The Fakeout
Kevin Drum slams Jacques Chirac's apparent flip-flop over making a major French contribution to a beefed-up UNIFIL. I'm not so sure by any means. It seems to me that French diplomacy over the past couple of weeks has been fairly brilliant.
The war in Lebanon, as wars so often are, was the result of a serious double miscalculation. First, Hezbollah clearly failed to anticipate how Israel would respond to their cross-border raid. In turn, Israel clearly failed to anticipate how difficult it would be to mount a major anti-Hezbollah operation in Lebanon. And, indeed, the miscalculations were surely interlinked. Hezbollah correctly assessed how difficult it would be for Israel to mount a massive retaliation and therefore banked on Israel not retaliating massively.
The resulting war was a disaster for both sides. Israel really was significantly hurting Hezbollah. But it was doing so at a massive cost to itself in terms of lives lost and money spent. Hezbollah was bound to start running low on rockets and Israel running low on things to bomb. The situation was heading in the direction of grinding, endless guerilla conflict that would have been exceedingly costly and essentially hopeless from the Israeli perspective while also imperiling everything Hezbollah's built itself into in southern Lebanon.
Each side had reason to regret the conflict's existence. Both sides would have been made better off by calling "do over" and returning to the status quo ante. But neither side wanted to back down. Nor would it have been easy for either side to do so since the coalition Hezbollah/Syria/Iran team won't negotiate with the Israel/USA coalition and vice versa.
Enter France.
In essence, through two consecutive bait-and-switches -- first over the wording of a UN resolution, and second over the deployment of French troops to Lebanon -- France managed to get both parties to agree to a return to the status quo ante, which is better for both sides (that's why the tricks worked), but that neither side could admit to wanting. That's a pretty good result, especially considering that Chirac spent essentially none of France's resources achieving it.
Now, yes, it's true that it would be nice for some gigantic crew of foreigners to come into Lebanon, disarm Hezbollah, police the border, and create a giant, happy, stable democracy at peace with its neighbors. But nobody really knows how to pull this off. The internal political balance in Lebanon is extremely delicate. Nobody -- not Israel, not France, not the United States, not even Hezbollah's patrons -- was or is in a position to actually destroy or disarm Hezbollah absent a wider reform of all of Lebanon. The two most recent revisions to the Lebanese domestic scene -- the Taif Accords and the Cedar Revolution -- both deliberately involved wink-wink acceptance of Hezbollah's militia in exchange for Shiites not demanding the level of political power in Beirut that demographic realities would suggest. And -- with good reason -- nobody wants to open up the pandora's box of Lebanese consociationalism for further revisions.
The resulting situation -- which is the same as the pre-war situation -- is totally unsatisfactory and sub-optimal for all kinds of reasons. But it's the best resolution anyone really knows how to arrange for a very complicated situation that could (and, in the past, has) swiftly degenerated into horrifying bloodshed and anarchy.
French diplomacy would have been brilliant if it accomplished a cease fire in less than a month.
August 18, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a pretty good result, especially considering that Chirac spent essentially none of France's resources achieving it.
Except for making France look foolish to everyone (except Matthew) for such a bait and switch.
August 18, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for making France look foolish to everyone (except Matthew) for such a bait and switch.
I fail to see any foolishness. Perhaps, as Kevin says, Chirac looks like a wanker. But as Matt notes, the wankery managed (a) to stop the fighting, and (b) to avoid jeopardizing significant numbers of French troops. We should have such foolish leadership in America.
UPDATE: D'oh! I keep forgetting to use the nested reply feature. Sorry, y'all.
August 18, 2006 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can argue that the world is better off by France pulling this apparent deception, but it seems difficult to argue that France's prestige is improved--unless America and Israel are "in" on the con, which strikes me as unlikely. Chirac definitely seems like a "what's in it for France" kind of guy (not that I blame him for that, it's only rational) and from that perspective I'm failing to see how this is rational for him. Certainly if war breaks out again in the near term, Chirac's "brilliance" is disproven.
August 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly if war breaks out again in the near term, Chirac's "brilliance" is disproven.
Given that France isn't going to lead the force, I am somewhat skeptical that there will be a UN force at all. Is that a given? How many troops have been volunteered so far? Certainly not 15,000.
And if there is no 15,000-man UN force, will the cease-fire hold?
August 18, 2006 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matt's right that both Israel and Hezbollah wanted out of this war, and that the UN force was proposed as a fig leaf allowing the Israelis to call off the dogs without admitting that they were stuck. The ceasfire will probably hold, even in the absence of extra peackeepers, because Hezbollah doesn't want to bring down similar fury on their heads again.
August 18, 2006 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question arises how much will our own corrupt leaders push Israel to fight and fling rhetoric if there IS no UN force. Remember, many of these idiots were urging an expansion to Syria.
I think Chirac has underestimated the madness and power of the administration neocons and the needs of domestic concerns to hold on to power to save their own necks from the Hague.
August 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am somewhat skeptical that France's prestige has much to do with the Bush administration's opinion. As Pundit noted below, the U.S. seemed quite content to allow Israel to continue its efforts. Some supporters of the war on this side of the Atlantic even proposed an expansion, something the Israeli leadership would not allow. Even now, an investigation has been launched into the handling of the war.
Whether it was a masterful chess move on Chirac's part or a calculated self-interested bank-shot that Chirac decided no one, in the interest of preserving the real if tenuous stand-down, would call him on, it's still a far sight better than the alternatives.
The other possibility is that this could raise French prestige among the foreign policy pros in the U.S. government. The U.S. has been called on to respond and step in to mediate the following, something the Bush administration would be hard-pressed to justify given their absolutist rhetoric on "negotiations" with any entity they disapprove of, state or otherwise. With France stepping in, the U.S. avoids another public round of tortured pretzel-logic and the Israelis and Lebanese get to come out from the bomb shelters and return home.
That said, a return to fighting is a loss for everyone; Chirac, Israel and especially the Lebanese people.
August 18, 2006 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how Hezbollah lost this war. True, Lebanon's delicately built up infrastructure was smashed, but now Hezbollah can gain even more political credit for helping rebuild (which it has already started to do) before the Lebanese government has even made it's aid request.
Politically, Hezbollah emerges as the only party ready to defent Lebanese sovereignty and as heroes to the Islamic world for standing up to Israel.
As for the notion that Israel was badly hurting Hezbollah, how exactly? By being unable to stop them from firing rockets? By killing a relative handful of their fighters? They will now have 100 recruits for every one they lost.
Perhaps they were running out of anti-tank rockets, but I didn't read any indication of this and there's also no indication that their supply of long-distance rockets was expended.
In short, peace was good for Lebanon, which means it was good for Hezbollah, and allowed them to consolidate their gains (which appears the real reason they agreed to a cease-fire). But, it doesn't appear that Israel was accomplishing anything significant by it's war, other than smashing Lebanon.
Meanwhile, despite the rhetoric by Israel and the Bush administration, there's simply NO way to prevent Hezbollah from re-supplying and re-equiping its forces. Nothing in the current cease-fire is going to patrol the long Lebanese-Syrian border, so weapons of all kinds can easily be infiltrated.
Israel is demanding that Hezbollah be disarmed, but there's no way to enforce that either. Israeli statements that they will re-start the war if Hezbollah isn't disarmed are vain boasts. They will shortly be too busy fending off votes of no-confidence in the government and demands for the defense minister to resign because of this fiasco to re-start the war.
In any case it's difficult to see how round 2 would be any better than the first!
August 18, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Consociationalism"?
Methinks you read too many political science textbooks. Speak English, please, if only for the sake of us non-jargon-y people out there. Wikipedia, here I come...
But otherwise, I have to say I'm impressed. Good post.
August 18, 2006 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other possibility is that this could raise French prestige among the foreign policy pros in the U.S. government.
Good point...nice post.
But on the quoted portion of your post...
Possible but improbable. Not with Rice and Bolton in charge of our foreign policy...and since they have the final say they are the only ones in the current administration who matter. I think it enhances France's prestige in Europe and the rest of the world as an emerging leader on the world stage. A position the US has abdicated...
August 18, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I could tell a lie, look foolish and stop a war, I would do it everytime.
August 18, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly. To most of the world, France now looks like a very clever country indeed, and a force for sanity and stability. They outfoxed and outmaneuvered Bolton and the US and helped end a war which nobody wanted except some hardliners in Washinton and Tel Aviv on the one side, and some other hardliners in Tehran, Damascus and South Beirut on the other.
August 18, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely Dworkin. Nicely analyzed.
And honestly, how many people are there out there who are enthusiastic about an international force running around southern Lebanon "disarming" Hizbollah? That would require a very aggressive military campaign. Do you think anybody but the Israelis and some Americans conceived this cease fire as some sort of Israeli "hand-off" to the international community, with that community taking up the war aims of the Israelis?
August 18, 2006 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must disagree that this result represents a return to the status quo ante. There will now be Lebanese forces in southern Lebanon, and renewed international commitment to arming them and building up the Lebanese state. Syrias's position in Lebanon has probably been further weakened. There will also be a renewed effort to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue, and the Israelis will probably not be looking over the border at Hizbollah snipers for a while.
But on the other hand, Hizbollah has improved its political standing in Lebanon. There will be no Lebanese effort to disarm Hizbollah.
There will be French troops too. As I understand it, what France is now arguing is that it won't deploy without very clear statement of the rules of engagement. Now that the deal is done, and the cease fire is in place, France rightly recognized that is is time to get real and get precise about what this international force is supposed to do.
And what most people really want is a peacekeeping force to help the Lebanese separate the Israelis and Hizbollah and keep them in neutral corners. They don't want a force that is there to make war on Hizbollah.
August 18, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all owe Matthew a big thank you for expanding our vocabulary. I laughingly googled that word, one I had never heard of before, knowing he had misspelled it as usual. Nope: see wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 18, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also...
The French created Lebannon. They carved it off of Syria in 1920. And Syria has tried to regain control of it ever since. This is probably why W thought Syria was the country to talk to about ending the conflict in Lebannon.
Anyway, because French troops have an historic connotation in the region it is an especially bad idea to have a significant French force blockading Syrian transport of weapons into Lebannon.
So before Chirac could step up, he needed all parties to ask him to. And that's what he got.
Pretty clever...
August 21, 2006 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read once how one can do serious smuggling. Most of cargo is moved in sealed containers, and at the border, or in the port, some of the containers are opened at random.
That is, almost random. Custom people may be tipped, and generously rewarded, as to which containers should not be opened. The beauty of the arrangement is that a flat rate per container can be established, which leads to predictable costs -- and the revenue stream for the custom people. Regular customers presumably know well the schedule of the inspectors -- to avoid rare non-bribable individuals, and the higher ups can be generously rewarded too. Assorted contraband can be packed in the containers, stolen cars, drugs, cigarettes, illegal workers, so why not weapons as well. If anything, weapon smuggling should be much better organized, and inducements for cooperation much stronger.
In Lebanon it used to be that every militia had its own sea port which would simplify the arragements, and Hezbolah probably has its own land crossings. What we can expect in the near future are huge cargoes of cement, construction steel and assorted other materials for the reconstruction activity.
August 21, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, Lebanon is much older than France. King Solomon had considerable commerce with Lebanon, for example. My impression is that Lebanon has no problem with citizens who would rather be Syrians --- they exists, but as a distinct minority. Another impression that I got was that Syria NEVER tried to absorb Lebanon, even as it tried to be the local hegemon.
August 21, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the rituals in conflicts with ceasefires is that both sides loudly proclaim how unnecessary the ceasefire is, how well would they screw the enemy if not the @#$%&* ceasefire etc.
If Bolton was indeed "outfoxed" it could happen only with the full cooperation of State Department. My bet, however, is that he was out of the loop. Placing Bolton out of the loop is the first hint USA can make that it treats some negotiations seriously.
August 21, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to register viewers' reactions to the kabuki theater in the Levant.
Within the world of the sane, you have, at one extreme, Gail Collins and Lee Feinstein, who are being either naive or disingenuous. Dunno.
At the other end you have Matt, who tries hard to be both smart and grownup and succeeds on both counts. Matt's analysis should be the starting point of the discussion. Now let me take it one step further.
Bush does not really want France in South Lebanon.
Say what?
First, Bush realizes that UNIFIL on steroids was a nice diplomatic ploy to get a ceasefire but it's truly the dumbest idea one has ever heard!
So many reasons why. But consider just this one:
Claim: any country with troops in a UNIFIL on steroids becomes de facto hostage to Iran's policies. Therefore, any hope Bush might have of a tough united front against Iran this fall will be gone. If you've got troops in South Lebanon with funny blue hats, you just play nice with Iran. Period.
So there's bluff on all 3 sides (US/Israel/UN). The only thing that would make France change its tack would be if it got from the UN Nato-like rules of engagement. That's because France hates Hezbollah's guts, but it won't take them on, unless it can take them on.
But, hey, let Prodi take the lead and let Collins/Feinstein praise his leadership.
The clueless in praise of the irrelevant.
August 21, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it won't. Say you're Lebanese. Would you rather have war now, war in a year, and peace in between, or would you rather have continuous war from today all the way through to the end? Even a ceasefire that doesn't "hold" is better than no ceasefire at all.
August 21, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the French government is deeply concerned about Al's opinion of it.
August 21, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"First, Hezbollah clearly failed to anticipate how Israel would respond to their cross-border raid. "
I see this kind of thing written quite a lot, but I have to ask, how do you or anyone else know this? Did Hezbollah seem caught offguard by the Israeli invastion? If so, Yahweh help the IDF if they are prepared for it next time. Did they come out of it in an enhanced position? Isn't that taken for granted by everyone except Idiot Boy? Then how can you say they didn't expect it?
If there's anything we should have learned from the last 6 years, it's that Islamic fundamentalists are very good at exploiting our knee-jerk reactions to provocations. OBL wanted to suck us into a military quagmire in the Middle East that undermined the legitimacy of the pupper regimes there and has succeeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He can even dictate the outcome of our presidential elections by pretending to back the candidate he wants to lose (see Suskind's One Percent Doctrine). Yet for some reason we continue to think that we, not they, are in the strategic driver's seat. I think that's a very foolish assumption.
August 21, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hezbollah clearly failed to anticipate how Israel would respond to their cross-border raid."
I'm too lazy to try to check this up right now, but people in my surrounding seem to be convinced that it was Hamas that made a cross-border raid, but that Hezbollah killed and captured IDF-troops that had transgressed the border of Lebanon.
Friends more initiated than me (i.e. Arab speakers and Lebanese ex-pats) also argue that Hezbollah and the Lebanese government naturally were much more keen on getting an end to the hostilities since the war was carried out in Lebanon, not in Israel, and it was the Lebanese society and civilians who really suffered while the Israeli civilians were only scared and the Israeli infrastructure remains intact.
In other words: Not shortage of arms, but destruction of infrastructure, homes and lifes were the strongest reason why the Lebanese badly wanted a pause.
I am, by the way, not sure it is helpful to view Hezbollah (Allah's party) as a priori a guerilla movement, a resistance, or a terrorism network. I believe it might be more informative to characterize them as a religious, social and political movement that also has a para-military arm.
(No-one I know say they support Hezbollah's political goals, but some have respect for their social work - and now, after this last war, surely many more respect them as the true protector of Lebanon.)
August 22, 2006 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink