Hezbollah Coup in Lebanon

[Steel_Tomb]

What news have you guys heard from this? Are we looking at another Lebanese civil war? Or another paramilitary group taking power in the Middle East? They seem to have siezed half of Beruit already, and pro-government forces are outgunned and surrenduring their arms.

If the moderate Government were to fall, I would be awfully concerned if I were an Israeli... especially with Hezbollah's ties to Iran and Syria.

I should imagine Skybird will be over here with a 3000 word essay soon enough ;), what do you guys think of the crisis?

Stories:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080509/tpl-uk-lebanon-43a8d4f.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7391600.stm

[Skybird]

I should imagine Skybird will be over here with a 3000 word essay soon enough ;), what do you guys think of the crisis?

Too late - Skybird already was here! :cool:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=135263&page=4
# 126 ff

[darius359au]

You can check the "prez carter meets hamas" thread, last page :)
By the way, there's no such thing as "pro government forces" in Lebanon, there's just the army and the police. Hezbollah is the only milice to have kept its guns since the civil war. As for "moderate government", not sure what this means either, Lebanon has no president since November 2007, because the pro and anti syrian members of parliament can't find an agreement (president is elected by them, not by the people directly).

Also because any of the anti syrian people that stand up to be the next president or remotely look like they may, usually end up getting murded.

[TheSatyr]

It actually looks like the military chased hezbollah out of Beirut...for the time being anyway. Just have to see how long that lasts.

[Happy Times]

I'd be careful about the medias, I never heard/read so much BS than these days about Lebanon I think. Hezbollah wasn't "chased" by the army, they handed to the army all their checkpoints. In exchange the army has nullified Fouad Siniora's decision to investigate hezbollah's communication network and the decision to replace the chief of security of Beyrouth airport.

:hmm: :rotfl: :damn: :nope:

[Happy Times]

I'd be careful about the medias, I never heard/read so much BS than these days about Lebanon I think. Hezbollah wasn't "chased" by the army, they handed to the army all their checkpoints. In exchange the army has nullified Fouad Siniora's decision to investigate hezbollah's communication network and the decision to replace the chief of security of Beyrouth airport.
:hmm: :rotfl: :damn: :nope:

Did you misunderstand something ?

No, it just funny how they control the airport, would you fly in Beirut?:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Hezbollah surely has an interest to be in control of the airport and it'S security. It helps them regarding "critical transports of goods and persons" in which they have an interest.

Like it also helps that the maritime patrols offshore Lebanon have to report suspicious ships to the Lebanese government instead of controlling them themselves. That way, any smuggler will get a word of warning early enough - or even is safe anyway if the decision is not to control him. The European forces patrolling offshore Lebanon are a farce.

Most smuggling is done via the safe Northern roads anyway. The only ones having an eye on these is the Israeli Air Force (which was just complained about to fly there).

[baggygreen]

I just find it amusing the way that you have the govt and their supporters, then there is the Hezbollah, and THEN theres the army who are neutral in it all.... :doh:

only in the middle east:lol:

[AntEater]

The Hezbollah agreed to withdraw not because they were too weak to take over, but rather a takeover would not produce any advantage over the existing situation. Hezbollah is in control of the territory where Shiites live. The ARE the government there. If they take over the whole country, they have to deal with Christians (smaller but far wealthier than the muslims) and the druze (smaller but the most brutal of them all) and the Sunni muslims (the least problem). Sofar, the Hezbollah never moved agressively against the other religions and their success against Israel even brought them a high reputation among the others. So if they take over the government, they have a religious war on their hands.


Also, the West would certainly react to a Hezbollahstan. I can't imagine Israel taking Beirut, but most likely the US or the French or both would react, maybe even the EU as a whole. The Hezbollah allready enjoys every benefit of being in charge without the risks of it. Problem is, the Hezbollah is not your average semi-ridiculous martyr brigade against which you can produce one-sided bodycounts. Their doctrine considers avoiding casualties as an overriding priority to inflicting losses. Basically, a bit like Mao Tsedong or Che Guevara with guided missiles and modern communications. Maybe the Pasdaran are similar, but Hezbollah actually seems the first time somebody managed to create a genuinely muslim military force that is a match to western forces in discipline and organisations. Previous muslim armies either copied western or soviet armies while ignoring the mind set of their soldiers or were muslim but ignored military efficiency.


In fact, I think the Hezbollah is, in some ways, the most dangerous enemy Israel ever had. Nasrallah may look ridiculous but either he or his advisers are serious military thinkers who managed to build the first arab army to take on Israel. And if you read the Israeli government report on the 2006 war or US analyses of it, it becomes pretty clear who won and who lost. A 3000 man force taking on a modern western style army in regular ground warfare was unheard of before.

I recently read a report from the US Army about 2006 (I'll see if I can dig up the URL) which outlines the flaws of US and Israeli doctrine and how Hezbollah exploited them. Also, the Israeli army apparenlty is not what it used to be. Actually a western invasion of Lebanon would be the best thing, because Hezbollah will grow until it one day can seriously threaten Israel. Problem is, this would be serious warfare. And the US can only hope that the way Hezbollah fights is not a sample of what to expect from the Iranians, who are training them. But I'm not sure wether these successful assymetric tactics are Hezbollah's own or the Iranian's.


Basically, they figured out a way to beat a modern effect-based operations style air campaign and forced the IDF into a conventional ground war with almost zero air support. I only hope israeli and western military strategists have learned their lesson 2006 and have changed their approach. Also, apparently Hezbollah claims to have serious anti-air capability now. Allready in 2006 their Iglas and AA guns pretty much denied the low level air space to the IDF/AF. They could have gone in, but would've suffered losses in the Process and apparently modern air generals have turned Douhet again and think themselves above such trivial things as CAS. CAS didn't happen in 2006.

Now if Hezbollah could come up with an innovative way to use a modern air defence system, things could get ugly. They have access to very modern systems like Iran's Tor-M (SA-15) and if they deploy them, I don't expect them to do it according to the russian manual. SA-15s are normally on a tracked vehicle. I wonder if it would be possible to break down the system into individual components and carry it on pickups or even mules? Phased array antenna on one hill, firing position on the other, or even serveral antennas and each missile in a seperate position.

[Skybird]

Nasrallah is not respected by the other factions due to his success against Israel. He became very popular with the Shia, yes, and even many sunni people admire him, for defeating Israel is something that easily raises popularity in the Arab world. But the Christians do not share that view, they fear him, and Hezbollah battle tactic to seize villages and turn the residents into human shields (a tactic they used with Christian villagers as well) is not the thing that makes the christians cheer for Hezbollah. Same is true for the Druze, which traditionally are the opponents of the Maronites and were a very effective force in the 80s, but today are not unified under such a competent military leader that they had back then, and are unable to to play a major role by their own, because today they are too weak.

Nasrallah's tactic ic clear, he wants to destabilize Lebanon to make it vulnerable to Iranian and Syrian influence and final Shia takeover, but for the time being he is capable to interfere and to paralyse and to tailor major political processes and decisions to his demands, but he is not yet strong enoigh to take over, so he avoids to try that by force, because the responsibility that would come with that he yet cannot bear. Nevertheless let there be no mistake about it: it is the goal Hezbollah is working towards.

Today it is impossible to make policies in Lebanon without the approaval by Hezbllah. They are already too strong a state inside the state, with tentacles in almost every economical and political branch.

I agree that Hezbollah is the most potent enemy Israel has. I think that not just since the Lebanon war. There complete annihilation in the region must be considered to be an absolute top priority. They are not only a threat to Israel, but to stability in the whole region. That'S why their complete destruction must be a priority for the West as well. - Not that the West has understood that. Instead they accept to support it. Stupid westerners.

[Jacky Fisher]

Lebanon is just sad on a lot of levels. For country as potienally wealthy as it is, its a real basketcase.:huh:

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-552990,00.html

Hezbollah is trying to seize power in Lebanon and turn the country into Iran's toehold on the Mediterranean, Lebanon's Social Minister Nayla Moawad warns. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, she speaks of the threat to Europe and slams the West's failure to act.
(...)
At first it really was a telephone network for the Lebanese resistance against Israel; it connected south Lebanon with Beirut. But in the past two years it was drastically extended. We asked Hezbollah again and again for an explanation -- why they needed such a giant network. According to our information, it extends right across the country, from the south in Bekaa Valley to the Lebanese Mountains. It's a comprehensive telephone network and communications system, which cannot be controlled by the state.
(...)
As far as Hezbollah is concerned, they can take control of the whole of Lebanon within just a few days if they want to. Firstly they took over the whole of west Beirut and now they want to forcefully secure control of the Lebanon Mountains. In the process they are using those heavy weapons with which they supposedly intended to resist Israel.
(...)
This is not a fight between religious groups. It's an attempted coup against the democratic, pluralistic and free structure of the country. Hezbollah wants to force its ideology on Lebanon. It's an extremist, theocratic ideology that comes from Iran and that Iran would like to see dominate the whole Arab world.

As I see it, the social ministre of Lebanon is fully confirming my own view of the situation and events - just that he describes the danger from Hezbollah to be even greater.

Even more pessimistic than me? Hu.

[Steel_Tomb]

This is always what Hezbollah wanted, anyone wanting to think overwise is a bit neieve (sp?). Extremist groups have been sytematically trying to topple moderate muslim governments for years, I think a lot of people forgot about Hezbollah's assassination of the Lebanese PM/President (not sure which one they have!). Its a very worrying trend, whats even more worrying is the wests utter content for it. There will come a time when the free world will have wish it acted sooner, all this can only lead to more spilt blood :nope:.

[Skybird]

There will come a time when the free world will have wish it acted sooner,

I find it more and more hard to imagine that - considering that the West is busy to brainwash itself about the nature of such organisations, the determined pro-Islamic EU policy, the desire of the EU institutions and the PC band to wipe out europe's own historic identity/ies and to adapt sneakingly and creepingly to Islamic standards instead, whoich corresponds to the direction of the EU offices to turn Europe into a bureaucratically governed mono-culture in which the non-elected and non-legitimised bureaucracy claims more and more power over sovereign governments that do no longer represent the will of their peoply that elected them (and where political parties since long have turned into the heirs of absolutistic Royals and medieval noble men ) - that kind of "Gleichschaltung" is a perfect preparation for the monoculturalism Islam is about. Already the vast majority of economic and foreign policy and lawmaking in pratcically all EU member states is more or less commanded by rules and legal obligations from the EU. In Germany for example, over 80% of laws in these fields are no longer formed in the bundestag, but are simply waved-through rules demanded by Brussel - the parliament has no longer a word in it and violates the german comnstitution that way. Thinking critical about something depends on the freedom of knowledge, and freedom is not a right, but a skill - a skill that is more and more crippled by media and public education. I must not tell you that in the UK certain vocabularies that could imply that an Islamic person has committed an act of crime or terror - are simply forbidden now in official use of language. Britain has wiped out Islamic terror - by changing language. It also is no longer any distanced or critical of Islam - by having cleaned it'S vocabulary. RTeferring to such things today is a hate crime or a violation of anti-dircrimination laws. On an EU level, EU citizens are pretty much forbidden and hindred by according laws to be against the chnage of Europe ion favour of Islam. In several ways they are even hindred by laws to not actively support it.

How could such a country ever regret that it has not acted against terror while there was time - when it even ha sno longer the language and the thinking to describe the nature of that terror precisely? Like in the thread I started yesterday on the failure of journalists in the Us election: the author of that essay referred to Orwell's ministry of truths, and "mini-truths" that are hiding reality, and even if all piut together does no longer giuve a complete and correct picture of the situation.

Language is power, and there is mutual feedback between thinking and language. you think like you speak and you speak like you think. People not speaking languages of the structure and nature like our western languages, pretty much think in different patterns indeed (talking as an ex-psychologist here).

[Skybird]

As for Hezbollah fully taking over Lebanon, yeah they do have the power to do that, but then they would have to commit a frickin genocide.
So what? You think that is a problem for somebody who builds command posts and ammo dumps under schools and launches missiles from hospital roofs and who seizes villages, hold the civilians in place and hope that Israeli counterstrikes will get them killed? they want to take over Lebanon, you said it yourself. You think prospects of killing civilians will stop them? History already has proven you wrong. they deliberately target civilians and place them in harms way. Such a party will not stop short of local massacres. But I give you this: if they can provoke the IAF or IDF doing the killing for them, the better that is for their propaganda.

[Skybird]

You said yourself it may be unrealistic. But a massacre being started could be enough to start a great ethnic cleansing and make people move and flee. Happened in Badhdad and other parts of Iraq. Happened on the Balkan. Happens in Darfhur. And when is a genocide a genocide? when 3.5 million are de facto killed? 1 million? 50 thousand? 15 hundred? Genocide is defined as the systematic effort to outwipe a social community and it's culture in a given region and to deny it any chance of survivng in that and/or regiosn as a cultural and social community. That includes murder, torture, physical injuring, subjugation to foreign ruling, ethnic cleansing, enforcing of living conditions that does not allow the victim community to let it's cultural habits survive. That sums up what the anti genocide charta of the UN from 1948 has to say on it. In other words: genocide is far wider defined than just the complete killing of a people up to the last man standing.

None of these things Hezbollah would be shy of commiting, if it helps them. They want an Iran-dominated Shia theocracy in Lebanon, and then infest the regions beyond that, and they want to destroy Israel. And they will do everything needed to acchieve that.

And since international law has made it obligatory and legally binding for states to react, intervene and prevent genocide, these states are so very creative in finding evasive definitions and reasons not to call an event of genocide as "genocide".

[Skybird]

No, now you blow it beyond what I said or meant. I do not care much for the "good government", as you named it. My only interest in Lebanon is what the Hezbollah is about to do with the place, and the proportion of the conflict that by far leads beyond the confrontation with the Israeli, but is a power struggle for influence between shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. And you were also the one introducing the idea of that there could be a genocide and that Hezbollah is unlikely to commit that one, not me, nowhere I mentioned such a scenario. I just tried to show you that that was no argument at all. All I say is that Hezbollah tries to make Lebanon it's own, and to destabilize the region - that it will play the game however it is needed to succeed in that. and I loinked an interview with a ministre from Lebanon who says pretty much the same on Hezbollah what I say. Local alliances I did not mention (only that the Druze are the long-termed opponents of the Maronites), nor am I interested in the family of Hariri. Honstely, I do not even have a clear idea what you are after.

[bradclark1]

If we had troops I'd say send them in, but we don't have enough as it is. Should send in artillery, ground controllers and aircraft though to help defend a free, democratic nation. Thats my war mongering for the day!

[CCIP]

I think what makes the Lebanon situation dangerous is the fact that however you slice it, the poor country ends up a battleground for foreign interests. The Balkan comparisons are probably not inappropriate in that regard - it's definitely a potential starter charge within a powderkeg region.

Likewise, you're not going to solve the "Hezbollah "problem"" with planes and artillery. You're not going to solve it in Lebanon at all in fact. Israel has already got burned trying to do that.

Right now the best that can be done for Lebanon is trying to keep it stable. The planes and artillery should keep a safe distance away for the moment, I think. Anything you can do within Lebanon will only strengthen and agitate Hesbollah (arguably, in the same way that intervention in Afghanistan, despite optimistic claims, has strengthened and agitated the Taleban - because as with Hesbollah, it's source of strength is not within the country but safe abroad). Meanwhile I don't think anyone is ready to get tangled up with either Syria or Iran, or god forbid, both. The result of open, foreign-supported conflict in Lebanon will only be further ruining of the country, a proclaimed victory against Shiite extremism, and a de-facto strengthening of Syrian and Iranian interests, within and outside Lebanon.

In short: tread carefully. Encourage compromise between groups within the country as far as possible. Don't go into Lebanon with guns ablaze. You can't win - learn from Israel's mistake 2 years ago.

[Skybird]

Well Saad Hariri is the head of the "future movement" which at the moment is the government majority and the head of said government in absence of any president (Siniora is member of FM), so this has at least a "bit" of importance doesn't it ? That majority is what both Hezbollah and Marronite "Free Patriotic movement" are fighting against, so if you don't know about FM it's a bit awkward to blame the opposition, especially when FM has a good share in the "region destabilization" including ties with fatah al islam.
Political majorities? Or even just assumed political majorities? Who cares. The combat power, or if you want: the terror power is what counts. We have learned in recent years that even minorities by personell strength can push a state to the brink of extinction. Only two questions count: can the Lebanese government enforce anything against Hezbollazh or without approval and acceptance by Hezbollah? No. Can the military force Hezbollah to stop and fall back against their will? No. That is all we need to know about Hezbollah. I do not share Brad'S explanation of why pounding the place ("democracy"), but I share his attitude to start poundering Hezbollah, and since they already are deeply dugged in again, that would be a dirty operation. The alternative is to accepot Hezbollah bein in place and bebcoming strnonger every month until they can no longer be beaten at hogh costs, but cannot be beaten anymore at all. The latter is unacceptable.

Israel, sooner or later, will start to adress the issue again in it's own way. but it will be a risky operation with open outcome. Nevertheless I don't see any reasonable alternative with even a small chance of being realistic and functional.

And wether or not the FM has any destabilizing projects running by itself, does not change anything here. the main threat is Hezbollah, before and above any other faction there. They are by far not the lesser evil.

I also think that Syrian tolerance and support for supplies running from Iran to Lebanon must be interrupted, also: at all cost. One cannot defeat an enemy if one allows him safe havens and supply routes. Any means of supplying available to Hezbollah is a target, and must be considered and dealt with as a target.

[Skybird]

I think what makes the Lebanon situation dangerous is the fact that however you slice it, the poor country ends up a battleground for foreign interests. The Balkan comparisons are probably not inappropriate in that regard - it's definitely a potential starter charge within a powderkeg region.

Likewise, you're not going to solve the "Hezbollah "problem"" with planes and artillery. You're not going to solve it in Lebanon at all in fact. Israel has already got burned trying to do that.

Right now the best that can be done for Lebanon is trying to keep it stable. The planes and artillery should keep a safe distance away for the moment, I think. Anything you can do within Lebanon will only strengthen and agitate Hesbollah (arguably, in the same way that intervention in Afghanistan, despite optimistic claims, has strengthened and agitated the Taleban - because as with Hesbollah, it's source of strength is not within the country but safe abroad). Meanwhile I don't think anyone is ready to get tangled up with either Syria or Iran, or god forbid, both. The result of open, foreign-supported conflict in Lebanon will only be further ruining of the country, a proclaimed victory against Shiite extremism, and a de-facto strengthening of Syrian and Iranian interests, within and outside Lebanon.

There is an alternative: destroying Lebanon alltogether. If you fight against Hezbollah, you will destroy much of it anyway, as we have seen two years ago. Not a pleasant vision, I agree. but let nobody think there are no alternatives. It is a question of priorities, and determination. Both can be adjusted, yes. Question is if that is wise. Some will argue that one should act civilised. But maybe that is not always wise, but only helps to prolongue and intensify problems, like not taking measures against cancer: it not only lives onk, but grows. Where is it written that problems always can be solved by a civilised attitude? Especially regarding enemies that are not as civilised as you are? That thinking you can afford only if you have total, superior power that is so strong that you can manipulate the other and make him do according to your desires - without him even noticing the manipulation. In other words: total, undisputed dominance. And that ammount of power is probably an utopia., forever.

In short: tread carefully. Encourage compromise between groups within the country as far as possible. Don't go into Lebanon with guns ablaze. You can't win - learn from Israel's mistake 2 years ago.
Compromise with Hezbollah? They do not want compromise, they want it all, and the destruction of Israel. How can you make compromise with that? Destroying only a bit of Israel? Or accepting them to take a certain yearly quota of Lebanon, until it al is handed over in 2020? Bad comrpomises should not be accepted. And the Israelis, their mistake has been to have started the war unprepared, unplanned, uninformed, and too undetermined. They have suffered a serious strategic defeat that counts far beyond Lebanon. at no cost they should have allowed that, for their nim,bus of being invincible is gone - and that has motivated their enemies. even worse: it has been shown HOW to defeat Israel.

One could even say they need a new war and succeed in that, to limit the damage the defeat two years has done.

Don't think I am heartless, but soaring emotions will acchieve nothing, and about the seriousness and brutality of war I have little illusions. I am realistic, regarding the issues at hand. And realism tells me: the place is doomed - no matter if Lebanese people will admit that to themselves or not. If I were any of them, I would turn my back on the past and leave the place, at all cost.