Center for a New American Security

I'm still waiting to see and hear Stan McChrystal's talk.

Hahahaha, Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith, Jr... This guy never fails to amuse me. He's still cranky some journalists in Beirut outed him as a fabulist, ending his gig with the National Review:

According to the FOX segment, Friday, “Hizballah reportedly has operatives in the United States. Two years ago, a Hizballah agent was arrested after infiltrating the FBI and CIA.”

True. Though few Americans are actually aware of this, thanks to a heavily financed counter-media, propaganda, and disinformation campaign aimed at soft-soaping the Lebanon-based, Iranian-Syrian-supported terrorist organization as simply a Lebanese political party with guns; and – as a part of that campaign – discrediting or destroying anyone who might aggressively take Hizballah to task.

You can read more about the on-again, off-again relationship Colonel Junior has with the truth here, here, here, and here. But let's take what Colonel Junior says about Hizballah seriously in order to get into a broader question. How big a threat does this organization represent to the United States and its interests?

First off, let's dismiss the idea that some conspiracy is somehow keeping news of Hizballah's capabilities out of the news. When Colonel Junior defended his rather incredible and hilarious claim that 5,000 (!) Hizballah gunmen had staged a show of force in (Christian) East Beirut in 2007, he and his defenders maintained he was only reporting something that was "taboo" and that other journalists were paid not to report. Yet when Hizballah actually did take over neighborhoods in Beirut the next year (in real life, as opposed to in someone's imagination), it was front-page news around the world. (1, 2, 3, etc.) Second, there are, in fact, plenty of journalists in Beirut who do receive regular stipends from parties both within and outside of Lebanon. These parties, however -- and let's see if I can put this delicately -- aren't exactly allies of Hizballah. They, in fact, have agendae in Lebanon quite opposed to Hizballah. Speaking more openly, much of the media in the Arabic-speaking world is backed by Saudi funders. This may come as news to Colonel Junior, but those funders do not exactly share common cause with Iran and Hizballah and have no interest in keeping anti-Hizballah news out of the public discourse.

Moving on, the notion that Hizballah somehow represents an equal or greater threat to the United States and its interests than al-Qaeda is wrong. On the one hand, I agree with Michael Chertoff, Richard Armitage and even Colonel Junior when they argue Hizballah's capabilities exceed those of al-Qaeda. This is almost certainly true. But they have thus far not demonstrated the same intent as al-Qaeda to conduct large-scale expeditionary operations outside the Arabic-speaking world. (The 1992 and 1994 bombings stand out as aberrations. I hope Hizballah is not planning on seeking revenge for Imad Mughniyeh in a similar way, because that would be pretty stupid.)

Having spent a good deal of time in Lebanon and now writing from Jerusalem, I believe Hizballah represents the greatest threat to, primarily, the peoples of Lebanon and then, secondarily, the peoples of Israel. The "culture of resistance" that Hizballah has developed over the past 30 years, I fear, condemns both the Lebanese and the Israelis to a war without end. Studying statements made by Hizballah officials down through the years, it is hard to conclude that Hizballah's raison d'être is anything other than armed conflict with the State of Israel. That should worry Israelis and Lebanese -- including many of Hizballah's supporters in southern Lebanon, who suffered more than anyone in 1993, 1996 and 2006 -- that even if Hizballah's leadership should decide that armed conflict is no longer in the rational interests of the organization or the Shia of Lebanon, it will be awfully difficult to change the organizational culture. All of those young men who signed up with Hizballah in the wake of the 2006 war, for example, did not do so merely to direct traffic in the Dahiyeh. For the Israelis, meanwhile, Hizballah will likely never constitute an existential threat. But they will be a rather annoying and deadly violent non-state actor on its northern border for whom no real military solution exists. You can march north and beat Hizballah around for a few weeks, sure, and you can even level the Dahiyeh. But in doing so, does that merely feed into the narrative Hizballah tries to sell its constituents and other Lebanese? In this light, we're right to pity both the residents of Kiryat Shimona and the residents of Bint Jbeil.

From the perspective of the United States, meanwhile, I think Hizballah does constitute a threat to our interests, though not in the alarmist way it is reported on Fox News. (I know two wonderful people who report from abroad for Fox News, but my colleague Bob Kaplan justly evicerates the channel's ability to explain the world to Americans: "Then there is Fox, with its jingoistic, meatloaf provincialism straight out of an earlier, black-and-white era. Could Fox cover the world as Al Jazeera does, but from a different, American-nationalist perspective? No, because what makes Fox so provincial is its utter lack of interest in the outside world in the first place, except where that world directly and obviously affects American power. What use does Fox have for Niger River rebels or dispossessed Indian farmers?")

The threat posed to U.S. interests, as I see them, is two-fold:

1. Hizballah has been strategically adrift since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. One of the many mistakes they have made is to take a more regional approach to activities. This includes everything from the train-and-equip missions they ran for Shia militias in Iraq to the similar mission they run for Palestinian groups. Hizballah, in other words, is employing the indirect approach against U.S. interests in the region. They are not conducting attacks themselves, but they have most certainly been helping those who would. I think this is a terrible mistake for Hizballah and is not in the interests of Lebanon or its Shia community, but Hassan Nasrallah doesn't really ask me for advice. If he did, I would have similarly counseled against kidnapping Israeli soldiers and using one's arms against other Lebanese parties as well.

2. Hizballah continues to be the model organization for those violent non-state actors which seek to challenge the United States and its allies. They have provided a blueprint not just for Hamas or militias in Iraq but for "resistance" groups everywhere. So even though U.S. defense analysts probably overstudy the 2006 war, they are right to suspect that in the future, opponents of the United States will try to emulate Hizballah's successes.

You'll note that at no point in this rambling post did I discuss Hizballah activities in West Africa or South America. I hear Hizballah is active in these regions, but a) I do not know enough about them and b) I have not seen much evidence that Hizballah is doing more than what the U.S. government would classify as terror financing as opposed to terror operations. I know, in other words, that Hizballah sends money back from the United States, South America, West Africa and elsewhere. But I have not seen any compelling evidence that they are plotting actual attacks in any of those regions. Maybe I'm wrong, but again, I have not seen any compelling evidence.

This was a difficult week for me, so I apologize for not posting very often. A bunch of stuff, over the course of the week, piled up in my inbox. Here is a sampling:

1. Gian Gentile and Tom Ricks agree on something! Seriously, they both think that you should read this article by noted military historian Dick Kohn on the decline of the U.S. military. By the way, and speaking of Tom, do you know what classic essay I re-read not too long ago? This one.
   
2. Reader SNLII point out this amusing public affairs release. What, Pelosi didn't attend?
3. And finally, some of you may have heard about the bat**** crazy story being reported on al-Manar about how the CIA assassinated Rafik Hariri. A version of the report, in its full translated hilarity, is reprinted below:

   Dick Cheney, the name that always pops up whenever there is talk about a serious crime someplace in the world. Well, Cheney had his own death squad CIA unit which he ran from the white house. By Cheney's orders, the assassinations unit killed former Lebanese minister and Lebanese Forces chief Elie Hobeika on the 24th of January 2002 and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on the 14th of March 2005, prominent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen said. Madsen who is known for his close ties with active circles in the CIA, was speaking to the Russia Today television when he revealed that the same squad that had assassinated Hobeika in coordination with former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's office, had also assassinated Hariri. "This is something that I have heard about five years ago from CIA sources," Madsen said. "I reported in 2004-2005 that the CIA unit linked to the White House was responsible for coordinating the assassinations in Lebanon of former Christian leader Elie Hobeika and also the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, and that this was done in close coordination with a similar unit operated by then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's office in Jerusalem," Madsen said. In 2002, Hobeika was to travel to The Hague to testify against Sharon on the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut. However in 2005, the assassination of Hariri was meant to trigger an exceptionally favorable circumstance to destabilize Lebanon, swoop up Syria, build a US base in North Lebanon and get rid of resistance movements in the region, namely Hezbollah that was haunting Sharon. What Madsen had revealed has drawn storms of reactions that demand Cheney be prosecuted. Madsen founded his revelations on the information uncovered by American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and released them after establishing them. On the 3rd of last March in Minnesota, Hersh revealed that a secret Delta Force Commandos unit known as the 'Assassinations Wing" and Frogmen units have been assigned to carry out assassinations around the world even without passing by the Secretary of Defense and apart from the Pentagon; only through Cheney's office. "It's a special wing of our special operations' community that is set independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Clinton and Bush days. They reported directly to the Cheney office...It's an executive assassination ring essentially and it's been going on and on," Hersh said. "From what Hersh revealed, it was definitely Dick Cheney at the very top of that structure. What I had reported back in 2004-2005 was that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, he was involved along with deputy National Security Adviser in the Bush administration, people may recall, Elliot Abrams and he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal and was indicted in that scandal, but he was pardoned by the former president George H.W. Bush" In 2005, Madsen cited one "key source' in his report and said that "a number of intelligence sources have reported that assassinations of foreign leaders like Hariri and Hobeika are ultimately authorized by two key White House officials, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams. In addition, Abrams is the key liaison between the White House and Sharon's office for such covert operations, including political assassinations and Abrams is the guy the Israelis go to for a wink and a nod for such ops." The new revelations opened new doors on the assassination cases that have plagued Lebanon for over four decades and highlight hypotheses - mainly with regards to the Hariri assassination - that some Lebanese had concealed for the benefit of canned political accusations.

Several things in today's Post caught my eye this morning:

1. We should all applaud Phillip Bennett for his excellent observation that in all the books written on America's war in Iraq, the main characters are invariably American and not Iraqi. War may be the way Americans have traditionally learned geography, but six years on in Iraq, the average American still knows little of the people with whom our fates have been intertwined for the past two decades. It's so very bizarre. (Although a similar phenomenon occurred in reporting from Vietnam, Bennett notes.) There has been a wealth of good books written on the Iraq War, but very few of them -- such as Anthony's Shadid's Night Draws Near -- really tell the stories of Iraqis themselves.

2. Walter Pincus surveys some of the Arab media -- though not so much the Arabic-language media (most of his sources were in English) -- and discovers the Arab World thinks the Israel Lobby was behind the downfall of Chas Freeman. Charles Lane of the Post's editorial staff thinks Obama needs to respond to this charge. I'm not going to get knee-deep into that tar pit, but touching it with a ten-foot pole, allow me to note that Aaron David Miller probably had the wisest words on L'Affair Freeman. Whether or not Freeman's downfall was due to the "Israel Lobby" in the end -- rather than, say, his statements on China or ties to Saudi Arabia -- is unclear. What is clear is that at a time when the Obama Administration is contemplating major diplomatic and military moves in the Middle East that directly affect Israel's interests -- engagement with Syria, negotiations with Iran, etc. -- some of Israel's biggest supporters in the United States elected to spend their energy on ... a position that really isn't all that important. Talk about taking one's eyes off the ball.

3. Okay, this was in yesterday's Post, but there was an article on the most recent GAO report into cost overruns on the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). The lead contractors on FCS are Boeing and SAIC. SAIC's executive vice president for government affairs, Arnold Punaro, is rumored to be the next Army Secretary. It is my understanding that Punaro is a great American, but frankly, I do not see how his potential nomination overcomes this conflict of interests. Which, combined with the fact that I am a southerner and the Obama Administration needs more of those, should be enough to ensure that I am the next Secretary of the Army. (It's mostly a ceremonial title, yes?)

Marc Lynch -- in his wheelhouse -- has the full run-down on Obama's appearance on al-Arabiyya. He also makes a great point at the end of his post, which is that this should be the final nail in al-Hurra's coffin. After 500 million dollars and years of investment, we have to consider America's Arabic-language television channel to be a dismal failure when the incoming president chooses another outlet to make his first address to the Arabic-speaking world. Enough already. Pull the plug.

Did Tom Friedman really just describe Future TV as "progressive"? Really? Progressive in, uh, what way? Because it has the word "future" in its name?

Abu Muqawama thought Hizbollah shutting the station down was just as cowardly and thuggish as anyone, but let's be honest -- Future TV and al-Mustaqbal newspaper are sectarian propaganda organs for March 14th and the Hariri family.

Friedman then went on to say that Hizbollah shut down Future TV so that its "propaganda machine could dominate the airwaves." Are you kidding me? Is that the way it works in Lebanon, Tom? Have you been back since 1984? There are only two news stations there now, huh? Did LBC fold up shop and emigrate to France? And are al-Arabiyya and al-Jazeera unavailable?

Stupid stuff like this in the first four paragraphs of a newspaper column is enough to make Abu Muqawama quit reading. So if Friedman said anything smart in the rest of the column, let us know.

Update: Charlie, here. For those of you who enjoy shooting Friedman fish in a barrel (always great sport), be sure to check out this classic review of The World is Flat.

"His [Friedman's] description of the early 90s:

The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been—but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.

How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?

Four hundred and 73 pages of this, folks. Is there no God?"

That's a title that brings back memories of the dark old days in the 1980s when Western journalists were taken hostage and sometimes killed. But this program on al-Jazeera (English) is on the challenge Lebanese journalists currently face when reporting from within a highly-sectarian environment. Abu Muqawama has some sympathy, but maybe it would help if news anchors weren't caught expressing joy at the latest assassination on the air -- or at least made sure their microphones are off first. Abu Muqawama can't believe this journalist from al-Jazeera reported this story without also mentioning this.

Abu Muqawama has been meaning to plug this new blog, Arabic Media Shack, for a while now. The author comments on events in the Middle East, but what's really useful are the English-language summaries of the Arabic-language media he writes. If you guys think Abu Muqawama spends his day watching Faisal al-Kasim or reading as-Safir, you're crazy. The stuff he reads in English takes up most of the day. So a lot of you folks interested in articles on security and terrorism and insurgency in Arabic might want to check this blog out.

Arab Media & Society has a special online feature covering the new regulations passed by the wise Arab rulers to prevent networks like al-Jazeera from saying anything controversial ever again. You may not be a big fan of al-Jazeera, but if the Saudis figure out a way to stifle the freedom of speech on what Marc Lynch calls the "new Arab media," that will be a bad thing for everyone from democracy promoters to human rights activists to even counter-insurgents. Abu Muqawama holds al-Jazeera responsible for fanning the flames of sectarianism since 2003, sure, but he also recognizes a good long-term trend when he sees one. Repression of political speech is only going to lead to more radical Islamists in the Arab world, and it's hard for this blogger not to be cynical about these new regulations.

Disagree? Sound off in the comments. But read this first.

By now you're all read a lot of articles on Prince Harry and the media blackout which accompanied his tour in Afghanistan. Here are two more things you should read: One, Bob Bateman lets loose on Matt Drudge over at Small Wars Journal. Two, the Times of London examines how the Arab media has reacted to the third-in-line serving on the front lines. For Abdelbari Atwan, editor of a newspaper published in London that is realiably opposed to Anglo-American foriegn policy and has been known to voice support for the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Harry's service meant another good opportunity to lament the state of Arab leadership.

“He is giving a good example to his own people. He’s endangering his life and he’s not scared to fight for his country,” Mr Atwan said, addding that the newspaper had contrasted “the brother of the future British king fighting without publicity” to “Arab royal families who prefer to stay in their palaces and enjoy the oil wealth of their countries”.