Beirut Is Burning

If there were ever a perfect example of the Bush administration's utterly bankrupt, and provably impotent, foreign policy, it would have to be the State Department's reaction to events in Beirut over the last few days. The laughably weak U.S.-backed Lebanese government, in what can only be described as a moment of insanity, decided last week to take on Hezbollah by cutting off their private telephone network, an act that Hassan Nasrallah, perhaps the Arab world's most popular leader, described as an act of war. And war he brought, completely taking over West Beirut in a matter of hours, and humiliating the hapless pro-Western government and its allies. And what was the U.S. up to as Beirut burned? This, according to the New York Times:
"Ms. Rice and other Bush administration officials were on the phone Friday with their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. A senior administration official said the United States, which barely talks to Syria, Iran or Hezbollah, which the Bush administration considers a terrorist organization, was trying to use its Arab allies to send a message to Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon."

Trying to use its Arab allies to send a message to Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon. Hmm. I'm sure Supreme Leader Khamenei is quaking in his slippers, and President Assad in his bespoke brogues. Hezbollah was indeed created by Iran in the early eighties, and has been supported by her and Syria ever since (and it might be good to remember that one of Sheikh Nasrallah's official titles, perhaps his most important, is "Representative of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in Lebanon." That would be Ayatollah Khamenei. And Hezbollah's flag shares a symbol with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, their mentors.) But Hezbollah, which in the minds of at least most of the Muslim World handed Israel it's first real military defeat, this week proved what everyone, except the Bush administration and the Lebanese government, already knew: there will be no peace in Lebanon, nor will there be real peace between Lebanon and Israel, without Hezbollah. And yet our government will not speak to Hezbollah, nor will it speak to its creator, Iran. It can pick up the phone, however, and beg its Arab allies to ask Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon. Does that message come with a please? Does America still really believe that Iran is afraid of her?

A couple of months ago, after the latest UN resolution on Iran's nuclear program passed, I was chatting with a senior Iranian diplomat. He asked me if I thought America really believed that Iran, or Iranians, were afraid of the U.S. "Don't they know us?" he asked. He asked another diplomat in the room to tell me how old he was when he went to the front during Iran-Iraq war. "Sixteen," replied the other diplomat. "And how old was your brother when he was martyred at the front?" continued the first diplomat. "Fourteen," was the soft reply, and I saw the diplomat fight back tears. "This," said the first diplomat, making a gesture, "is who we are. We have seen the worst. Do you think we're now afraid of anything? Do the Americans really think that threats will work on us?"

Send a message...stop interfering in Lebanon. And this is what American foreign policy has come to. There are still three candidates in the U.S. presidential race, and two of them would continue the Bush foreign policy with respect to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Senator Barack Obama, however, who has indicated that he would at least speak to our adversaries, might be able to do more than just beg, through intermediaries, that they stop embarrassing us.

Comments

[Horst]

Lebanon has been a mess for a very long time. The current crisis has little to do with the Bush administration. America has very little influence there, especially when compared with that of Syria, Iran and Israel.

[iratior]

On the basis of the news reports, it seems as though the Lebanon crisis was provoked by a government leader who demanded that Hezbollah give up the private telephone service it had created. Now as a matter of principle, what is supposed to be so bad about having a private telephone service? For the government to demand that it be shut down seems tantamount to demanding, say, that an organization's newspaper be shut down. It's no wonder that violence broke out; the government was trying to conduct an operation which, were something similar to occur in the United States, might well be denounced as a massive violation of First Amendment rights. If the goal of democracy in the Middle East were to be sincerely embraced (it isn't, of course) by the Bush administration, then all opinions, even Hezbollah's for example, would be allowed. And if the Bush administration put the Lebanese government up to doing what it did, the violence is all the fault of Bush, not the "radical Jihadists".

[marymansour]

This is such a hard hitting and sound editorial piece. I, along with millions of Americans, have watched as the Bush administration created havoc in the Middle East and had no idea of how to deal with matters in that part of the world. The abominable ignorance of Bush and the outrageous greed and disregard of Cheney have been benchmarks of this regime.

I have long been an Obama supporter and the fact that he states that he will speak with Iran and others in the Middle East is wonderful to hear and I believe him. I believe if this country has the good sense to move past the racial divides (recently magnified by Hillary Clinton) and see this wonderful man for what he is - our chance for peace with our global neighbors - It will be a new day of reaching out and making agreements with countries like Iran and Syria.

[mamacat]

After the Republican fiasco with the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, why would anyone, anywhere in the world, trust anything that anyone in this administration says concerning reality in the world of foreign affairs? They have shown themselves to be shameless liars and deceivers, unmindful of the misery they cause in the world, and intent on furthering an agenda that is part right-wing insanity and part religious insanity.
How many times are we going to believe the right-wing lies as justification for policies that are anti-democratic and anti-humanitarian? The Republican doctrine has so far amounted to declaring everyone outside of our borders potential adversaries, with whom it is better to wage war than to conduct diplomacy.

First they attacked the Taliban, then Saddam, now they want to attack Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, based on a litany of charges but little or no proof. Meanwhile, al Qaeda is mostly ignored.
And, is there any chance that whoever replaces Bush will be any less militaristic, or any more ethical?

[Torus34]

We must always be mindful of the difference between the Bush Administration failing to act in a meaningful way and actually acting in a meaningful way.

In every instance when this dichotomy is in play, one must consider which is the lesser of two evils.

[mbjesq]

This failure of US foreign policy is both procedural and substantive.

The utter abandonment of anything resembling diplomacy by this administration will long be considered one of the most tragic and baffling non-strategies in the the history of international politics. The neglectfulness of pivotal situations in Lebanon has considerable precedent for Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice (http://memestreamblog.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/lebanon-overlooked-centerfold-of-neoconservative-wet-dreams/), as when the Syrian assassination of Lebonese politician George Hawi was dismissed with the almost incomprehensible chiding that Syrian "need to knock it off" (http://memestreamblog.wordpress.com/2005/06/21/knock-it-off/).

[representativepress]

The media sells wars so watch out for talk which assumes US gov. has the right to use force when it doesn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs&feature=PlayList&p=F27FA785849F73A7&index=1
Mainstream Media Isn't reporting this!: Statements by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials about Israel President Ahmadinejad and several Iranian officials have repeatedly made clear that they are not threatening to attack Israel. Iranian President Ahmadinejad did NOT threaten to use force against Israel. He DIDN'T threaten to attack Israel. It is outrageous and dangerous how 60 Minutes and nearly all of mainstream media continue to misrepresent what he has said.

[keriheb]

Your article is insulting! President Bush was at a wedding for his daughter these past few days! How dare you! Plus this is mother's day. It is important for the president to spend some quality time with his mother. SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA, oh, what is your name anyway? Well what ever it is, shame on you. How dare you think the POTUS should leave the wedding reception and deal with Lebanon.

Further, POTUS called the Saudis and told them what to do. They have that vaunted army, which has been sold all tons of military hardware, and dozens and dozens of jets, which are primed and ready for war. Considering bin Laden is a Saudi himself, the Saudis can threaten to send another team of terrorists from his village in a plane to crash it into one of Lebanon's tall buildings if they don't behave themselves.

Oh are their any tall building left after the Israeli bombardment in Lebanon? Plus summer is coming and it is time for another war. A new war might give McCain's campaign a shot in the arm. McCain is short on what to do with the economy but long on war - didn't he say 100 years? With the election coming close, a new war might be just what the doctor ordered.

[cylindar]

I agree with you. As a US citizen I am often appalled at the disrespect and disregard the politicians in my country have shown to others and their heritage and history. If the results of the meddling were not so terrible I could almost consider it a comedy act. In fact however the US politicians plays a dangerous game which is not to anyones benefit.

[dr4Will]

bush has screwed up everything he has touched in the middle east---the right wing jerks who have made money off his stupid moves continue to support his money making moves--they are a group of people who's only statement of citizenship is greed and repugs forever--ethics left them on their first corrupt buck!!

[pavehawkdoc]

I always enjoy foreign policy discussions that blame every event in the world as a product of the incompetent Bush administration. Of course, the Middle East remains a catastrophic mess but Clinton set the stage with his own failed foreign policies with respect to Lebanon. Future Presidential Appeaser "let's talk to everybody" Obama has no foreign policy other than wanting to chat with every dictator and terrorist in that area of the world. That is not a realistic recipe for change. Pres. Bush has bravely stuck his neck out for posterity to change the status quo for the Middle East. Talk alone without the promise of military power if need be is a waste of time. Negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas are perceived by them as weakness and they will exploit a Pres Obama just as the Iranians humiliated a similarly naive Jimmy Carter.

Bringing the Arab and Persian worlds into the 21st Century will not be easy nor bloodless. Dictators never go without a fight. Words are not going to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands and if Obama thinks otherwise he is still smoking some stuff from Hawaii. The world has just learned that the Syrians were on their way to acquiring nukes if not for the Israelis. Isolation and pacifism are not options for a global superpower and our chief ally in the area, Israel, which is facing its most dangerous threat since its birth.

[mamacat]

Bush isn't trying to bring anybody into the 21st century. He is trying to return us to the the world of 19th century gun-boat diplomacy. So, the U.S. now has the right to dictate to the rest of the world?

"Dictators never go without a fight." Which has nothing to do with Iran, with it's democratically elected government.

I do not enjoy foreign policy discussions which do not involve reality.

[Lemeritus]

Thank you, mamacat.

Comments such as "the Middle East remains a catastrophic mess but Clinton set the stage with his own failed foreign policies with respect to Lebanon" show little understanding of the historic tribulations Western countries have faced in meddling in the area -- difficulties which far, far predate anything Clinton may or may not have done. And while we cannot argue that Bush has "change[d] the status quo for the Middle East", it was neither bravely done nor anything for which posterity will thank him.

Perhaps "[i]solation and pacifism are not options for a global superpower", but it should be noted that the same president who championed gunboat diplomacy also advocated "talking softly" while carrying a big stick.

[Durango]

Clinton? Clinton?

Why not Ronald Reagan? Saint Ronald who And then totally screwed up our standing in Lebanon. And then skeedaddled like a scared rat. But then threw gasoline back on the fire by trading arms for hostages (we WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS? Unless we do)

And by selling arms to our Enemy Iran, pissed off our alleged ally Saddam, who later became our worst enemy. Excpet for Osama Bin Ladin who we don't really need to worry about.

Excuse me. My head is beginning to hurt trying to follow the logic.

Oh, BTW Shouldn't we blame Eisenhower? The Republican who "started" all the problems?

[Oceancal]

Beirut? F*&k Lebanon....

We have our hands full here at home. It"s past the time for these folks who don't like what's happening in their countries to do something for themselves.

Bring our resources and solders home NOW!!

That includes the entire Middle East...Israel.....


OC

Go Obama

[Greup]

Well the whole point with the Bush Middle east policy is to do what you suggest: To bring our rescources home. The rescource is Oil and it our no matter where its occuring.

[imadf]

I - living in Beirut - agree w/ Hooman's observations. You know how when you are who you are, and living where you live (inside the US) it becomes hard to see youself from the outside? Well, from the middle east, lord we (USA) look sooooooooo ridiculous w/ our "statements" of support, and how inflammatory we are, and ridiculous we look when we back-up thugs that represent crap in the field!!!! Do we ever back up someone who is popular?????????????? will we ever? (the puppet gov't here is hated by most and clings to f$$king power like flies to sewage)

God help us Americans exporting our brands of "democracy" as we miserably peddle crap. Better yet, Obama: pls get to that office and be different than all this chain of crap, "ruling" in our drudged-in-the-mud name. Put Carter as your foreign secretary. Nelson Mandela as your adviser. Help.

[ApolloSpeaks]

IT'S WAR TO THE DEATH, GET USE TO IT

Talking to Nazrallah and Khamenie would be the equivalent of negotiating with Hitler and Tojo in the middle of World War II. Get use to it: we are in a war to the death with our jihadist enemies. Those who think otherwise will come to their senses sooner or later.

[Durango]

Get a grip.

[ApolloSpeaks]

I'm gripping reality with both hands, friend.

[SadButWiser]

The wise among us is fully convinced that the US Government has absolutely no interest in peace in the Middle East. Peace does not serve the interest of the War Industry, who would be the most to lose if peace reigns in the region. As long as there is oil, there will be money. As long as there is money, there will be customers. And as long as there are customers, there will be weapons to be sold. To succeed, keep the status quo.