Eye on Lebanon: Military option [in Lebanon] is not an option

When negotiations started in Lebanon, people here were content, hoping that a new political agreement will help them get on with life. Their problems are the problems most, if not all, have with generalized corruption, lack of jobs, the need to attract investors etc. Without armed clashes, tourists will flock to Lebanon, and that will help stabilize the economy. That should have happened, but it did not.

Both sides went home and started to bicker over everything and anything they have agreed on. The euphoria dissipated and the problems remained. In spite of the ongoing negotiations, the clashes outside Beirut continued. I think that such incidents will become a normal occurrence. The latest erupted on Sunday [22 June 2008] between the Bab al-Tebbaneh and Jabal Mohsen in Tripoli.

I remember reading back in 2007 that Hassan Nasrallah issued a statement (via al Manar) saying that anyone who carries a weapon in the face of his Lebanese brother is an Israeli. (January, 2007, AnNahar)  Now that Hizballah broke its promise and used the weapons internally, are they Israeli? How about that for a twist?

The Sunnis said that they feel completely humiliated by the Shi’ites, and that is something they can't forget. The Sunni militias are no match for Hizballah, but that does not mean that next time (if there will be a next time), they'll sit idle and watch. Thus, Hizballah is trying to shift the focus from the fact that it crossed a red line. The excuse is that it prevented a conspiracy against the "resistance", but, really, what Hizballah did was an irreversible damage to its reputation.

I am really surprised that the mainstream media did not cover the fact that in the Chouf, thanks to Druzi resilience and Walid Jumblatt's gambit, Hizballah and company were defeated. Hizballah attacked on three fronts and failed on all three. That should make Hizballah's leadership realize that there is a difference between the message they serve to the masses and reality.

If Hizballah refuses to disarm, or to incorporate their fighters into the army, there is nothing that can be achieved by force. Unless the international community sends troops there, and even in this case, what can they do? Take the houses one by one? How do you fight loyalty to a cause? To an ideology? With arms? I don't think so. The military option is not a real option.

However, I never quite understood why America wants to keep the Lebanese army weak. If the excuse is Hizballah, then its just rubbish. The army is a pillar of a state, any state. Why sabotage Lebanon?

Nickolas Noe (mideaswire.com Editor) said that: [
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18noe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print]

Unfortunately, even though the Bush administration has provided more than $300 million in tactical aid to Lebanon since the Syrian withdrawal of 2005, it still apparently refuses to provide the kind of strategic weapons" guided rockets, tanks, modern artillery and intelligence-gathering equipment that are desperately needed in this task. During her visit to Beirut this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't even mention the issue.

The reason for this, American and Lebanese officials say privately, is a longstanding prohibition against supplying Lebanese forces with advanced equipment that could be used against Israel. This "red line" remains even though Hizbullah has far more dangerous weaponry, and despite Washington's commitment to build up the authority of the state. It is a testament to how short-sighted and contradictory the American approach to Lebanon has been.

President Assad said that Syria may open an embassy in Lebanon, if a national unity government is formed. The signs are not promising, and Assad is stalling for time, as he usually does. It's no coincidence that Assad wants the embassy to be in Ain Mreisseh district, where the US Embassy was located in the 1980s before it was destroyed.

Meanwhile, French President Nicholas Sarkozy suggested Assad was on the right path (please!) and invited him to France. Sarkozy has internal problems, and he wants to push the Mediterranean Union, so, while in theory he is still with the US condemning Syria for its maneuvering in Lebanon, practice shows he is shifting away from the US policy in the region.

Israel offered to talk directly to Lebanon about the Shebaa Farms and the Kfar Shouba hills. President Suleiman refused, as did Premier Saniora. A poor move, if you ask me. After all, Hizballah negotiates with Israel, and some of the Arab nations have some sort of relationship with Israel. Why not Lebanon?

The caretaker cabinet, once formed, together with President Michel Suleiman have to come out and explain, where they want to take Lebanon? What's the strategy? Is there any vision? If it is, is it one of appeasement [towards Hizballah, the Arab nations, etc] or are they seeking to stand tall and neutral? Are they capable enough to be sovereign and independent in practice and not only theory?