Losing Lebanon

"Those who want to help the Lebanese Army , but place conditions on how their funds or weapons are used (i.e. not against Israel), should keep their money."
Elias Murr, Defense Minister of Lebanon (1)

"We..believe that investing in the Lebanese.... military serves as a stabilizing influence and strengthens Lebanon's sovereignty."
Phillip J Crowley, spokesman for the US Department of State (1)

The first quote indicates that our side has lost the struggle to keep Lebanon out of the Arab-Iranian alliance against Israel, and the second quote shows that our government does not yet know it.

Since 2005 the US has provided the Lebanese military with over $400 million in military aid, about $100 per citizen, a figure second only to per-capita military aid to Israel. (2) Congress cut-off military aid to Lebanon earlier this month after a Lebanese soldier killed an Israeli soldier and wounded several others in a border clash. But just what military threat does Lebanon face?

Lebanon is on Israel's northern border and is otherwise surrounded by Syria and the Mediterranean Sea. Syria, which has treated the tiny republic like a wayward province, occupied Lebanon's Bekaa Valley with over 15,000 troops until pressured to withdraw by the Western powers in 2005. However, Syria still wields major political influence in the country through its non-uniformed agents and Hezbollah (the Party of Allah), the militia of the Shiite population. Since Hezbollah is a major factor in the Lebanese government (a Hezbollah-led alliance finished second in the 2009 parliamentary election), the use of Lebanese armed forces to disarm or otherwise restrain Hezbollah would rekindle the Civil War, which tore the country asunder between 1975 and 1990. Similarly, the prospect of the 75,000-man Lebanese Army defending the country against Syria, the top supplier to Hezbollah, is absurd.

So why does the Lebanese military need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American arms and ammunition? The answer, unfortunately, is on the sole remaining border: that with Israel. While the US government has considered the Lebanese military a counterweight to the growing power of Hezbollah and other Muslim militias in the country, the statement by the Defense Minister shows that the present government will use its arms only against its real enemy: Israel. The border clash noted above, combined with the abject failure of Lebanese forces to keep Hezbollah out of the southern zone that borders Israel, confirms this conclusion.

Lebanon is a deeply divided country: about 28% Sunni Muslim, another 28% Shiite, 39% Christian (mainly Maronite) and 5% Druze. (2) During the late 1970's Israel tried to form an alliance with Lebanese Christians against the Palestinians and other Muslims, but that effort failed. Today, most Lebanese Christian politicians are aligned with Syria or Hezbollah. Although large numbers of Lebanese resent Hezbollah for starting a war with Israel in 2006, I believe that most hate Israel even more for the extensive bombing of the country, whose effects remain to this day in many southern villages.

If the Lebanese Army will do nothing to restrain Hezbollah, there is no reason to resume military aid to the country, which will just be used against Israel in case of another war. Although I pray for peace three times a day, I believe that Hezbollah will launch a rocket attack against Israel in the near future. That is because the Shiite militia has acquired about 40,000 rockets, and the impulse to use them cannot be resisted indefinitely. However, I also believe that the IDF will use any Hezbollah attack as a pretext to bomb Iran's nuclear reactors and missile sites, triggering a full-scale Mideast war that will probably involve Syria as well.

Our only hope for peace is that Iranian and Syrian leaders will use their influence to restrain Hezbollah, if only to prevent Israeli bombs and missiles from landing on their heads. This situation is eerily similar to the that of the summer of 1914, when the party with the least to lose (the Bosnian Serbs) were able to spark a terrible war with just one act of violence.

I just hope I am wrong!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) National Council of Young Israel, Aug. 18, 2010 e-mail.

(2) Wikipedia article on Lebanon.

Is Peace At Hand?

"(President George W) Bush called Monday (July 16) for an international conference in the Fall aimed at restarting peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians............
( President Beshir) Assad said Syria was ready for peace talks with Israel, but only in the presence of.....an honest broker." (1)

The only thing more dangerous than Syrians talking war is Syrians talking peace. But is Bush right in believing that times are propitious for a peace settlement in the Middle East, and is Syria really ready to play a constructive role in achieving it?

Here are some of the key players in the drama:

Hezbollah. Nearly a year has passed since the Shiiite militia killed and captured Israeli soldiers near the Lebanese border, and responded to the Israeli invasion that followed by lobbing rockets into Israeli cities. Although Hezbollah achieved a propaganda victory by avoiding total defeat in over a month of fighting with Israel, the militia is now sharing southern Lebanon with UN and Lebanese government forces. Syria has acted as a conduit for money and weapons between Iran and Hezbollah for years, and the "Party of Allah" is Syria's "cat's paw" in Beirut politics.
If Israel withdraws from the Golan Heights without foreign peacekeeping troops replacing the Israelis, what is to stop Hezbollah from moving rockets into Golan and firing them into Israel?
Given Syria's alliance with Iran, which supports Hezbollah's jihad against Israel, can Syria be trusted to safeguard this frontier?

Hamas: Syria permits Hamas leader Khaled Meshal to speak from Damascus. Although Hamas has denounced the very idea of peace talks with Israel, it is likely that Syria will run interference for the Islamic movement at the conference.
Thanks to the efforts of President Bush, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has an elective government, but that did not stop Hamas from seizing control of Gaza by brute force anyway. It is possible that before too long, Hamas might win control of the West Bank as well, either by the ballot or the bullet.

Fatah: When Fatah is described as "corrupt", one might think that its cops are fixing speeding tickets or its building inspectors are taking bribes from slum landlords to ignore code violations. What is meant by Fatah corruption is theft of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars meant for the Palestinian people by a few insiders. For example, Yassir Arafat, a man from modest circumstances who worked full-time for Fatah, PLO and the PA nearly all his adult life, left an estate of several billion dollars. Interior Minister Dahlan is suspected of embezzling over $100 million. The mass misery in the PA is largely due to this thievery, which has been a major factor in the rise of Hamas.
If you were a Palestinian Muslim, who would you like better?

Israel: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, like a drunken gambler, has bet all his chips, his house, his garage, and his sukah on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. Not only has he agreed to release 250 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, he dropped charges against another 178 wanted terrorists based only on their promise to abandon terrorism and join Fatah.
Now, that's amnesty!
President Bush is probably unhappy with his 29% approval rating in recent polls, but Olmert would be ecstatic with anywhere near 29% support from Israelis. I think his approval rating is higher in Ramallah than in Tel Aviv right now.Olmert remains in office only because most members of Knesset are too chicken to face parliamentary elections before they have to.
The trouble with the Olmert strategy in backing Fatah is that the more Abbas is seen as a tool of Israel, the less credibility he has with his own people, and the more chance Hamas has to replace him.

United States: The US is so desperate for help in stabilizing Iraq that we are now making diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria. The Syrians may have concluded that the US is willing to lean hard on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights if Syria will co-operate on Iraq. This might explain Syria's interest in seeking a settlement with Israel now, while American troops are still in Iraq. The Syrians, along with everyone else, know that the US presence in Iraq will be over within about the next two years, so the leverage Damascus has with Washington now will not last long.
Now in his last 18 months as President, George W Bush would like to solve the Middle East conflict before leaving office. To do so would enhance his legacy, so deeply marred by the mess in nearby Iraq. The trouble is that his clout with Israel (bolstered by nearly $2 billion of aid per year) is not matched by any sort of influence with the parties that oppose peace: Hamas, Hezbolah, or Iran. Even those who may make a peace settlement, namely Syria and Fatah, may be unable or unwilling to impose peace upon the jihadists in their midst.

The worst-case scenario is that a peace settlement results in Hezbollah on the Golan and Hamas (or Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) in power on the West Bank. I yearn for a negotiated settlement, but unlike Mr Bush, I am not so confident that peace is at hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 18, page 12A.

Landslide for Assad

Syrian voters have re-elected President Bashar Assad with an astounding 97.62 percent of the vote. No "hanging-chad" recount needed in Damascus! Since Assad was unopposed, voters could only vote Yes or No on retaining the former ophthalmologist for another seven-year term. Even without a contest, Syria reported a 95% turnout in the May 27 election, compared to about 50% in the typical US presidential balloting. Assad's approval rating easily beats that of George W Bush (about 30%) and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (about 3%).

Despite lack of any military or administrative experience, Bashar Assad was chosen President of Syria in 2000 upon the death of his father, Hafez Assad, who seized power in a military coup in 1968. Like North Korea, Syria maintains the trappings of a republic, but when the ruler dies, power passes to his son, as in a monarchy. The Assad family belongs to the minority Alawite sect, which dominates Syrian military and internal security forces. On the surface, support for the Assads appears virtually unanimous, but I suspect that below this calm surface lies a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction suppressed by fear of the state security forces.

President Assad has kept his country independent and at peace since taking office, but he faces an unfriendly international environment. Here is the rundown:

Lebanon: The Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon in 2005 under heavy international pressure after the assassination of former Lebanese Primier Rafik Harriri. The UN is continuing to investigate charges of Syrian responsibility for the murder, and Assad has refused to co-operate. Syria continues to arm and support the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and is believed to have numerous civilian spies and operatives in the country.

Israel: The loss of the Golan Heights (about one percent of Syria's land) to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War is an ongoing humiliation to Damascus. Syria fought to regain the territory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but lost again. Of the countries that fought Israel in 1967, Syria is the only one that maintains a state of belligerency toward the Jewish state. Despite reports of informal talks between Syrian and Israeli officials early this year, no public negotiations have taken place.
Some Israelis have claimed that Syria's acquisition of new long-range missiles is a sign that Damascus is planning another war, but I doubt that Bashar Assad is that stupid or reckless. Hafez Assad avoided war with Israeli forces in Lebanon in the early 1980's, even when the Israelis were only a few kilometers from Syrian positions in the Bekaa Valley. My prediction is that Assad II will follow his father's cautious policy, even while fomenting a proxy war via Hezbollah.

United States: Although Syria is properly included on the US list of countries that support terrorism, Damascus is helping US efforts against Al Qaida. (1) In fact, the US has extradited some suspected terrorists to Syria, where they have been tortured into co-operating. Terrorists and insurgents have been entering western Iraq from Syria, but Syria denies allowing them to do so. Assad must be concerned that factional fighting in Iraq could spill over the border into his country, possibly destabilizing his regime.
A few years ago it seemed likely that President Bush would target Syria for regime-change, perhaps using Iraq as a base. The ongoing debacle in Iraq, increasingly unpopular in Congress, makes this very, very improbable today.
Meanwhile, President Assad has been a charming host to visiting Americans, such as Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Darrel Issa (R-CA). He also gave NBC News reporter Diane Sawyer an hour-long exclusive interview. Diplomatic contacts between Damascus and Washington about Iraq have been reported .
It appears that Assad is trying hard to keep the US happy, while maintaining his standing among Arab hard-liners by supporting Hezbollah against Israel. So far, it seems to be working.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Al Qaida in Iraq has been involved in massacres of Shiites. Since Iran is a Shiite state, it is presumably pressuring Syria into taking action against Al Qaida, which has been infiltrating Iraq from Syria. Since Iran is Syria's only ally, Damascus will listen to Tehran on this.
So the US, Iran and Syria are all united against Al Qaida. The Middle East produces strange alliances.