-Quaida in that region of the country once and for all.
Then, it will be time to bring the troops home.
jab,
I believe that Lebanon had a strong economy, peace and prosperity when they were a predominately Christian country. They lost that when Hezbollah, Iran and Syria moved in and started persecuting the Christians. Why would taking them back to their state before all this started prevent the same thing from happening again? Peace and prosperity didn't stop it the first time.
[1] talk is cheap
[2] the Lebanese army, which is half Shia, appears to have no
intention of confronting Hezbollah
[3] insist. great. through talk, or talk backed up with threats? The UN "insisted" that Hezbollah be disarmed in 2006. What good did that do?
In fairness to Obama, the Israeli leadership is calling for UN security council intervention in the current crisis in Lebanon, which would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Oh really? You know what McCain would do? Could you please link to quotes from McCain calling on military action to attach Hezbollah? I see you can mine for quotes from Obama, but where are the quotes from McCain, with which you imply you know you would most likely agree?
The part of Obama's comment that you bolded is a statement that we should work to undermine Hezbollah's support in Lebanon by improving the Lebanese government and economy, which doesn't sound all that different from something that many conservatives were hoping to see emerge from the Cedar Revolution.
"Obama isn't anti-Arab, pro-Israel enough and I'm concerned."
Alhamdulillah.
But that's not the question. The question is what should be done now. What is McCain's answer, if any?
I do not mean to discount the role of ideology, but it does seem pretty clear that extreme ideologies are more attractive in bad economic environments.
I really do not think that is arguable.
Finally, I am not impressed with this sort of rhetoric, especially by a relatively intelligent law professor who should know better.
Here is what Bernstein is doing:
"I cannot really argue with what Obama said, so I am going to interpret him as saying something else that I can attack him on."
Nowhere did Obama use reductionist reasoning that said that conflict in Lebanon "came down to" or could be reduced to economics, stolen elections, and corruption.
A final point.
Of course one should look to what can be achieved by diplomacy first. One should only use violence when diplomacy fails. Even George W. Bush agrees with that. He used diplomacy extensively before invading Iraq. The only argument is whether he used enough diplomacy before engaging in violence.
That Obama is talking about things that might be obtainable through diplomacy at this point is entirely sensible. If a more violent approach is needed later, you certainly do not want to look like a warmonger.
We should realize that a good part of the reason that the United States was not able to get more support in Iraq was precisely because the United States appeared too anxious to use violence. And it appeared too anxious to use violence because it mentioned that possibility too soon and too often.
Theodore Roosevelt said it best:
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
The threat of violence should always be there, but you should not yell and shout pointing at your big stick. At least if you want international support for your actions.
I really do not believe this is debatable at all.
I am disappointed by Bernstein, who is resorting to an infantile tactic of distorting the things that Obama says in order to attack him.
This is ridiculous. Even if your goal is to attack Obama, and I think that this is clearly Bernstein's goal, that goal would be more effectively executed by sticking to what Obama actually said, or a sympathetic interpretation of what he said, and then attacking that. Otherwise, your desire to attack and your intellectual bankruptcy will be exposed.
Which side is which again?
If you want to make an argument that I am not interpreting YOU sympathetically, I am all ears.
It's funny that you give a pass to Bush because he is a lame-duck (which is a cop-out, because this has been a growing problem throughout Bush's term), and a pass to McCain (who you claim you just know what he would say, but then out the other side of your mouth, claim you don't know what he would do, but apparently that's good enough for you.)
I'm going back to your first reply where you talked about "setting up a theocracy." I agree with everything else you said there. However, the name Hezbollah is just a suggestion. In reality Hezbollah is much more comfortable in its current status as a state within a state. The original plan as evidenced in its charter does include this is a goal: wilayet al-fiqh modeled after Iran. But Iran and the party leadership know now this is impossible because of the countless sizable sects in Lebanon. If Hezbollah actually tried to take the reins itself it would subject itself to a large majority of the country against its weapons and philosophy. Having a quasi-state south of Beirut is much more beneficial since then they only have to answer to those who support their cause (constant aggression against Israel). This can all be seen by looking closely at the details of the demands the party has put before the pro-government negotiators. For instance, back a couple years ago when the party was actually represented in the government and decided to quit because of the policies, instead of coming back after the gov was willing to implement some of Hezbollah's demands, Hezbollah instead pushed for pro-Syrian allies to take its place. You might come back with well, I was only talking about a theocracy in part of Lebanon, not over all of Lebanon. Even this wouldn't work, because the cause that I mentioned above that enjoys wide support among the Shia' followers doesn't include the trappings of an Islamic state. The ladies in Shia' strongholds enjoy way too much freedom that would be lost in a de jure mini-Hezbollah state. The party is too smart to lose the support of the youth. I could keep going but this is already way too long.
"[D]iplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus" do not necessarily mean negotiating with Hamas. It could well mean talking to other Lebanese groups to build a consensus against Hamas. For instance, to get anywhere in Lebanon at all, it would at least be necessary to peel off some non-Hamas groups (including some Christian militias) that are now aligned with Hamas for expedience.
Consider for a moment how poorly Bernstein's favored practices have fared in Lebanon and the Mideast under Bush. (Remember instapundit Glenn Reynold's stupid hosanas about Lebanese developments just two years ago?) Obama's message certainly doesn't sound ridiculous in comparison. And what's Bernstein's alternative: more tough talk at AEI that achieves absolutely nothing on the ground? (Or perhaps he'd like to send American troops in. Might be a possibility if Bush wasn't already tying down all of America's warmaking capability in Iraq.)
Bernstein seems to be constitutionally unable to recognize that the people who live in these countries have real grievances that have nothing to do with Israel, and that stability will not come until they are redressed. And yes, some of them do have to do with electoral reform.
Lebanon was providing services to it's people until the goons moved in and started blowing things up and killing the Christians and any Muslims who got in their way. Makes it kind of hard to provide services.
These statements can be (and I think often are) written by 19 year old interns with no education.
Obama should be held to a higher standard for this stuff because he and his party are offering him as the Second Coming of Christ Himself. And it's irritating because it's obvious he does know the truth here:
There is nothing that can be done for Lebanon or the broader Middle East unless the U.S. is actually willing to consider war with Iran and or Syria, which it currently is not.
Obama can't say he'd consider war without sounding like George Bush. And he's smart enough to know that without at least the threat of war, nothing is going to change.
Hence the BS boilerplate.
BTW I'm sure McCain has no idea what to do either - that would be a nice subject for another post. But I doubt it's ever happened that thousands of people clapped when McCain blew his nose. Since that happens for Obama, his actions and statements warrant plenty of scrutiny.
you're right to point out the services these groups provide--it definitely gives them cover for their other, less social goals. Speaking about Hezbollah only, I know that though the Leb. government is very much incompetent, there have been numerous overtures since the Taif Accord in 1991 to provide services for the Shia areas in the South. However, Hezbollah alway rejected them as encroachment on their territory. See, though the Shia' were historically downtrodden in Lebanon, at this point their own leadership is most responsible for the continuation.
Incidentally, John McCain opposed Ronald Reagan's placement of troops into Lebanon in 1982, I believe.
-Obama doesn't claim that the actions he proposes will _solve_ the problem. There is no diagnosis that the problem is "curable" - but short of using force, which would be a disaster - look up "Iraq" - talking is just about the best we could do.
-As for Obama's diagnosis, its spot on - its concerned with the root causes of Shia dissatisfaction in Lebanon, rather than with its most visible outer manifestations (e.g. private militias).
Israel may or may not have achieved that--it remains to be seen. But Israel never promised that Hezbollah was defeated, or even chastened. Only that it would not continue firing missiles into Israel in the near term.
Israel should re-invade Lebanon, with the aim of crushing Hezbollah outright. It should then expel all Lebanese Muslims who show sympathy to Hezbollah. Push them into Syria.
What's left would be a peaceful, friendly, progressive, democratic state allied with Israel and America in the war on terror. Problem solved. Let the terrorists and terror symps rot in refugee camps. That is the solution to terrorists who hide inside civilian populations.
The Druze, Christians, Sunni, and peace-loving Shia in Lebanon would welcome the defeat/destruction/expulsion of the Hezbollah gang and its base of support. They would prefer that outcome to being re-absorbed by Syria.
It would also provide a model for Israel to deal with its own terrorist problem. When the Palestinians see that their days are numbered unless they reject terrorism, they will . . . well, they will continue to embrace terrorism. But then Israelis won't have to feel so guilty when they are finally expelled.
A new president *begins* by talking to the parties, or trying to talk to them.
If/when a sincere effort at diplomatic resolution doesn't work, *then* you explore those other options ... generally with a lot more support from potential allies, who tend to be extremely handy to have.
But apparently, DB thinks Obama should be running on a "Death to Hezbollah" platform, which would ultimately be much more *harmful* to Israel.
Don't quit your day job, Professor.
Again, the Iranians can figure out on their own who will replace their leaders because our American forces will continue eastward to Afghanistan to link up with existing allied forces and deliver a fatal blow to Al-Quaida. If need be, all American and allied forces will invade northwest Pakistan and destroy Al-Quaida in that region of the country once and for all.
After which the American forces and the victorious President would cross the Rubicon, confront the Senate, and declare him Imperator?
Meanwhile, however, Hez is a worldwide terrorist group with U.S. assets, that has murdered Americans, and that is serving as a proxy for Iran, which is allegedly currently being of great help to insurgents killing Americans, and is allied with Syria, which is also giving aid to the insurgents in Iraq. And the Lebanese gov't has put its faith in the U.S. and France, putting the prestige of those two countries on the line.
With regard to Obama, I'd just like to know that he thinks force is an option he'd consider using, or endorsing if others use it, against the country's enemies--so far, I've only heard that he'll use it against Pakistan!
In other matters,
<blockquote>
"In the Lebanon crisis, Obama is rhetorically cornered. Since his prescription for the Middle East is diplomatic engagement, every disease gets re-diagnosed as something curable through talking."
</blockquote>
I suppose, the previous efforts of "spreading democracy" [with a butter knife] is preferable, right? Note that all Obama's critics do is talk. None of them have any solutions, they don't like each other's answers, and, in their game, anyone who opens his mouth with an idea loses. Pollack's venom, predictably, is directed at Obama, not at solving the Lebanon crisis that has been festering for years.
<blockquote>
What is Israel doing? Didn't they just really win the war in Lebanon?
</blockquote>
That would be "No!" At best, Israel fought Hezbollah to a stalemate, both militarily and politically, but at what normally would be considered in Israel great personal cost (high body count). And the primary pretext for going in to begin with—retrieving captured IDF soldiers—was never resolved. Let's see—Israel started a war, lost dozens of casualties, killed hundreds of civilians and made Hezbollah more popular than ever not only in the rest of the loony Arab world, but even in Lebanon proper—all of that without accomplishing its original objective of rescuing three soldiers. The most positive spin one can put on this is that they demolished Hezbollah's installations in the South, cost them substantial losses in equipment and munitions (rapidly replenished by Syria and Iran) and further destabilized the Lebanese government that was showing signs of conciliation with Hezbollah. The jury on the second major pretext of stopping Hezbollah's rockets, as has been pointed out, is still out. But did they win the war? I don't think so.
<blockquote>
As a lame duck, unpopular president, Bush is relatively constrained, but I think his administration at least understands the problem.
</blockquote>
That's a joke, right? Let's set aside all the crap flying here from both Right and Left about Bush being so incompetent that his inaction is better than any action he might take. Does anyone actually believe that Bush's opinion now counts—or ever counted—for anything? It's been a team effort (as in "Team Cheney") from the beginning. The collective failure in the Middle East rests not with Bush, but with his entire team—a team, incidentally, that McCain wants to rehire wholesale.
It's painfully obvious that the neo-con policy in the Middle East has been not just a dud but a disaster. Iraq is a wreck, in no small part because these idiots place more value on building Disneyland Baghdad than in having a meaningful Phase IV plan. Muslim Brotherhood is more active and popular in Egypt and Jordan than ever. Hardliners are still entrenched in Iran. Hamid Karzai is well on his way following in Mohammed Daoud's, Nur Mohammed Taraki's and Babrak Karmal's footsteps. (Thirtieth anniversary of Taraki's overthrow of Daoud and execution of over 30 members of his extended family was just two weeks ago.) And George W. Bush posters likely make the best recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists today. It's understandable that no Republican wants a repeat of Reagan high-tailing it out of Beirut in 1982, but what these self-assured morons have accomplished is infinitely worse.
Firing off at someone who proposes a diplomatic solution—as a start!—is a cheap shot, especially for people whose opinions count for nothing except for influencing each other. And I don't see anyone proposing a meaningful alternative. (No, "kill'em all and let God sort'm out" does not count.)
<blockquote>
Don't quit your day job, Professor.
</blockquote>
I must second that, in this context.
It really does seem like it.
I wonder if all his complaints would go away if there was a concluding sentence that read "Nor will the US constrain itself to diplomatic means if international parties continue to destabilize Lebanon."
This would be equally meaningless, since I'm sure DB has no appetite for invading Lebanon -- or worse, Syria -- but it appears to satisfy his complaints. Of course, if I was Hezbollah, I'd just roll my eyes at the idea of either party sponsoring an adventure in the region.
Problem solved?
>>>Firing off at someone who proposes a diplomatic solution—as a start!—is a cheap shot, especially for people whose opinions count for nothing except for influencing each other. And I don't see anyone proposing a meaningful alternative.
Not a "cheap shot." A response based upon an legitimate interpretation of contemporary history. According to which a policy based on a "diplomatic solution--as a start!" is also not a "meaningful alternative." It is rather easy to say that one needs to give Obama a chance to try negotiations. But that's only half of a plan. The other half is an explanation of /why/ negotiations with Hezbollah would have a good chance of working if Pres. Obama took that route. If the answer is what Sen. Obama suggests in the piece above, then the question is "OK. And what's Plan B?" Since Plan A is hopeless.
Having said that, I hope that Prof. B does NOT quit his day job: Blogging doesn't come with health insurance.
And Clinton did exactly what to resolve the problem in the Middle East? Oh yeah, he talked with everyone until he was blue in the face, Israel gave Arafat 90-95% of what he wanted and we got the Infitada and 9/11. That diplomacy sure worked well. (Note, I am not criticizing Clinton for trying.)
Bin Laden was prepped and ready to go with 9/11 when Bush took office. Bin Laden himself said that when Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalya he saw that, "when Americans bleed they leave" and whether you like it or not, that show of weakness emboldened him.
T
And, it seems Obama is using folks from the Carter administration who gave us this whole mess in Iran to start with. You call that progress, change, a new direction?
I read it as a standard recognition of the fact that weak central governments require additional legitimacy and effectiveness to combat internal dissent. This doesn't have to be something naive. Propping up corrupt governments has rarely worked.
I suppose there's an uncharitable definition of "electoral reform" you could overlay, but given that Lebanon's voting system is an inevitable disaster, the probable interpretation is Obama's intention to make it into something sane rather then the present clusterfuck.
If there's ever a Liberal Blogger/Conservative Blogger Summit, Article I should ban endless textual parsing of fairly routine policy statements. I suppose it's meant to focus on policy, but it always seems to turn into an overlay of the blogger's worst fears based on excessive theorizing.
Frank, do you have a cite for that? I though H.R.C. threatened force, and B.H.O. attacked her for it.
HRC said she would "obliterate" them. I don't think there needs to be any discussion about what she meant.
Obama said she was wrong to say what she did and he would "respond appropriately and with force, if necessary". Or something pretty close to that. This whole discussion has been a bunch of folks trying ti "Divine" what Obama really means. If we as Americans can't understand what the hell he is saying or what he means with any clarity at all, how in the hell is the rest of the world going to figure him out? I mean, English as a second language and all that.
If the guy is going to talk his (our) way out of all these messes, he better get a clue as to how to make himself understood unless he is just planning on confusing the hell out of Hezbollah and their ilk and rendering them incapable of action due to utter bewilderment and exhaustion from listening to him.
There is nothing to mine this particular speech for. The only bit of content it has is the recognition that we don't have the power to make Hassan Nasrullah dance, so we shouldn't try.
You might think that a threat like "obliterate" is good, but it isn't really, because it raises credibility questions and, more importantly, sets a high bar. If she doesn't say "obliterate" to the next threat, they feel safer.
Charlie, if you will recall, Gaius Julius Caesar refused the crown thrice. It was Lucius Cornelius Sulla who sought to be made dictator for life.
Nevertheless, since a real President and commander in chief would personally lead American and allied forces in Operation Alexander from Damascus to the Indus River, I believe the appropriate report to Congress would be: "Veni, vidi, vici."
How did Clinton get into this? We were talking about the current president and one, perhaps two, unlikely three, that are still trying to succeed him.
That's the nature of diplomacy. Sometimes it works (Ireland). Sometimes it doesn't. To blame Clinton for Intifada is idiotic.
Could have fooled me.
Actually, it was Reagan and Lebanon, but it's not a relevant point. Clinton had good reason to pull out of Somalia--where we ended up before he took office, if you recall. What the OBL spin on that was is hardly relevant to what actually happened there.
This is funny. Are you referring to Brzezinski? Because the rest of Carter's team is long retired or dead. So unless Obama is consulting them through a seance, you are making no sense.
But if we follow your logic and look for causes of the "Iran mess" beyond Carter, you should realize that it's not Carter who brought these problems to the fore. It was years of the US support for the Shah regime that precipitated the Iranian "Revolution". This brings me to another point--I actually disagree with Obama's position of propping up an ineffective government in the hope of stemming violent opposition precisely because of the Iran precedent. But we can have disagreements about policy statements without mocking them, as DB does. I see Obama's mistake in the substance of his statement, not in the diplomatic rhetoric that is really just flowery language. But what I see from McCain is ... well, nothing, really. Just a lot of posturing and empty boasts, but no substance--not even erroneous.
No. Need to mess around in secret.
Obama has committed to a generally internationalist foreign policy based on utilization of foreign institutions, disengagement in Iraq, and a judicious use of the military in the region for fairly narrow terrorist-based reasons. Committing to much more would be politically bad and probably bad policy, as well.
I think that is incorrect, and she said "we could obliterate them"
So the threat is simply not credible, and its foolish to make it hoping the bluff won't be called.
Two VC bloggers, Orin and Jim Lindgren, told you this violates the Comment Policy and you should cut it out. David may or may not care, but by trolling from thread to thread looking for a VC blogger who will let you get away with it, you show your disrespect for the site, the debate, and everyone who participates in it. Please stop it.
I'm not sure what credible military force we have to take on Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Is there any military expert who would advocate this?
What does David Bernstein think the United States should be doing in this situation? Surely he has thought about it.
I hope you don't think that messages released for public consumption are the beginning and end of diplomacy. I yearn for the days when smart leaders understood that the stronger message is the one you deliver behind closed doors.
Can you hear the Hezbollah and Iranian muilluh's laughing their collective asses off?
Is it any wonder that Hamas endorsed Obama?
Is America really ready for a re-run of That 70s Show starring James Earl Obama?
My take is that the statement is an essentially nonexciting restatement of overall Obama policy applied to the Lebanese situation, using a series of Poli Sci 101 observations about strengthening a central government. While at the same time reserving the authority to act, even militarily, against Hezbollah.
DB's and Others see it as a dangerous ceding of position based on a manifest unwillingness to confront militarily. Backed by a naive view of Middle Eastern politics that attempts to use liberal good-government tropes to solve dangerous theocratic power politics.
I'm happy to concede that DB's reading is as valid as mine, based on this text. It's possible that DB would concede that mine is a reasonable version. But if these two conclusions can come from the same document, I don't see any way where the underlying text is an ironclad declaration of future Obama vision and activity.
But I suppose it merits a blog post.
I just want to understand what Professor Bernstein proposes we do. Is it send a military force in there? What is it? Without telling us what he'd do, the comment he makes regarding Obama is worse than academic. It is childish.
And Israel's recent war against Hezbollah did something more to cure the disease?
Genius. "Military force" is the only possible incentive.
I think if the only problem with Obama's rhetoric (and general point of view about foreign affairs) is that it doesn't strongly enough indicate a willingness to get the U.S. military involved in another overseas conflict that doesn't directly threaten U.S. national security, then it's not much of a problem at all. Rhetoric too strong and the object of it might call the bluff (maybe like Saddam did?), and then we're someplace we actually didn't want to be.
Do you have any idea how idiotic this comment is? Lebanon endured a small civil war in the 1800s. Syria has claimed Lebanon as part of "Greater Syria" since the days of the Ottomans.
When the French took over the Ottoman holdings in the northern Levant, they expanded the country from its historic core of Mount Lebanon, meaning that it encompassed many more non-Christian populations -- of which were underrepresented in the confessional system.
All of this predates Hizbollah and modern Syria. Oh, and finally, the Lebanese civil war started before the overthrow of the shah in Iran. It was hardly a "peaceful, successful country" in 1975.
Demographic trends definitely undermined the agreement by 1975. But there's no question that the PLO's decision to use Southern Lebanon as a base to assault Israel--and their decision to function as an extra-territorial regime on Lebanese land-- contributed signifiacntly to the breakdown that resulted in the horrors of the 1980s. So, too, did Syrian intervetnion in the '70s.
When people speak of Lebanon being "peaceful," I think one has to keep in mind that we now know what happened after 1975. I don't know if visitors in 1970 would have used that term. But now, by comparison, yeah, it was a peaceful place back then.
I would think the right might mute their criticism of Obama in embarrassment, if not in good faith.
There were notable victories in that war. And what's the solution, to "talk" to those who assassinated Hariri and others, to "talk" to the Sunni and Shi'a infiltrators and usurpers in southern Lebanon and in greater Lebanon now as well, to accede to that type of Sunni and Shi'a gangsterism, sponsored from Syria and Iran?
No one can actually find anything substantive that would cast Obama as anything other than an utterly predictable “pro-Israel” politician. Hence we have single-sourced anecdotes about Obama’s interest in “even-handedness,” reports of friendly relations with Khalidi, who had been a U. of C. colleague, and stories about dinner with Edward Said as the “damning” proof, and, last but not least, his acknowledgement that Palestinians have suffered (quelle horreur!). Of course, no one rejects that people can and will question his “earnestness” or his sincerity on this, and I suppose no one has to believe that Obama’s public record has any bearing on the question, but it seems to me that this is a classic case of attributing views of what the critics assume to be his supporters’ views to the candidate.
Thanks.
My point is not that we should use the military option, but rather that those who think Obama is going to solve anything with rhetoric that even Americans can't understand, is preposterous. You are acting as if Obama has made a serious, thoughtful proposal instead of just being a windbag. He's a windbag.
By the way, I do seem to recall that Reagan accomplished a whole lot by talking tough and carrying a big stick. Some of you may actually recall that Ghadafi pulled out of the terrorist game after Reagan dropped a couple of bombs down his chimney.
Not to mention the whole Soviet Union thing.
Obama is not alone. As aardvark indicated, Hezbollah was small and unimportant till Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, when those who wished to resist the invaders flocked to it. Further Israeli attempts to make Lebanon suffer for the sins of Hezbollah just makes Hezbollah stronger, most notably the last invasion. As a peacenik, Olmert clearly feared looking weak when the two IDF members were kidnapped. This fear led him to PR blunders like bombing orphanages and dropping thousands of cluster bombs over the countryside. Poking a tiger in the eye will not make it purr; getting tough with Hezbollah will not lead to peace.
But, based on Olmert's ego-driven ineffective performance, I think McCain's the best candidate for peace in the Middle East, because McCain would not have to prove his machoness. Any McCain military intervention would thus be well-justified and properly executed. The inexperienced Hillary would have the most to prove and thus be the worst candidate.
Until 1975, the Maronite Christian community held a monopoly of force and political power in Lebanon, even though they did not make up a demographic majority in Lebanon. The advent of Palestinian forces fleeing Jordan changed that.
Then again, who wants to bet that, if I search the archives, I wont find any DB posts referring to Bush as "GWB" (even though the need to distinguish from his father might be more appropriate) or (more appropriately for election 2008 vlog posts) to McCain as JSM (John SYDNEY McCain).
Interesting ...
Perhaps I'm misreading your tone. But the first sentence sounded especially . . . ungenerous. I don't see any reason to respond with the same tone.
But Let me address your point: I am too young to remember, since I was not even born. I don't know that I am too young "to have read about" the 1958 intervention, although my children are still too young to give them that sort of material.
But I am a diplomatic historian, so I have read about this. And more than most diplo historians, I'm sure, since I write on the 1950s. And Eisenhower.
But with that aside, why would you think that your example is a significant rebutal to my point? The intervention was hardly memorable, except insofar as the Johnson Administartion used the event to model the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. By the time the Marines arrived, the Lebanese had already settled the issue of presidential succession among themselves, with Chamoun announcing that he was not going to violate the constitution and tradition after all.
By the time the Marines arrived, in other words, things were back to normal. 'Normal' being a rather peaceful, democratic Lebanon that was not without its problems. Your second paragraph indicates a quite-different situation. But in fact the Lebanese had a functioning constitution during those years, with power sharing amoung religious groups as a basic principle. That's why the Muslims took to the streets: To protest a looming violation of that constitutional order.
Fianlly, Ike sent the Marines into Lebanon as a signal to Nasr, not to any particular sect in Lebanon.
Really, this tendency to misread posts, and then cavil, is not what I expect from VCers.
Finally, on one factual question, you might do more digging, Tom. I don't know if you meant to imply that my information came from Wikipedia. But if it had, it would have nevertheless been accurate. If you go to the "History of Lebanon" entry on Wikipedia, you do in fact find reference to the 1958 intervention:
In 1958, during the last months of President Camille Chamoun's term, an insurrection broke out, and 5,000 United States Marines were briefly dispatched to the capital Beirut on July 15 in response to an appeal by the government. After the crisis, a new government was formed, led by the popular former general Fuad Chehab.
GWB, JFK, RFK, MLK, FDR, LBJ, HRC, B. Hussein O.
See, they're all the same, what's the difference?
Besides, as previously noted BHO in point of fact hired Nation of Islam members to leadership positions in his senate campaign staff and in his senate office staff as well.
And, it's his name.
As with many other things, it depends on the definition.
We may invade--short of resources--or we could put a couple of dozen cruise missiles into selected government buildings. Including Assad's home, various sinister ministries (secret police, the military hq, etc). Once the smoke clears, we tell them that they can have any kind of government they like, but the next crew should listen to us.
One submarine carries enough missiles to do that twice.
Downside: We actually accomplish something, so State is aghast. We kill people, which some think is worse than allowing many times more people getting killed, including us. Our allies' chattering classes get upset.
This is not a recommendation as to the wisdom of such an action. It is, however, a mention that we can influence events even if our mech infantry is otherwise engaged.
Wait, I'm so confused--I thought (according to McCain and Clinton) Obama was an irresponsible warmonger that wanted to bomb Pakistan if diplomatic efforts failed . . . but he's also a pansy that doesn't want to commit to "bomb" or "obliterate" Iran, but he also wants to step up the military mission in Afghanistan, which position must similarly "trap" him rhetorically. Of course, Commentary is the creation of the Kristol family, so we shouldn't be surprised to see an uncharitable and paranoid assessment of Obama in it, one that ignores his nuanced and nonmonolithic views. Kristol the younger makes these just about every time his column runs in the Times . . . and has already been caught redhanded relying on fabricated sources.
Some ideas should be tried before they are condemned. S&A was rhetoric. The flashy bombing was nowhere near what had been contemplated.
If we keep it up, eventually the bad guys will either be dead or not interested in governing. But certainly, if we do not invade, there can be no resistance to invasion. Just the occasional explosion when we're annoyed.
It worked with Ghadaffi. And we didn't even kill him.
You fail to apply proportion and context in any of the examples you provide. The point being made relative to Lebanon is that Obama advocates, in order to confront a decades long and presently escalating set of jihadist initiatives against Israel and Lebanon both, something on the order of "aggressive talking." Hence, in the linked Lee Smith commentary, which begins as follows:
The other day the Obama campaign distanced itself from Robert Malley for his dealings with Hamas. Never mind the disingenuousness of a campaign that up until the day before yesterday when he was fired from the campaign said Malley was not with the campaign, even though a New York Times defense in his behalf said he was with the campaign. What is manifestly clear however is that Obama and his banished adviser/non-adviser share the same worldview. Consider this passage from a press release expressing his “support” for Lebanon.Yes, the problem with Lebanon is not the militia backed by Damascus and Tehran that who have squared off against almost every US ally in the Middle East. No, in the Obama worldview, the issue is about “the corrupt patronage system.” What is more corrupt than the issues that instigated the current crisis: Hezbollah's efforts to, a) build a state within a state and, b) undermine the sovereignty of the Lebanese government? And what is a more unfair distribution of services than an armed party at the service of foreign parties?
This [referring to Obama's "plan" in support of Lebanon] sounds an awful lot like the explanation for why rural Pennsylvanians cling to God and guns instead of voting for Obama - everything is about politico-economic issues and an oppressed proletariat in need of Obama's guidance in order to achieve self-liberation and gain a place at the table.
I've got to wonder, though: Is Obama suggesting that if conservatives and libertarians try to create a state within a state, the Democrats should negotiate with us on earmark reform as opposed to calling in the National Guard?
Iow, if the world fails to succomb to BHO's rhetorical and oratorical prowess together with his decidedly Leftist imaginings about the world, what's plan B? More aggressive "talks" still?
Michael B.
Who is failing to apply proportion and context?
The truth is that Neal Pollak and his friends at Commentary have painted the United States into a corner. We're going to threaten Hezbollah? Yeah, with what army? It's not that George Bush is a lame duck; it's not that George Bush is unpopular. It's that George Bush is unpopular because he has immured our armed forces in Iraq.
Iraq was supposed to be a few months of glorious little war, culminating in Commander Codpiece playing dressup on an aircraft carrier, and in the subsequent defeat of the Democratic Party. Bob Shrum followed the script but Osama bin Laden and Moqtada al Sadr had a little more imagination.
Now we're paying the price for that little misadventure, not just in the deaths and the deficit, but in the lost room for maneuver. I suppose we could decapitate Sheikh Nasrallah if we were very lucky (the Israelis haven't had much success), but so what. He leads a large, successful movement and no matter how odious we find its goals, we aren't going to be able to wish it away, even if we kill him, any more than we can wish the Chinese out of Tibet.
Read the referred to post, I quoted from it liberally and it additionally takes note of the following, emphasis again added:
"Obama's language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy."
If you disagree they are decidedly Leftist imaginings about the world, fine, but the case has been made, certainly so in the instance and context being discussed. I.e. argue your point on cogent grounds.
I did (and did not find it enlightening), and had before posting my comments.
"Obama's language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy."
Where is the evidence from his own words rather than from your or Commentary's putting words in his mouth that Obama thinks Hezbollah is a social welfare movement? Also, on what planet is Obama a part of "the left"? He's at best a moderate liberal with some progressive (and some conservative) streaks. The left you refer to exists only in some corners of academia and some fringe publications.
Obama is clearly a strong supporter of Israel, and the case to the contrary seems to boil down to caricaturing his views, putting words in his mouth, or making insinuations to the effect that since Wright praised Farrakhan, Obama must be a covert anti-Semite. Oh, and my new favorite, the claim (repeated ad nauseam by McCain and now Joe Lieberman) that Hamas wants Obama. This (unsourced assertion by one right winger, if true) has about as much relevance as Osama bin Laden's endorsement of George Bush in the last election.
Likewise and in general, we disagree about the cogency of Lee Smith's commentary.
And I'm on planet earth, in terms of Lebanon and Hezbollah, v. here for one recent update, which has another and a different link to a Smith update, via a colleague, from within Lebanon.
Josh,--
If DB were to omit Obama's middle initial, I suspect you would find the resulting acronymn even more objectionable.
There are plenty of examples of ignorant and idiotic posts in this thread, let alone VC as a whole. I did take a snotty tone in response to what I saw as a rose-colored view of pre-1975 Lebanon on your part. Clearly your views are not based on ignorance, although I would argue that the ethnic cleavages did flare up in the late 1950s.
Lebanon may have been the "jewel of the Levant" compared to its Arab neighbors, and it may have been more democratic than its Arab counterparts; but the democracatic system (and the distribution of formal and informal political power) was based on an extremely outdated census (1932), one that the Maronites and their allies were remarkably unwilling to update. So, the vaunted Lebanese democracy you praise was, by the 1970s, a non-representative house of cards kept in place by the military (under the control of the Maronites), and the passivity of much of the opposition.
Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago.No wonder so many fine folk in the Middle East are rooting for Obama. (Apparently the electricity problems have not interfered with the internet campaign for Obama in Gaza.)
And this, from Barry Rubin within the same piece:
What Spain was in 1936; Lebanon is today.
Does anyone remember the Spanish Civil War? Briefly, a fascist revolt took place against the democratic government. The rebels were motivated by several factors, including anger that their religion had not been given enough respect and regional grievances, but essentially they sought to put their ideology and themselves into power. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy backed the rebels with money and guns. The Western democracies stood by and did nothing.
(At least on one important scale Rubin hugely simplifies what went on in Spain, for example Stalin was directly involved via the COMINTERN, but the larger point is that some type of head-in-the-sand logic is not likely to be productive.)
About 35 years ago, I had a friend who told me of the time he spent in Lebanon in the 1950s with the US Special Forces. He told me that I had no idea how different their culture was from the US's, and that what most impressed this on him was when he saw the Lebanese soldiers assigned as guards at the public executions, enthusiastically placing their bets on which way each head would roll.
Perhaps Rubin is suggesting that we arm the Lebanese, but (unlike the Spanish Republic), I don't think like of weapons, fuel, and other supplies is the Lebanese Army's main problem.
If Rubin wishes to organize a Michael Ledeen Expeditionary Brigade, well, by all means let him.
Hezbollah, which is one and the same