Hezbollah: Why Beirut, and why now?

Your analysis of world events brings to mind a variation on my favorite quote ever. So, misquoting HL Mencken, "For every situation, Pettyfog has an analysis that is neat, simple, and wrong."

The fact is that the phrase "Lebanese government" is an oxymoron. The Confessional style of government that Lebanon "enjoys" consists of several powerful families. Lebanon is, and has been since the French created it, less analygous to a government than it is to New York's "Five Families" in the 1940-70s. Of all the gangs and armies [public and private] in Lebanon, there are only two that have any kind of administration that can deal with day-to-day problems that governments are instituted to deal with. One is Israel and the other is Hesbollah.

Fog, what's happening in West Beirut has been happening for years in Southern Lebanon and it's what's going to happen. When the French left, they set up the Confessional form of government in order to keep the Maronite Catholics in control. They falsified a census, and then based key positions in the government and the military based on ethnicity and religion. The census overrepresented the Catholics and the Sunni then, and it is the realization that an accurate census will put Shiites in most of the power positions that the Catholics and Sunni's hold that is the cause of all the problems in Lebanon since the 1950s.

What's changed is that Lebanon has been replaced as the Islamic Switzerland. Peace and order in Lebanon is not nearly so important as it once was now that several of The Emirates have taken Lebanon's place of importance in the Muslim world.

So, there really is no effective government there now; all there is or has been for a generation is several private armies. Hesbollah is financed by the governments of Iran and Syria to protect the interests and ambitions of the Shiite residents, but what's going on there has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq, or the administration's policy in the Middle East. It's just what happens in The Lebanon.

So, yes, it would be wrong to analyze this as an example of a "failed Bush regional strategy." It was also be wrong to analyze it as "the result of Iran's stooges getting their asses kicked in Iraq." I know you're desperate to support the whole "the surge is working" fantasy, but this linkage is neat, simple, and wrong.

 

Okay, here are the goals of the surge as issued by the White House in Conjunction with the President's speech in January 2007:

According to the "Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq " issued by the White House, "the President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements" as follow:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

Now, 4, 5, and 6 are nebulous enough in wording that it's hard to either prove or refute that they "worked."

As for #3, the primary way we've "isolated extremists" is to pay them off. We could have done that without the extra soldiers. And what in hell happened to the very first two objectives? Are the Iraqis leading while we're just advising? Are the Iraqis protecting their population centers, as opposed to the US Army and Marine Corps?

If the answer to those questions is "yes," then it's time to send most of our front line troops home. If the answer to those questions is "no," THEN THE SURGE ISN'T WORKING.

That's all I'm saying.