Lebanon: Another Violent Takeover In The Middle East Undermines Bush’s Freedom Agenda
Lebanon: Another Violent Takeover In The Middle East Undermines Bush’s Freedom Agenda
Our guest blogger is Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Armed gunmen from the Shi’a Lebanese Hezbollah movement have seized control of the streets in the Lebanese capital city today, surrounding the homes and offices of Sunni and Druze leaders in Western Beirut. This week’s clashes represented the worst violence since Lebanon’s civil war and demonstrated how far the situation has deteriorated in the three years since the Cedar Revolution brought much hope for change in this divided country.
Coming in advance of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East next week, the instability in Lebanon is a reminder of the dangers that can emerge from neglect and inattention and an approach to the Middle East too heavily focused on Iraq. Less than a year after the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, another Middle Eastern civil war in bubbling over – this time with a group that some have called the “A team” of global terrorists which has used violence to seize control of the capital city – hardly the result President Bush was hoping for when he prematurely declared that freedom was on the march in Lebanon and elsewhere in 2005. Ironically, the global trends in freedom have stalled and retrenched on President Bush’s watch, according to Freedom House.
How did the situation in Lebanon deteriorate so rapidly? The immediate cause: the Lebanese government confronted Hezbollah, a group that receives backing from Syria and Iran, by declaring the group’s private communications network illegal and replacing the airport security chief because of his alleged ties to militant groups. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed that this amounted to a “declaration of war,” and his movement’s fighters took the fight to the streets against Lebanese government security forces.
But there were numerous and early warning signs that Lebanon was a tinderbox. A year and a half ago, Jordan’s King Abdullah came to Washington and warned of the possibility of three civil wars – between Iraqis, Palestinians, and Lebanese. In the afterglow of the Cedar Revolution, long-standing Lebanese internal divisions endured, and assassinations and political murders, including the November 2006 killing of Christian political leader Pierre Gemayal, continued. In the past year, a deadlock over power-sharing between Lebanese political factions has left the country without a new president.
As the Center’s Middle East Bulletin has highlighted on numerous occasions, the internal divisions in Lebanon has created a dangerous vacuum. Addressing it requires a comprehensive approach with engagement by the United States, countries in the region, and other global powers. Last March’s poorly-attended Arab League summit in Damascus did not result in any concrete plan for addressing the deadlock; no way forward was developed to help Lebanese factions bridge internal divides.
The violence in Lebanon demonstrates more than ever the need for sustained and continued U.S. engagement to stabilize the Middle East. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton outlined a strategy for a comprehensive regional diplomacy aimed at managing and resolving conflicts in the Middle East – pragmatically recognizing that the challenges in Iraq could not be dealt with in isolation of what happens in places like Lebanon.
3 Responses to “Lebanon: Another Violent Takeover In The Middle East Undermines Bush’s Freedom Agenda”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
I have to say this post was a a very poor analysis of the situation in Lebenon. I am very surprised, because I really expect better of Think Progress. This post buys into too many rightwing talking points, western conventional wisdom, and does little real analysis of what is happening in Lebenon.
I understand that we are supposed to automatically be scared of Hezbollah; but why? I know conventional wisdom is that Hezbollah is the “A team” of global terrorists, but I again ask why? The only act of global terrorism that Hezbollah is even accused of is the bombings in Argentina, and the evidence provided in that is slim and very questionable.
How come the analysis of the situation in Lebanon never touches the real issues that are causing the upheaval in Lebanon? Take for example that the Shi’a population in Lebanon is the majority, yet are denied appropriate representation in the Lebanese government. That reconstruction money and other aid that has been supplied to Lebenon after the Israeli invasion has been slow (if at all) to go to the south where the most damage was felt.
Even your assertion concerning the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas was skewed. Hamas was actually the elected government in the Palestinian authority, and it is now known that Fatah was actually attempting to overthrow the Hamas government with the support of the US, Israel, and Egypt. It was not Hamas that led a coup, but Fatah. Fatah lost and Gaza is now paying the price.
In no way do I want to defend all the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, but I feel that we in the United States are too quick to say Hamas and Hezbollah are evil and so all actions taken by them are inherently bad.
There are a lot of issues taking place in that troubled region, and we are little served by shallow analysis that only offers a rehash of poor reporting.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm1. “The only act of global terrorism that Hezbollah is even accused of is the bombings in Argentina….”
Hezbollah has been linked to a series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other targets for the past three decades – including a series of kidnappings of Westerns in Lebanon in the 1980s, the suicide truck bombing that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines in 1983; the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight that resulted in the death of a U.S. Navy seaman; TWO attacks in Argentina – and this doesn’t even mention its July 2006 raid on a border post in northern Israel as well as numerous violent acts against Lebanese civilians and credible ties to militias and other elements involved in Iraq’s internal conflicts. That doesn’t mention the recent NIE on terrorism that cited Hezbollah’s capacities to strike globally. Yes, they are also a force in Lebanese society, and yes, the Shi’a are under-represented. But to applaud or assent to the movement’s actions this past week seems not only muddle-headed but also setting a dangerous precedent.
2. “Hamas was actually the elected government in the Palestinian authority, and it is now known that Fatah was actually attempting to overthrow the Hamas government with the support of the US, Israel, and Egypt.”
Yes, Hamas was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and formed a government headed by the prime minister, but it used violence to oust the legitimate Palestinian Authority security forces, controlled by President Abbas. It is hard to dispute that Hamas used force in an attempt to change the agreed-upon rules of the game and structures set into place. It’s not right wing to call what Hamas did a coup – Palestinians called it this, as well as countries in the region.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pmWhen a foreign power sends its military to intervene in another country it is likely to meet violent resistance. If a foreign power landed troops in the U.S. they would be met with violent resistance. Well…the U.S sent its marines into Beirut, they got attacked, Reagan got the message and left. He didn’t want another potential Vietnam on his hands. Confronting foreign military intervention with violent domestic resistance seems pretty legitimate to me.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pm