Friday, May 9, 2008

The Realities for Hizbollah -- and does this mean Ann-Margret's NOT coming? (Updated)

This line in the Washington Post's article on Lebanon jumped out at Abu Muqawama for obvious reasons.

Sunni supporters of Hariri's Future Movement, allied with the government, closed roads leading to the south and to the Bekaa Valley in the east in retaliation for Hezbollah's closure of the airport road.
That pretty much sums up the tactical realities in Beirut. Hizbollah can take control of the city itself, but M14 and the government can then cut Hizbollah in Beirut off from their strongholds in the South and the Bekaa.

On to other realities, Abu Muqawama didn't mean to imply in an earlier post that Walid Jumblatt was blameless -- just that Hizbollah very wisely pinned all their anger on him rather than on the rest of the government leadership.

And Hizbollah may very well get the government to back down from their positions on both the telecommunications system and, more likely, Wafiq Shoucair. (Although the international community -- and the international business community -- is not going to rest easy on the accusations Hizbollah is spying on flights landing at the airport.) But the fact is, if civil war does break out, Hizbollah is going to get the blame from basically everyone but Syria, Iran, and other Shia worldwide. This is not 2006 and this is not Israel that Hizbollah is staring down. This is 2008 and these are other Lebanese -- Sunni and Druze and Christian. Hizbollah can't count on the support from anyone but a few pariah states, and though Abu Muqawama is not quick to start quoting U.S. government officials in times like these, what Zalmay Khalilzad said yesterday probably sums up what a lot of folks are feeling, that Hezbollah had "made progress in establishing a state within a state. They have not implemented agreements and resolutions with regard to disarming their militia. That in turn is encouraging other groups to rearm as well. There is a lack of progress because of their opposition in terms of the election of a president, although everyone has agreed on Mr. Suleiman."

Hizbollah will claim that's not a fair representation of the realities in Beirut. And Hizbollah -- and the Shia -- have legitimate political greivences within what passes for a political system in Lebanon. But if things continue to go to guns, they will get all the blame for the new civil war because following the last civil war, they were the only group that was allowed to keep their weapons. (Well, they and the Palestinian militants.) Is Hizbollah ready to take on the blame for this in the same way the PLO (unjustly) took all the blame for the last war?

And more importantly, does this mean the Ibn Khaldun conference is cancelled?

Update: Even Robert Fisk can't bring himself to blame America for this one and is distressed by Nasrallah's language aimed at his buddy Walid Jumblatt. Also, as Sean points out, when Hizbollah starts taking over entire neighborhoods and burning the offices of al-Mustaqbal, it's a civil war. And naharnet.com -- always a reliable outlet for following the comings and going of M14 leaders -- reports that Jumblatt has been evacuated from his home in Beirut by the Army and that RPGs are now hitting the Hariri mansion in Qoreitem. Jaysus.

Update II: Bech writes in to ask whether or not Israel or the United States can do anything to help the government forces militarily. The short answer is, no. The longer answer is, sure, they could always intervene directly, but it's hard to think of anyone in either Jerusalem/Tel Aviv or Washington who would have the stomach for such a thing. Abu Muqawama is now reading about the close quarters combat in Hamra/West Beirut -- la guerre des rues as L'Orient-Le Jour describes it. At the end of the day, neither the U.S. nor Israel can fight Amal and Hizbollah on the government's behalf. (Though we're sure that's exactly what M14 would love to have happen.)

Update III: Bech also notes the surprising level of operational cooperation between Amal and Hizbollah. Abu Muqawama doesn't feel he can write much on this since he isn't on the ground to see for himself (unlike Bech), though he too finds this really interesting. Journalist Irina Prentice is on the ground, though, and wrote this in an email with respect to the fighting in Hamra (published with permission, and she notes that despite being on the ground she has an admittedly limited perspective on events given her "(wo)man on the street" position):
"Things were quiet in the neighborhood until about 5 and then it went off", explains an AUB student living in the neighborhood of Hamra.

A foreign journalist living in Hamra explained that clashes have been ongoing since this morning, and the streets have reportedly come under control of the members of the opposition forces Hezbollah and Amal militia despite ongoing exchange of gunfire being resounding throughout the neighborhood.

Television pictures this morning reveal and predominantly deserted Beirut. Shops are closed, no cars on the street. Damage so far: bullet holes in cars, shattered shop fronts, freshly pockmarked buildings, and some smoke out of Hariri's Moustaqbal Newspaper headquarters.

Reports of dead are varying between 7 and 15, but a tally will probably be difficult to track unless the fighting factions announce the numbers.

The city yesterday was at 60% blocked, making moving between neighborhoods very difficult. The percentage today is rising although there are no firm numbers. Moving between East and West Beirut has become even more difficult as announcement of the sea road being cut off by opposition Amal forces.
Update IV: Tom Perry -- friend to both Londonstani and Abu Muqawama -- is now reporting for Reuters that Hizbollah/Amal has now taken control over most of Beirut. Oh, if only Abu Muqawama had a nickel for every time an M14 sympathizer swore to him this would never happen. A clue for why it happened might be found in all those pictures of gunmen holding their rifles at the hip, cowboy-style. Great shooting positions, boys! (Great shooting position, that is, if your target is the apartment window 12 feet over your enemy's head.) Also, it appears as if the M14 lot are stealing tactics from the Fatah field manuals:

"We entered Karakol Druse. There is no Jumblatt and no Hariri here," a Shiite gunman told Associated Press Television News, referring to Hariri's ally, Druse leader Walid Jumblatt.

"We entered the neighborhood. They threw away their weapons and ran," said another gunman as one of his colleagues tore down a poster of Hariri.

Sweet! Another military victory for America's allies!

Update V: We now present photographic evidence that Abu Muqawama's girlfriend understands basic rifle marksmanship better than America's allies in the Middle East. Here she is, pictured, with the stock of a .300 win-mag drawn into her shoulder and looking through the sights. That, boys, is how it's done. You might have had better luck defending Hamra if you knew how to hold your freaking rifle, you clowns.

74 comments:

sean said...

I'm not sure what you mean by if there's a civil war. I mean, Hezbollah just shut down Mustaqbal's radio, television and paper and took over Hamra and Verdun and most of the rest of West Beirut last night. There was fighting in Sadat street with RPGs and guns. If that's not a civil war, then I'm not sure what it.

My prediction is that although things are quiet here in East Beirut, the next target will be the port, which anyone who wants to control Beirut needs to have. I can see the port from my apartment, and according to LBC, workers have already stopped working.

The main difference, to my mind, between this civil war and the one in 1975 is that the two sides are not even roughly equal. Even when you figured in the army and Internal Security Forces, March 14 didn't seem very likely to win, but since the military doesn't seem to be doing anything, this may just be the 6-day civil war...

The main question is what kind of a political situation will happen after this? So Hezbollah takes the capital (they're halfway there already), then what do they do? Taking cities like Tripoli or regions like the Chouf would involve long and heavy fighting, but maybe they won't need to do that. Maybe they'll allow Jumblatt to have his mountain kingdom.

sean said...

Also, if Hezbollah forms a government, another Israeli war seems inevitable.

Derek said...

Any word on the standoff outside Hariri's house?

Mark Pyruz said...

Blame?

"…If you insist on war, then our reactions will be unpredictable… Are we going to take responsibility for the consequences? Yes, we are ready to take the responsibility for the consequences. We are responsible people. We know what we are doing, and we know where we are standing. We are aware of the size of the conspiracy, scheme, and challenge. We know what we have, and we are ready to take responsibility for all consequences…"-->Nasrallah

Abu Muqawama said...

"Hezbollah just shut down Mustaqbal's radio, television and paper and took over Hamra and Verdun and most of the rest of West Beirut last night."

No shit. Holy cow...

Mark Pyruz said...

There are rumors of salafi/qaida types being trucked in to reinforce Sunni areas...

Not sure how effective they'd be in unprepared positions, if true...

Anonymous said...

what is next? invade the serail and put the army in like ftv?

mo said...

AM, Hizballah were going to get he blame no matter what happened. If the Saudis are going to cheerlead the Israelis in attacking Hizballah, then Hizabllah aren't exactly going to be expecting a brotherly hand from them or all their allies in the region and not.

As for the control of access in and out of Beirut, I think it will be as easy to breakthrough those blockades as it has beeen so surprisingly easy in Beirut.

Another war with Israel I think may depend on whther Olmert think it will get him out of his latest scandal.

fnord said...

Also, as a thought, how much of this seems to have been pre-planned? The news of Amal and Hez synching operations struck me as curious: Is this a o-plan designed to either drag Israel in before they are ready or deal with possible pro-Israeli groups in advance before they come?

If we accept that fixed-line com-systems is the main fighting point, one part of defending such lines is to make sure no infiltrators come and cut them. Could this be a tactical move in order to get various Sunni militant groups in the pay of Saudi under control? Because there is obviously a point to all this, I am just finding it hard to see it.

Mark Pyruz said...

fnord, you think the Lebanese Army may be in on this? Just maybe?

Mark Pyruz said...

Hezbollah/Amal strike while Israel is in the middle of a political scandal at the highest level. A coincidence?

Abu Muqawama said...

Yes, Mark, this is a coincidence. This escalation in Beirut is all about *domestic* politics in Lebanon. And the LAF isn't in on anything. They're just trying to keep themselves from tearing apart at the (sectarian) seams.

mo said...

fnord,

The opposition would have pre-planned this but only as a possible eventuality. They would have been crazy to not have. Amal-Hizballah co-ordination has been the norm since the mid-ninties.

But lets please put this misconception to bed. This is not about the communications network. This is about an attempt to disarm or weaken the resistance and has been since August 2006. The first part, a massive media campaign to harm their reputation was easily ignore, sticks and stones and all that. But this was another phase. This was an attempt by the govt. to get some leverage. I believe they thought they could use it as a bargaining tool if as expected Hizballah balked.
But it was the first step in a pre-planned assault on them. Huizballah are now stopping the plan in its tracks.

Mark,
No I dont think the army is on the opposition side. They are just very aware that they cannot get involved in a shooting war. The army would most likely disintegrate. Furthermore, after the events a few months ago where the army killed civilians, the head of the army has no idea how many 5th columnists he has in his ranks from either side.

And again, have to agree with AM, it is just coincidence simply because Hizballah didnt instigate this nor did they start the whole shooting match.

The figure of only 10 killed lends credence to the reports that the Army had negotiated the surrender of neighborhoods by the pro-govt. militias.

Reports of Qraitem being surrounded are on the money although the rocket hitting his house is a bit of an exaggeration as it hit an outer wall. Jumblatt has, reportedly, cant confirm thuis, left Beirut and surrendered his parties offices in Beirut, Bchamoun and Aramoun. If the latter two are true that is a very very bad sign for the govt.

The big variables now are the supposed Wahabi fighters that were imported and Geageas Lebanese Forces. What they do next, if anything will I thing decide whether we have a civil war or a 3 day skirmish.

sean said...

The rumors are now that Saniora has resigned, although I can't get any official confirmation of that...

mo said...

Am, your g/f is Lebanese right?

Abu Muqawama said...

No, Italian.

Abu Muqawama said...

I didn't even have to coach her to hold the rifle that way, either. The Texan husband of her best friend taught her. Now, there's not a lot to be said for learning marksmanship from Texans (there's my East Tennessee snobbery about all things related to the use of firearms), but it's certainly superior to learning it from Fatah or the March 14th lot.

mo said...

I gotta say, the stories of M14 "bravery" has suprised me considering how militant they have been vocally. But considering in all the rehersal clashes over the last few mnonths, the m14ers did not win one should have been a clue.

Looks like the opposition is going to push this until they meet some serious opposition and by the looks of it, that can only come from the famous phantom Wahabis (if they exist) or Geagea's Lebanese forces (and historically his people are vetted to be the kind that enjoy killing people). The opposition is going to go to them so the question is does he have enough to take it to Beirut?

mo said...

Sorry should have read:

The opposition is not going to go to them so the question is does he have enough to take it to Beirut?

Mark Pyruz said...

Mo, the Army's actions (and inactions) seem to be facilitating Hezbollah/Amal control. It could be they are in on this thing, but not as an active belligerent.

Sean, there were rumors that the Saudi ambassador had passed on his government's advice to do so. Things sure appear to be moving fast.

Anonymous said...

Mo
How far would the M8 crowd want to push things though ?(incidentally i havent heard much about the SSNP or Aoun's lot in the latest fighting)
I mean, I dont think Nasrullah really wants to waste lives / effort "occupying" Christian and Sunni areas of Beirut.

Essentially I'm hoping (maybe naively) that this fighting will run out of steam. Conditions arent the same as 75 of course. Both sides hate each other - but hopefully not that much.

Cheers,
Andy

mo said...

Mark, So far their action/inaction has been to spare lives. They can't take on either side for fear of splits in their ranks. Disintegration of the Army would have very grave consequences as each guy would take his weapon and training and join up with his respective side, therefore perpetuating the crisis by providing reinforcements for both sides. So the Army has to be very very careful in what it does and how it does it. While I know the relationship between the army and Hizballah is a lot warmer than its relationship with March 14th (Suleimans refusal to declare a state of emergency is an example) I know that neither him nor nasrallah would want to take the risk of the Army being seen to take sides.


Andy,
I think M8 is in shock right now and arent sure whether to fight or flee. Jumblatt seems to have ll but surrendered, but he can turn on a dime. The one to keep an eye on is Geagea. The opposition wont go to him so will he bring his troops down from the mountains?

They've already taken all the Sunni areas in Beirut and they may do in the few places in the South, most notably Sidon but I dont think they will go up to Tripoli. They make there point well enough in Beirut. And they definitely wont waste lives on Christian areas. Aoun has so far remained strangely silent and his supporters aren't on the street. I think this based on the fact that historically, when Muslims have fought, even during the civil war, death rates were always notoriously low but when the Christian militias fought it was savage and brutal. So the longer a Christian on Christian conflict doesnt occur the better.

rb said...

Aoun has so far remained strangely silent and his supporters aren't on the street.

Aoun has to tread carefully--many of his supporters find Hizbullah a useful ally against M14, but aren't necessarily jumping with joy to see them take over West Beirut. If he handles it badly, he'll see his support bleed away (he knows it, and Hizballah knows it too).

mo said...

Sympaty from Perez for March 14th? That will stop all those "agents of Israel" accusations

sean said...

Aoun is finished.

mo said...

Sean, Nasrallah already answered this yesterday, "even if they came and offered me the chance to rule I would decline". He is well aware of the need to run the country as co-operative otherwise the strife never ends.

the only real question is how long doe s the current situation run and who survives politicaly.

sean said...

Yeah, forgive me if I don't take Abu Hadi at his word on much these days. Nasrallah also said that he would never turn his weapons inward, but he's done just that.

I don't know about you, but I can hear the RPGs

mo said...

Sean, true but if you are being shot at you shoot back, but like you say on your blog, its a wait and see situation. But FYI, in ur So what now? post, its Friday today (or at least i hope it is or I should be somwhere else entirely).

AM, re. initial posts reports are that all roads Soutn and East previously closed by M14 are now re-opened. They are also talking of re-opennig the airport road tomorrow

PMA said...

Joker,

I don't think Ann Margaret is coming..

FYI Andy,
I've heard unofficial reports of SSNP getting involved in Rawche and Clemenceau but this is probably just a token presence... I've also heard from a friend that Amal set up a checkpoint near Ain Mriesse (East of AUB) near Phoenicia, but that might have been cleared by LA.

Regarding the LF and Gaegae, although FM could use a hand they've smartly stayed out of things so far. However, that may change if the opposition tries to take positions closer to neighborhoods in East Beirut like Ashrafieh or the Port of Beirut area. I'm guessing they'll try to sit pretty in West Beirut for now.

PMA

rb said...

Sean:

No, I don't think Aoun is finished at all. Although it is never clear to me if he ever realized that no one (other than the Aounists) wants him has president ever (including his Hizbullah and Syrian allies), he's been invaluable to Hizbullah in allowing M8 to assume a national, cross-sectarian veneer.

That usefulness doesn't end now, and indeed may grow. At the moment, the only community in play is the Christians: Shiites are solidly Huzbullah/Amal/M8, the Druze solidly PSP/M14 (let's face it, Arslan, Wahhab, etc. are marginal) and Hizbullah has managed to lose the significant Sunni sympathy it had after 2006 and push the community solidly into the FM/M14 camp (even if there is a lot of unhappiness at M14's performance in government).

On the other hand, the Christian communities are split down the middle.

Given that one possible outcome of recent events is renewed negotiations over a new government (as part of a package deal on the Presidency), M8 will want FPM folks in cabinet as part of their blocking 1/3 of seats (or more). Moreover, Hizbullah won't want to many of those to be too closely associated with the party.

Abu Muqawama said...

Thanks for the updates, gang. This is all good stuff. Aside from the fact that the two neighborhoods I used to live in -- Clemenceau and Qoteitem -- are getting shot up. The rumors are of heavy gunfire in the former. Bunch of pissed of Greek Orthodox, I guess, or someone is taking potshots at the Jumblatt Mansion. Probably the latter.

parvati_roma said...

Just read reports that Hezbollah is handing over its "conquered" areas to the Lebanese Army - btw, my own reading of this showdown focusses on the Army's neutrality and Hezbollah leaning on/quasi-allying with it - in the hope of forcing a "national unity" solution to end the constitutional crisis. Could even involve the army temporarily taking power if no political agreement is reached in the next few weeks between the Siniora/Hariri govt. and the Nasrallah/Aoun opposition???

Anonymous said...

Ann-Margret's NOT coming? yep and I think it's going to get a lot worse. Wish I was over there....probably would be dangerous, but a first class education on the middle east and a major life experience that would be extremely valuable for anyone. I do hope that the capitol is not destroyed again, as the country and culture is very beautiful....the fighting needs to be stopped before the country is torn apart. Perhaps a MUE isn't too far away?

Anonymous said...

Type-o... MEU! Marine Expeditionary Unit.

bech said...

Abu muqawama... "domestic issues only"... It is a shame that all your analytical capabilities goes into understanding how fighters on the streets hold their gun, and not into understand regional and international politics...

and also, nobody cares for hizbullah's camera in the airport... the whole of Europe and the US is CCTVed for 'protection against terrorism purposes'!!

You guys should wake up. Please try to insert some analysis of US policy in all this, that would do good for your growing readership.

Abu Muqawama said...

Well, you're right, Bech, to a degree -- a good deal could be said about the way in which we have thrown our whole lot in with M14. (And I think my updates expressed this regret in my usual smart-ass fashion.)

But it's not just U.S. policy. Iran has had a constant advisory mission active in Lebanon since 1982. And honestly, I think this whole fight right now has to do with the fact that the Shia don't feel they can disarm without losing their hard-won seat at the table and that no one else -- understandably -- feels all that comfortable with only one sect militarized.

Like I said, even Robert Fisk can't pin this one on U.S. policy. This is more about domestic anxieties and rivalries in Lebanon, and I get sick and tired of every single time a Lebanese kills another Lebanese, excuses are made for which foreign power was responsible. The truth is, a brief history of Mount Lebanon and the surrounding area since 1860 reveals that no one has ever been more talented at killing Lebanese than ... other Lebanese.

bech said...

I always say that war happens between Lebanese. I totally agree with you on that. But are you going to deny that the US has a consistent policy of neutralizing Hizbullah??

Of course it is also a domestic issue, but the arms of Hizbullah have never been such a problem a couple of years ago.

Iran is in, yes, but Iran is facing US frontal assault too.

Common man, domestic issues, and struggle for power exist and that's partly what's going on, and this explains why Hizbullah decided to pre-empt. But where does Jumblatt gets his ideas from?? Why now?

The new security equation, post-Syrian withdrawal, is redrawing priorities, and inviting new regional directives. How can you talk about domestic issues when the whole of the Middle East is occupied/allied/servile to the US?

Reading nineteenth century Lebanese history is good... But you may check chapters that explain how come Lebanese were in a situation where they started shooting at each other. I may recall the presence of french and british chancelleries here and there.

mo said...

AM, I think you are right in the sense that the Lebanese love pinning each others evils on foreign elements and it always amuses me when people talk of the Lebanese being used by foreign powers when quite frankly I see the opposite; Its the Lebanese who, through thousands of years of experience, have become supremely adept at using other peoples wars to strengthen their internal positions.

But in this case I think you are wrong. The now infamous communications network is nothing new. The airport security fiasco was a joke. Removing a man from his post for not investigating an issue outside of his jurisdiction?

So why did Jumblatt instigate this now? Why did the govt. decide, a mere few days after Welch's predicitions of a hot summer, to take the political crisis up a few notches and threaten Hizballah with removing what they consider to be the heart of the resistance? Why do all this when it seemed everyone was becoming ameenable to some sort of dialogue? Did they think they could take this as leverage to the table? I doubt it. Nasrallahs reaction was as predictable as an Israeli shell hitting a Palestinian child.

But I think Bechs point of a lack of understanding of the Lebanese situation is reflected in your saying that you think that this whole fight right now has to do with the fact that the Shia don't feel they can disarm without losing their hard-won seat at the table and that no one else -- understandably -- feels all that comfortable with only one sect militarized.

I think you underestimate our belief that without the resistance Israel would have turned South lebanon into another settement ridden occupied territory and our belief that sooner or later, Israel will come for the water. The arms are not about protecting the seat at th table, its about protecting the table itself.

If only one sect was militarised in Lebanon I would understand the discomfort, but hell, if we had Buddhists in Lebanon, even they would be militarised. If its only one sect who the hell started the firing at the opposition forces?



Now will there be fall out between Jumblatt and the Sunnis over this? He painted them all into a corner and when the fighting started told his men to pack up and run, leaving the m14 to fend for themselves.

Mark Pyruz said...

Beg to differ with you, AM. The Israelis have killed many, many Lebanese. The US killed Lebanese and so did the French. To say the Lebanese are more talented at killing themselves is like saying Americans are the most talented at killing themselves based upon their experience during the Civil War. It's just a rude thing to say- isn't it? And there have been political assassinations in the US, as well, in my lifetime. Right now, Lebanon is experiencing instability, and external powers are having a hand in it. That cannot be denied, nor should it be understated.

mo said...

Well I was wrong, fighhting now reported in the Bchamoun areas and Tripoli. Looks like they are going for the whole thing now.

Abu Muqawama said...

Mark, I didn't say others -- Israelis and Syrians especially -- had not killed Lebanese. But Ghassan Tueni once wrote that the civil war was the "War for the Others." When you ask some Lebanese about this, they forget the 'laam' (in arabic) and remember it as the "War OF the others." It's always, always, always someone else that's responsible for the Lebanese not living together peacefully. Bech and I agree there.

That said, I respect both of you -- Bech and Mo -- and admit you have a good point. But I don't really do or study U.S. strategy toward Lebanon, so I can't speak to it aside from mentioning that Iranian influence in Lebanon has been much more consistent and ruthless since 1982 and the arrival of the guards in Baalbeck.

That said, Bech and Mo, if you were national security adviser, what concrete changes would you take toward US policy toward Lebanon?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if it would be interesting to look at the motivation for US & Iranian interference in Lebanon...
In '82 Iran was massively stretched by its conflict with Iraq. Its hard to see what strategic advantadge it got from the Padasaran in the Ballbeq. "Altruism" is of course the wrong word, but perhaps ideology is right - it was trying to help its persecuted Shia breteren.

As for the US, I cant see what it gained either in the 80s or now from interfering in Lebanon.
In the 80s I think it was to help Israel. I read an interview with some US politicio from the period, I forget his name, who said they only went in to make things a bit easier for the Israelis.

At the moment it feels the US are involved as Hezbollah stand in the way of the neo-con dream of US/ Israeli hegemony in the region. I dont mean to sound dogmatic, and am open to other interpretations, but thats the way it seems that way from here.

FWIW if I was national security advisor Id probably do nothing at the moment. I cant see ho USintervention could help in any way other than short-term military.

Andy

bech said...

national adviser of the US should propose something like this: Hizbullah can be an ally. we can find compromise. But this would mean what? It would mean not cornering Iran, and resolving the Palestinian refugee problem, meaning strengthening screws on Israel's fantasies.

so simple and you know it. But the US does not want that. Syria, Iran, and Hizbullah can be good allies to the US vis-a-vis AL Qaeda, and other alleged bigger evils. But then compromise must be found. And US does not want that for now. dominating seems to work in other places. and alliance with Israel has its own weaknesses.

And for historical records ya abu muqawama, Iranian policy in Lebanon has not caused the massive killings US policy did. And if you need the complete list I'll be happy to provide.

Where the US goes, things get messed up. You guys in the army are the first to know that. Why are you studying counterinsurgency now? You actually think about complement this with a study of why US Foreign policy has caused so much damage around the world!

bech said...

hey sorry for being a bit pushy but it's a war zone here thanks to good advices coming from washington! seriously I'm tired of hearing all kinds of analysis that don't see the huge elephant smashing the view.

At the very least this should be included when analyzing hizbullah's actions because they happen to do so 24h/24h.

rb said...

I think you underestimate our belief that without the resistance Israel would have turned South Lebanon into another settlement ridden occupied territory and our belief that sooner or later, Israel will come for the water.

Mo has correctly flagged a key issue. Israel was never interested in post-1948 settlement in south Lebanon, and it has never shown much interest in modern times in the waters of the Litani. However, there is a deep-seated view that it is, and hence the resistance did not outlive its military usefulness after the IDF withdrew in 2000.

The irony is that the resistance did outlive its usefulness after 2000--and, indeed, became a major source of Lebanese insecurity, locking it into a cycle of tit-for-tat confrontation with Israel that ultimately resulted in the 2006 war. Hizbullah, of course, has successfully weaved a narrative that it wasn't responsible for the 2006 war, whatever mistakes it might have made--a narrative that both it, and its constituency, believes. Yet far from deterring IDF attack, the Hizbullah arms generates military confrontation (much as the Palestinian armed presence did, 1968-1982).

In this sense, the "resistance" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, justifying itself by the very Israeli attacks that it attracts. It also helps the organization maintain its raison d'être among its cadres: however much Hizbullah may articulate the genuine grievances of the Shiite community, rail against Lebanese corruption and inequality, and run an impressive (Iranian-financed, rentier) social welfare network, its core cadres and top leadership are very much wedded to the vision of the party as a resistance movement. I'm not suggesting that Hizbullah cynically keeps the conflict going for organizational purposes, but I am suggesting that it has organizational benefits nonetheless.

As for the domestic versus international causes of the current crisis, it is a bit of a moot point since both were present, and closely interlocked. I do agree with AM, however, that the spark for the current confrontation was very much a domestic miscalculation by M14, rather than than the GoL being pushed by the US or anyone else to confront Hizbullah now over these issues.

On Hizbullah's side, they knew perfectly well that the telecommunications issue wasn't really a threat, since they knew it was all hot air -- the Lebanese government couldn't actually do anything about it. I think, however, that Nasrallah was frustrated that their domestic political strategy had been stymied: the whole tent camp siege of the Grand Serail turned out to be a damp squib, and he wasn't at all convinced that time was on their side in negotiations over the presidential succession. Two ill-considered cabinet decisions were thus an opportunity for both response and counter-escalation.

Anonymous said...


I think you underestimate our belief that without the resistance Israel would have turned South lebanon into another settement ridden occupied territory and our belief that sooner or later, Israel will come for the water. The arms are not about protecting the seat at th table, its about protecting the table itself.


That statement may have had some validity ten years ago, but not today. And really, if Israel really intended to put settlements on Lebanese soil you think it would have done so at some point between 1982 and 2000. The only thing Hizbollah arms are "protecting" is Hizbollah. Those arms are not a deterrent to Israel, not a form of "resistance" (resistance against what, exactly?) they are the cause of continued Israeli meddling in Lebanese affairs and will be the cause of any future intervention. Is it any surprise the rest of Lebanon doesn't want itself tied Hizbollah and forced to adopt it's now inane policy of "resistance" against a foe no longer on its soil? Is it any surprise that M14 decided it needed a patron in the US/West after decades of Hizbollah patronage from Syria and Iran, patronage that appears never ending?

We will see Hizbollah's intentions soon enough - it already looks as if it is exploiting this "opportunity" and it's military superiority for it's own gain. Protecting the "table" indeed. It will be interesting to see how some here will attempt to justify Hizbollah's (over)reaction to M14's stupidity.

Anonymous said...

To add, rb gets it.

Scott Wedman said...

What is the worst, worst case here? Is the worst, worst case that a sustained civil war breaks out and Hizbollah wins? Or is it some sort of external intervention that becomes a target?

Are there any international economic repercussions from this?

mo said...

Guys, the whole issue is about relationships.

Andy wonders about the Iranian motivation of getting involved in Lebanon. The lack of understanding of the relationship between Lebanese and Iranian Shia is one of the prime problems for US policy in Lebanon. They keep refering to it as a patron/client relationship or Hizballah is a proxy army.

But the relationship is far more complex. There are inter-marriages (Khatamis wife is Lebanese), theres is shared ideology, there is deeply spiritual kin ship at a religious level with all religious studies being done in Iraq and Iran, and most of all, the Iranians believe that it was the Lebanese Shia that brought Shi'ism to Iran and believe they owe them a debt of gratitude for that.

Add to that the Pan-Islamic ideologies of both Hizballah and Iran, an ideology that supercedes the national one and you have a very deep and mutualy respectful relationship.

AM, US policy toward Lebanon depends entirely on what Israel wants and possibly to a lesser extent whether that particular administration is still holding a grudge about the embassy and barracks bombings of '83.

Ask yourself why the drive to disarm a group that while skillful and efficient on the battlefield is never ever going to be an existential threat to Israel. Why the drive to deprive a nation of its defenders while not allowing that nation, that you purpotedly support, to arm its military. The only logical conclusion is that Israel, a nation that refuses to fix its borders, wants to be free to act unhindered in Lebanon.


If a US administration wanted to change tack, and was willing to take the heat that would come with that then the answer is simple. My advice would be, recognise the resistance for what it is and treat it as such. Open channels of communication where both sides can easily acknowledge wrongs done to both in the past and both can start with a clean slate. Dont underestimate their intelligence and try portray yourself as a neutral. They know where you stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict and you know where they stand and both sides know that neither is going anywhere anytime soon. So work towards a detente. Convince them that you will not allow further Israeli incursions and that you will actively work towards freeing the seven villages and the Shebaa if they can convince you they will no longer attack Israel proper. And provide mutual guarantees with independent witnesses that can be called upon if one or the other breaks the agreement.

In other words, respect is the key word. Give it, recieve it and things will change.

Its probablly idealisitc and diplomatically naive but that would be my advice.

The resistance doesnt hate America, nor does it hate America for its support of Israel. What it hates is hypocrisy, selective morality and duplicity. Respect from both sides would remove this; And Bech is right. If the US relationship with Nasrallah was to improve, the knock on effect, including the issues with Sadr would be huge.

The influence and importance of the man in the Arab world has not even come close to be measured properly. That is why the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Kuwaitis are so scare of him.

rb said...

Are there any international economic repercussions from this?

The number of Lebanese restaurants in Montreal increases still further (at last count, I had 17 within walking distance of the office).

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

"Iran is in, yes, but Iran is facing US frontal assault too."

What a load of horseshit. Iran is "in" to the tune of at least $400 million per annum in direct financial aid to Hizbollah, plus a steady supply of armaments passed through Syrian ports.

It gets wearying to hear yapping that seems to suggest that Iran just happens to have some interests in Hizbollah. Give me a break.

If there is any bought-and-paid party/militia (and state) in Lebanon it's not M14 but Hizbollah. THis is so beyond dispute that we have to invent a different reality to bring in KSA and USA and Sarkozy.

And it's absolutely laughable that Hizbollah and Amal, coordinated in their strikes, are "pre-empting" anything.

Because of the imbalance of forces, did anyone seriously believe that the Lebanese armed forces were going to storm Hizbollah's fortifications and disarm the fighters? Come on!

What is there to "pre-empt?" Hizbollah wants to continue perfecting its state within a state, serving as an Iranian/Syrian flunkie while expanding its own power, and it doesn't like to be told what it can bring through the airport, what sort of telecommunications it can build for itself, how many arms it should hold and how it conducts war against Israel (and by extension Lebanon's foreign policy), even if the counter-attack by the IAF is bad for the rest of the nation.

Pre-empt my ass.

What should be the first US policy toward Hizbollah? Destabilizing Hizbollah. That should be our policy every day until it is so. That has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Lebanon.

While I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, and I don't much even like reading about Lebanon's byzantine political intrigues, I think Hizbollah actually has now galvanized widespread Sunni, Druze and Christian antipathy against it.

At least that's what my Lebanese peeps (admittedly mostly Sunni) are telling me.

Aoun's faction won't allow the MOU to stand now that they've watched their workplaces burn and saw their aunts and grandmothers evicted by Amal. Support will whittle away. He'll survive, returning as the second version of the the hero of Baabda, or thankfully return to France.

New alliances will form; new monies will flow into the confederation instead of aid to modernize the LF; and factions will cohere so that Hizbollah won't be able to do this again without a great deal more pain.

Is this good for Lebanon? Absolutely not. Is it good for Hizbollah? Absolutely not.

But that doesn't matter. It never does with Nasrallah. Hizbollah must gin up more of the cult of his personality, find more conspiracies to blame for their own strategic blunders.

He certainly has enough endorsements in here.

Who won the latest Lebanese civil war? For now, Hizbollah.

But who lost? Everyone other Lebanese citizen. Again.

mo said...

rb,
Israel was never interested in Southern Lebanon? They fought tooth and nail to have the Litani within Israels 1948 borders and until the late 60's taking the Litani was a publicly acknowledged goal of Israel. Just because they stopped saying it in public doesnt mean they dotn want and to be frank, looking at Israels current water problems, if the Israeli leadership aren't looking at the Litani and licking their lips they aren't doing their job.

And you can claim Israeli innocence all you like but you don't live in South Lebanon so you are not taking the risk that if the resistance goes so will the Israeli threat. But hey, if the US or anyone wants these weapons gone, its easy. Allow the Lebanese Army to arm itself and dont block attmpted contributions to it from other states.

And anon, if you had visited South Lebanon in 2000 you would have seen the road signs to tourist destinations in Hebrew, the roadworks, sewage works etc, The resistance is the only reason it never settlement never happened because it was never safe enough.

You and RB are trying to perpetuate the whole Israel is always innocent mythology which no one really believes anymore.

bech said...

The sad part in the story of this solidernolongeriniraq, is that he got all his trashy propaganda from Lebanese themselves. In this case you're right abu muqawama we are mostly to blame in this.

Anonymous said...

Is this the same SNLII? Or has someone hijacked your id? You are spouting a kind of nonsense that you would (thankfully) never tolerate on matters Iraq. Tis puzzling, not to mention unpleasant, to read.

As for anon and rb, you are so totally right about self-fulfilling prophecies. And along those lines, Israel should disband the IDF so that peace may flood the region. Brilliant.

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

"Allow the Lebanese Army to arm itself and dont block attmpted contributions to it from other states."

Actually, I would propose that giving the Syrian-infected LF a penny more would be idiotic. A better use of US policy would be to eliminate Michel Suleiman, an impotent lapdog to foreign powers if there ever was one.

And speaking of impotence, what exactly are the 10,000 members of UNIFIL doing now?

I'm getting a little tired of the notions perpetuated in here that Hizbollah's propaganda about being the "resistance."

You're not the "resistance" when you've taken over the capital; moved to isolate Lebanon from the rest of the world by seizing all ports of entry; pushed the government to collapse and threatened them with expulsion to the sea or arrest; burned the organs of the free press; and coordinated with the LF to do your dirty work of neighborhood constabulary.

At this point, you're an occupier. Hamas had far more legitimacy in this regard than Hizbollah has, and the results will probably be about the same: Increased misery for those caught up in the fighting, a quickening diaspora of the smart and ethnically challenged from the war zone (more restaurants for you in Montreal, RB), and foreign entanglements to right the regional imbalance caused by Iran and Syria.

Like Hamas, however, Hizbollah will blame the "west" and Israel for the self-inflicted wounds and the resulting political and military strife.

Hizbollah, like Hamas, faces a corrupt government increasingly disliked by the people. But in the case of Lebanon, that was a government that at least had a state and a political system, however faulty, that represented some semblance of democracy.

Not now.

If my Sunni friends are right, this will not end now. We're looking at a long, hard slog, because Nasrallah didn't just become a liberator. To the Sunni in Lebanon, he became al-Maliki.

Anonymous said...

American Soldier no longer (I'm guessing) in a foreign country, I'll try again.
This began with the moves against Hizbollah's communication networks. Why were those moves made? Why now?

The neutrality of this blog, to the degree that it exists at all, owes itself to the authors' fondness of war and the aesthetics of the professional soldier. Insurgents at least imagine that they didn't have a choice. Dr. I-Rack is a graduate of The Winston Churchill Adventure school, and you Soldier, are one of those white boys who took up arabic to defend holychristendomorsomeshit. As an old school American I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to insurgency since 1776 (at least until they fucke it up). COIN is the English in the US and India, the Germans in France and Poland, the French in Indochina and the US pretty much everywhere since WWII. You're the good soldier, which means you're a killer and a moralizing putz. Is Hizbollah a proxy of Iran and Syria? Is Israel a proxy of the US?
Think before you answer.

Anonymous said...

Mo,

Don't be a tool with your "Israel is innocent" strawman. Israel is anything but innocent - more often they're just stupid. They have dug their own hole many times. One wonders, however, if you're capable of criticizing Hizbollah for anything in this. Are we to believe the armed takeover of much of the "nation" is fully justified by an unenforceable declaration from a weak "government?" Your comments here are frankly typical of crowd that blames the US and Israel for everything, which is ironically quite like Bush and his crew who persist in blaming Hezbollah "terrorists" for everything. You guys have more in common than you think.

So tourist signs in Hebrew is now equivalent to settlements? Israel withdrew to a 15km buffer zone of its own volition in '85 IIRC. It could have adjusted those lines to created pockets of relative safety for settlers had it wanted to.

Personally, I think Israel should abandon Shebaa and give Hizbollah back their fighters just to see how Nasrallah will move the goalposts to justify the "resistance" and Hizbollah's continued special status in Lebanon.

Anonymous,

As for anon and rb, you are so totally right about self-fulfilling prophecies. And along those lines, Israel should disband the IDF so that peace may flood the region. Brilliant.

No one's saying there shouldn't be anybody defending Lebanon - what I would like to see is exactly what the IDF is - a NATIONAL army controlled by a NATIONAL government. If Likud had its own military force, I would oppose that as well. Nice try though.

Again, the rest of Lebanon does not want to be the unwitting victims of Hizbollah foreign policy.

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

It didn't "begin" with Jumblatt's concerns over a telecommunications network.

IT BEGAN WITH THE BUILDING OF THE NETWORK ITSELF.

In other words, it began when a militia-cum-party-cum-proto-state decided that it wanted, among other things, its own army, airport terminal, foreign policy and, now, telephone system.

It's been able to accomplish these goals because Iran provides it with $400 million in direct annual aid, floods its armories with weapons shipped through Damascus and allows it to coordinate with internal and external allies to destabilize any nascent democratic government.

Now, I'm willing to concede to a point all one can possibly do to metnion that Hizbollah's history as a true, organic resistance movement, albeit one helped since the early 1980s by IRG cadres.

But this invasion of Beirut, destruction of the free press, sealing of the borders, political coup and OCCUPATION of the capital means the "resistance" is over. Now, it's just another Middle Eastern over-reaching sectarian gang of thugs beholden to another foreign power.

And Israel had NOTHING to do with this. This was a self-inflicted wound on Lebanon.

Does it prove Israeli warnings right? Probably. But no one would want to mention that.

The outflow of the young, smart secular Shi'i Lebanese, Christians and Sunnis will speed up as everyone abandons the Cedar Republic to the occupiers.

Long live Nasrallah, ruler over a spoilt kingdom.

bech said...

"smart and secular"? this soldier-who-is-no-longer-killing-in-a-country has a good sense of humor!

rb said...

"...trying to perpetuate the whole Israel is always innocent mythology." Me?

Ahh yes, that theme runs through everything I've ever written. Well-spotted, mo ;)

Anonymous said...

SNLI
I think some of the assertions you are coming out with arent backed up by the evidence:
1) I'm wondering what your source is for the $400m Iranian funding? I thought it was closer to $100m - a large amount of course
2) US aid to the Lebanese government is in any event $750m - substantially higher (i'll didg out a source for this if you wish, I dont think its disputed though)

As it stands I dont really believe either M8 or m14 are simply proxies of foreign powers.



Most fundamentally though - do you honestly think the actions of the last few days would have happened if the Government hadnt said they were going to dismantle the telecommunicatiosn network - which to my mind politically is little different to them stating they would raid Hezbollah's weapons caches

Also - do you really think Hezbollah's aim is to occupy non-shia areas of Lebanon Gaza style?
I honestly don't think that is credible


FWIW I do sympathise with your point that a militia within a stae is not viable long term, but that there were other ways of dealing with this. For many Shia I think the M14 actions smack of an attempt to emaasculate their community, rather than simply an act of good governance.

Cheers
Andy

sean said...

@ Bech: I'm curious as to how you can justify what happened to Future TV. I don't know if you're watching Kalam an-Nass, but I find the whole situation scandalous.

sean said...

P.S. I don't know where you live, but I think I'm going to go to Kayane shortly (I really need a drink). So if you'd like to talk about and live in the area, come on out for a beer or two.

mo said...

Anon 6:05, First of all, if you accept Israel is not innocent and that sometimes they are stupid, then why should I not be allowed to have a resistance that is willing tofight and protect my country? And why should I give that up without any guarantees for the future safety if my land and people, irrespective of what you or I believe arethe intentions of Israel?

The actions by the opposition are not the result of one declaration. They are the result of a policy that is attempting to kill them by a thousand cuts. Furthermore, you can choose to believe this or not but even at the outset after Nasrallah's speech, it was not them that fired first.

I do not blame the US and Israel for everything but I do know that both want the resistance disarmed without providing the country any kind of security.

That is simply not acceptable so I cannot criticize them for facing up to an existential threat.


Tourist signs and construction material are maybe not signs of settlement but they are signs of settling in. Israel withdrew of its own volition? You better check your history books again. They could have placed settlements in areas of relative safety? We are talking big towns with multi-storey houses right?

Ill tell you what, if the US stops blocking the sale or donation of proper arms to the army. If they allow the army to have the same deterrence factor as the resistance than I will stand by you in demanding the Resistance disarm.

Anonymous said...

AM, I saw an old ICDC supersoldier drop his AK off the back of a pickup doing about 60. Watched the weapon cartwheel down the road, and then watched him pick it up and drive away. How do you say Function Check in Arabic? I sure hope for his sake that AK reputation for reliability was based on fact. Had another one shoot the windshield out in the vehicle we were standing next to - misfire? He almost crapped his pants when a bunch of SAWs magically pointed at him :).

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

Why should the US allow a single bullet to go to the LF? They won't use it for any good!

Imagine if a militia of white supremacists formed in Virginia and marched on the White House, burned down the Washington Post, shot up Blair House and sealed off Reagan National so that another nation could send in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of materiel that wasn't going through their port in Norfolk.

Do you think our Army would sit by when Congress ordered it to at least grow a pair and return fire?

Now, I verily realize that the Lebanese forces likely would come apart should they actually put a few rounds down range, but if they won't do that what are they good for?

Maybe Lebanon would have "security" (from what? Syria? Certainly not Israel, a nation that wants no part of occupying Lebanon again) if it had an army that would stand up to Hezbollah. It certainly isn't going to face off against Syria.

What I propose for US policy: A four state solution!

Hamas gets Gaza's Hamasistan (Iranian and Syrian embassies the only international recognition); Hizbollah gets Nasrallastan in south Lebanon (sorry everyone else living there); Abbas gets his Palestinian Authority state; and anyone currently in Lebanon who doesn't want to put up with Nasrallah gets their own state, which will be called "Lebanon."

After that, Hamas and Hizbollah can carry on a "resistance" no one else really cares about because they have their own states (likely increasingly affluent, akin to Israel), and if they want to carry water for the Iranians or Syrians at least no one will be discussing "Shebaa Farms" or other fictions ginned up as real issues.

Nasrallastan can be a cause, not a state, which the rest of Lebanon will be. When the IDF cracks it every once in awhile like a rotten egg, at least Nasrallastan won't bring suffering down on everyone else.

Anonymous said...

"Hamas gets Gaza's Hamasistan (Iranian and Syrian embassies the only international recognition);"
Hamas was elected with a democratic majority, but that was unacceptable to Israel the US, and to you.
"to coordinate with internal and external allies to destabilize any nascent democratic government."
Can you say "Dahlan?" Sure you can.

"Why should the US allow"
Why should Iran allow.
Why should Syria allow.
Why should Israel allow.
But rilly! Hey!
Why should Hizbollah allow? Why should the Palestinians allow?

As Pierre Gemayel said: "They have the quantity but we have the quality." And Americans are all about quality. You support "quality"

Soldiernolongeriniraq said...

Hamas was elected and immediately resumed its war with Israel by targeting civilians. Then they targeted followers of Abbas, ethnically cleansing Gaza of its remaining Christians and not a few Sunni Palestinians tied to the wrong tribes, families and ideologies (Fatah).

The civil war that erupted throughout Gaza wasn't an Israeli plot, but the natural recourse of Hamasistan taking over an already difficult corner of the world.

So, let Gaza go its own way. Egypt won't protest too long, once Cairo finishes its $100 million wall (no one likes to discuss that).

Let Hizbollah go its own way, too. The rest of Lebanon will be the better for it.

Anonymous said...

Mo,

Anon 6:05, First of all, if you accept Israel is not innocent and that sometimes they are stupid, then why should I not be allowed to have a resistance that is willing tofight and protect my country?

HA is "protecting" Lebanon ATM? Really? How can you have any doubt as to why so many Lebanese believe Hizbollah is more interested in itself than Lebanon?

The actions by the opposition are not the result of one declaration. They are the result of a policy that is attempting to kill them by a thousand cuts. Furthermore, you can choose to believe this or not but even at the outset after Nasrallah's speech, it was not them that fired first.

Oh, the "he did it first" argument. Sorry doesn't wash.

You know what, Mo? Hezbollah is just like Israel. It's a big, arrogant, overly sensitive bully that overreacts to provocation. "Thousand cuts?" What BS. That's Israel talking. It just like Israeli justifications for its dominant military force, nukes, and punitive expeditions where it kills 10 civilians to get one fighter. Hizbollah has become Israel. You deserve eachother. I wish you could fight to the end-of-days and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

Ill tell you what, if the US stops blocking the sale or donation of proper arms to the army. If they allow the army to have the same deterrence factor as the resistance than I will stand by you in demanding the Resistance disarm.

Now you're talking more sense, but this is a goose-egg situation.

Anonymous said...

Soldier
there are still practicing christians in gaza & hamas didnt immediately start attacking israeli citizens again - if you remember the israelis acted first by withholding tax revenue

(I'll admit Hamas are idiots who attack civilians however)

Also, I dont mean to be a pedant but you keep saying "lebanese forces" LF etc. I could be wrong but I think that is the name/acronym usually reserved for Gaegea's militia, whereas I believe you mean the Lebanese army?
(who didnt do too much vis-a-vis israel when they were trying to "turn the clock back twenty years" in 2006, although I note you didnt cite that as proof of its impotence).

Laters
Andy

mo said...

anon,
Hezbollah is just like Israel. It's a big, arrogant, overly sensitive bully that overreacts to provocation?

I get the feeling that you will be offended by them no matter what. While the 2 can claim to be surrounded by hostile conspiracies at least Israel is not truly fighting an existentialist threat from all but a handful of nations and the UN.

And whether you or the no more than 50% of Lebanese who support m14 believe it or like it, the people of the South of the country do believe Hizballah protects Lebanon and since it is they that will bear the brunt of any Israeli attack their wishes supersedes yours or anyone sitting in a cushy villa in Rabieh.

Anonymous said...

And whether you or the no more than 50% of Lebanese who support m14 believe it or like it, the people of the South of the country do believe Hizballah protects Lebanon and since it is they that will bear the brunt of any Israeli attack their wishes supersedes yours or anyone sitting in a cushy villa in Rabieh.

Who says I support M14? They're a bunch of corrupt fuckheads, but after Hizbollah (the "resistance") attacking its own people I'll take them over you any day.

You don't get it - what is Hizbollah protecting right now? Hamra! Aren't we lucky.

HA isn't protecting shit anymore - it used to, not now. Now its a force for destabilization turning it's foreign-supplied arms on its brothers. HA is the force that will bring Israel back into Lebanon and they will be better prepared this time. You call it a deterrent - how did that work out for you in 2006? HA miscalculated then with a stupid and unnecessary provocation and the Israelis in their stupidity overreacted and Lebanon paid the price. Paid the price for YOUR fuckup. Now M14 miscalculates and HA overreacts and again Lebanon pays the price. It's beautiful irony if it weren't so tragic.

Anonymous said...

One more thing. This is what gives me faint hope. I will wait and see what happens.

Kilo said...

That sirs, is the only way to hunt trout.