Stop Interfering in Lebanon!
No, this message isn't addressed to Syria, it's addressed to the WH and Congress, including the Democrats. We're not talking about political interference, evidently it's the right of America to interfere with the internals of sovereign nations while warning other nations against doing the same. This is about the semi-secret plans to fund, train and arm faux al-Qaeda groups to perpetuate terrorist attacks on Hezbollah and presumably, Hamas.
Seymour Hersh wrote about this last month in the New Yorker, but the recent visits of American politicians to the ME have revealed more details according to this analysis/translation of an article penned by a former Lebanese Minister.
From the "Missing Links" blog:
"As a "substitute" for not being able to strike Iran, the Bush administration plans an escalation in Lebanon. And here he mentions two specific points: (1) Tom Lantos said they are convinced Hizbullah is weak and this is the time to step up efforts to disarm it. (2) An airport in northern Lebanon will be used as a base for pressuring Syria, and also as a place for training of groups opposed to Hizbullah and opposed to anti-Abbas elements in Palestine. Then there was this:
It was learned from influential members of the US delegations that the Washington special[-forces] apparatus has begun assembling, arming and training members of Islamic extremist groups to undertake assaults on Hizbullah, in the framework of the conflict that it [the Bush administration] plans between the Sunni and the Shiite population, in districts where the two groups are contiguous. And it will be arranged to camouflage the agents in this by attributing the attacks to AlQaeda.
The writer's conclusion is that these exchanges with the American visitors confirmed that the Bush administration will not allow there to be any compromise in the dispute between the Hizbullah-led opposition and the Hariri administration over poser-sharing, new elections and so on. Rather, the US administration will be working hard to promote confrontation, as part of its region-wide policy of fostering Sunni-Shiite conflict. In this context, the writer doesn't seem to regard the covert sponsorship of fake-AlQaeda US agents to be anything but one more ingredient in the overall plan."
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/
More dirty wars, this time in the OT and Lebanon. Democrats will have blood on their hands if they support these tactics and would give little hope that a future Democratic administration can repair America's reputation by backing terrorism in order to carve the Middle East into shapes more pleasing to Israeli hardliners and some of our so-called "moderate" Arab allies.
if Seymour Hersh is your only source of confirmation for this report, i'd wait for more credible verification.
April 19, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Hersh is often wrong, but often enough gives reason to look farther. Of course, there is a Heisenbergian quality that observation may cause an operation to be called off, so there is never anything to demonstrate.
My senior cat reminds me that Schroedinger is definitely dead.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 19, 2007 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
? Try reading the post and the link, Brooks. The sources for the NEW information are the congresscritters who were doing spring break in the Levant, not Hersh.
April 19, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Central Intelligence Agency has been authorised to take covert action against Hizbollah as part of a secret plan by President George W. Bush to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified "non-lethal presidential finding" that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora.
The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence officials and members of Congress, have been passed to The Daily Telegraph.
It authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hizbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/10/wleb10.xml
Please note the publication date of the above article.
April 20, 2007 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
nothing makes sense about any of these conclusions. hezbollah has demonstrated they are not weak at all, and the Pentagon knows this. Their greatest strength comes from their popular support which cannot be destroyed by guns.
Having said that, it is Hezbollah who has shown no interest in compromising. They're protecting Syria from being brought to justice, and they are determined to have more government power. Bush can't be blocking a compromise, because a compromise doesn't exist.
The problem with Hezbollah is they have an armed militia, which other parties do not have. This gives them ultimately more power to force their agenda on their fellow Lebanese.
I don't buy that Bush is arming Sunni groups in Lebanon without more confirmation, but if they are it could be simply to achieve a strategic balance.
April 21, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks. I don't think that Lantos' statement related to percieved military weakness on the part of Hezbollah, but to judgements about their current political position within Lebanon. This administration listens only to those who tell them what they want to hear as per usual.
Hezbollah isn't protecting Syria's interests re the tribunal as much as objecting to the UN becoming Lebanon's defacto judicial system. The UK, France and US are pushing the UN Security council for tribunals even before the completion of the UN investigation. The timing is important and tied to the upcoming departures of Blair and Chirac as their support is deemed critical to the sucess of this enterprise.
Hezbollah has attempted to reach compromises although you wouldn't know it from the MSM so-called "reporting" on the situation. The amount of our interference with Lebanese business is rather stunning once one starts to examine the extent and breadth of it.
You may not like it Brooks, but Hezbollah is a legitimate part of Lebanon's political system and accepted as such by the vast majority of Lebanese. Nasrallah has sworn that Hezbollah's weapons will not be used against fellow Lebanese and has proved to be good to his word. That's why he rails against attempts by certain parties to foment civil war.
As for your approval of the attempts by Bush et al, including the Saudis, to acheive "strategic balance" perhaps you should revisit the Israeli attempt to do the same by introducing Hamas into the OT in order to counter Arafat. How's that working out?
Aside from the amorality of condoning more deaths and instability for Lebanon, you may want to consider the dubious notion of introducing and arming radical Islamists affiliated with AQ into areas within spitting distance of Israel. Unifil commanders are concerned about the threat these groups pose to their troops; considering them the most dangerous element to their security. Even Amos Yadlin, head of Israel's military intelligence warned about al-Qaeda's growing presence back in January. Guess what Brooks, al-Qaeda is also far more deadly to Israeli interests than either Hamas or Hezbollah.
Speaking of the Saudis' contributions to this idiotic plan, Jordanian authorities just seized a videotape from an al-Jazeera reporter as he left Amman. The reporter had interviewed a former potential successor to the Hashemite throne Prince Hassan who was complaining about Saudi Prince Bandar's financing of al-Qaeda affiliated groups tasked with attackiing Hezbollah. That would be Bush buddy Bandar. The Jordanian prince also "sharply criticised United States policies in the region as destructive".
Oops.
April 21, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, Hezbollah is legitimate like Hamas is legitimate. Do you actually believe Nasrallah when he says weapons will not be used against Lebanese? If you have the weapons, you don't necessarily have to use them. Intimidation by force does a lot of the work for you.
Consider the fact that 5 journalists and a former prime minister have all been assassinated in the past 2 years in Lebanon. All of them had one thing in common: they opposed Syrian occupation, and some criticized Hezbollah. When a Lebanese TV station broadcast a satire puppet show mocking Nasrallah, Hezbollah thugs were in the streets hours later beating up any Christians they could find. Hezbollah won't use force, as long as they get their way. When they're challenged, the fangs come out.
Consider the fact that Hezbollah, who claims to be a "resistance movement" hasn't put up the slightest resistance to the absolute domination and occupation of their country by Syria. So, Hezbollah demonstrates on a daily basis that they have no problem with foreign intervention in their country -- as long as that intervention has an Islamic face.
Only Shiites for the most part consider Hezbollah as legitimate. The other factions see them as a tool of Syria and Iran, and Nasrallah has basically confirmed this in his speeches.
Hezbollah is the Islamic version of the skin heads. We would condemn any political party affiliated with such hate groups in America, which is why they have no political traction here.
I keep a pretty sharp ear to the news and I've yet to read of any Al Qaeda attacks against Hezbollah. You can correct me if I'm wrong. The Middle East is riddled with rumour, conjecture, and conspiracy. It takes a lot of sifting out the chaff to get to the truth.
April 21, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one ever imagined that anyone would use airplanes as a weapon."
"No one ever imagined the levy would break."
I was going to list a dozen or so more howlers, boners, misstatements, misjudgements, outright lies.
But seriously. What's the point.
They think Hezbollah is weak? When have these guys ever been right about anything.
April 20, 2007 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink