Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On America in Lebanon (Updated)
Okay, this is the kind of thing that drives me crazy:
In contrast to 2005, Hezbollah’s adversaries — gathered around Mr. Hariri — have fewer options and less support than they once did, emblematic of the vast changes in Lebanon’s political landscape the past few years. While the Bush administration wholeheartedly backed Mr. Hariri and his allies then, President Obama has not pledged the same kind of support. Syria, whose influence was waning in 2005, has re-emerged in Lebanon, and even its detractors here have sought some kind of relationship with it. Most Lebanese also vividly recall the speed at which Hezbollah and its allies vanquished their foes in just a few days of street fighting in Beirut in May 2008.
How, pray tell, is March 14th weaker with an Obama Administration than they were with a Bush Administration? I ask this because it is now an article of faith that March 14th was once riding high when they had the support of the Bush Administration but that they are now weaker because of tepid support from the Obama Administration. This is crazy talk. The May 2008 events, in which Hizballah and its allies crushed March 14th on the streets of Beirut, took place while George W. Bush was still the president. And our response to that unrest? To park the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Lebanon, only underlining our impotence: in a tough spot, the United States has very few things we can do short of direct military force. So the levers available to policy makers basically amount to a car with two gears: first and fifth, with nothing in between. Unless we want to intervene militarily (like we did in both 1958 and 1983), what else are we going to do? This has nothing to do with the occupant of the White House. This has to do with America's limited influence in a tiny country north of Israel that is peripheral to U.S. interests. I'm all about criticizing this president when he deserves it, but mark my words: opportunists will seize on these events to talk about how America has abandoned her allies without offering ideas for what Obama should do today (or what Bush should have done in 2008) short of intervening directly with military force. In the meantime, shame on the New York Times for reporting on articles of faith and popular perceptions rather than hard facts.
Update: I complain, the New York Times listens. That's the way it happens, readers. I write a critical blog post and BOOM! This happens. Much better, Bobby.
No dispute with your analysis
No dispute with your analysis of the situation in Lebanon, but you give the Grey Lady way too much credit for objectivity. Does anyone really take what's printed in the NYT at face value these days?
Why is it that the United
Why is it that the United States is not supposed to do anything between gears 1 and 5? There are options, and with a little confidence of vision and a strong sense of who we want to support, there is no reason we can't influence little power struggles around the world. That should be especially true when military force is being thought of as a possibility to deal with a situation.
And by options, I mean money, weapons, assassinations, etc. in case that wasn't clear.
There are more options than
There are more options than either Bush's or Obama's stance on Lebanon: A real president would do for Lebanon what Reagan did for Poland. I fail to see how the New York Times comes to the conclusion that Bush "wholeheartedly" supported March 14, but at least he didn't come out in support of Hamas and Hezbollah as Obama did in this very paper. But I seem to remember a recent image of Exum toasting Hezbollah as well. It's a sad reminder of how much support these bastards have in our own country.
Classic NYT garbage. The
Classic NYT garbage. The "Paper of Record" makes a revision without giving reasons for the edit or even making note of it anywhere on the article? This paper only holds esteem and respect in a increasingly small group of of people who fancy them selves and intellectual elites.
I think you are wrong Mr. Exum on the amount of support Bush gave to M14. He did not send troops in ("Gear 5") but at least there was a "Gear 1". His administration never seemed to lift off the gas or put it in "Reverse Gear".
The gear thing reminds me of
The gear thing reminds me of an old french joke.
Hear about the new french tank?
Yup, One forward gear and five reverse.
Why is it that America has to be involved? Why is walking away not an option?
ME oil? Who ever is on top of it will want the business.
Seems to me that America's foreign aid policy is more about defense spending than it is about aid. Just about all the money given to Isreal, Egypt, Mexico, and now Afghanistan is spent on US defense toys.
Maybe not giving AID is the fastest why to reduce violence, long term. How many times has the US stepped on its dick in foreign lands? Only to have to spend more to back out?
I know, hard to get your mind around that when the lobbyest are banging on the door.
Always finding ways to make
Always finding ways to make yourself feel important. You have issues.
You are right there. As I
You are right there. As I recall, it was also the Lebanon Army that entered the picture and put a halt to the standoff in Beirut, by inserting themselves in between the two forces. The NYT even covered this at the time:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/world/middleeast/13lebanon.html
"The Lebanese Army announced on Monday evening that it would start using force to stop fighting between supporters of the governing coalition and the Hezbollah-led opposition, a step the army had not taken during almost a week of sectarian violence that recalled the country’s 15-year civil war."
Then, the U.S. Congress (led by Cantor) blocked aid to the Lebanon Army over some low-grade conflict issue along the border - dumb, dumb, dumb. What happened next? Even the Israelis said Cantor was a moronic wanker playing stupid political games over a sensitive issue:
"2010 11-08 A top aide to Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri harshly criticizes decision by the U.S. Congress to freeze military aid to Lebanon in response to the clash on the Israel-Lebanon border last week that killed an Israel Defense Forces officer. By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz"
Then, the Russians moved in to fill the gap:
"2010 11-10: "Beirut (AP): Lebanon's prime minister says Russia is providing the Lebanese army with free military assistance including helicopters, tanks and a range of munitions. The announcement from Saad Hariri's office followed his talks in Moscow with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin."
Then Cantor recanted - bit late, though...
"It comes a few days after two key members of the US Congress released their holds on USD 100 million in US military aid to the Lebanese army."
Neocon stupidity just doesn't quit. They actually ended up strengthening support for the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran linkage, just as they did in Iraq.
kind of annoying the NYT's
kind of annoying the NYT's didn't make a note that the copy was changed from the original version.
I have cleared many exams to
I have cleared many exams to be expert in website designing such as 642-515 SNAA and 642-975 DCASI also the 642-067 ARSFE as well as the 642-661 BGP but at first we design a Web page and start with a blank page and also place elements on that page. Placement of the elements can be critical to whether the design works or is a dismal failure.
Individuals need to speak
Individuals need to speak about this. International protection ought to never be adopted flippantly. Often the standards these days look to be getting weaker. Impressive article. free movie downloads | free movie download
Add your comment