HIstory Unfolding: The Lebanon War

My friend Mike Levitin had an amazing intellectual experience his first semester at Harvard because he found himself in a freshman seminar on the origins of World War I taught by David Kaiser.

Here David Kaiser discusses the war in Lebanon:

HIstory Unfolding: The Lebanon War: Friday, August 18, 2006: Last week I decided not to discuss the newly agreed cease-fire in Lebanon because I really didn’t know what to think about it. Now certain things have become extremely clear. The cease-fire represented an almost complete cave-in on the part of the United States and, as it turns out, an admission that we had no means of reaching our objectives of breaking Hezbollah’s power. During the week both President Bush and Secretary Rice tried to put a positive spin on matters... it is very hard to tell whether they are once again fooling themselves or whether they have something more up their sleeve.

There are two possible explanations of what happened. Either State Department officials got through to their boss, who in turn got through to the White House, that the American position in the Arab world would collapse completely if the fighting continued much longer, or else the Israelis decided that further indecisive conflict with 100 rockets falling in Israel every day would not be worth its cost. And thus, last Friday and Saturday, Americans at the UN agreed to a cease-fire that did not include the return of the captured Israeli soldiers, did not demand Hezbollah’s disarmament, and did not provide for an international force with coercive powers. Things have become much clearer this week, as the Lebanese Army has made clear it has no intention of disarming Hezbollah and France has proposed to send nothing more than a token international force....

Rice began her interview by claiming that the international force was a crucial element of the agreement and claiming that it had the right to defend itself if Hezbollah stood in its way, but she quickly had to backtrack and admit that no one expected the international force physically to disarm Hezbollah. Instead, she postponed the day of reckoning.... In other words, although not enough of the world agreed with the United States to give us what we wanted, give them time, and they will.

The Post op-ed... concluded by addressing a troubling point. “Already, we hear Hezbollah trying to claim victory. But others, in Lebanon and across the region, are asking themselves what Hezbollah's extremism has really achieved: hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes. Houses and infrastructure destroyed. Hundreds of innocent lives lost. The blame of the world for causing this war.”

The problem, of course, is that virtually every report out of Lebanon says that that is not how the Lebanese people (much less the rest of the Arab world) see the situation at all. Hezbollah’s stature has grown because it fought the mighty Israeli Army to a standstill, and it will grow further as it takes the lead, with the help of Iranian money, in reconstruction....

The President’s statement, like so many of his statements on Iraq, insists that eventually the population of the Middle East will see things our way. He apparently believes this despite the lack of any evidence that they do, or that his policies are doing anything but making them more anti-American. More serious is his statement that the international force could help seal the Syrian-Lebanese border, which it has no intention, according to published reports, of doing.

Ironically, these statements begin to recognize, in a backhanded fashion, that the United States cannot accomplish all that much in the world without an international consensus behind it. That is why the foreign policy establishment has opposed the thrust of Bush Administration foreign policy from the beginning, and events are proving them right....

What does all this mean for the future? I see two possibilities. In the first, the United States government will continue to mouth the same platitudes for two more years while the situation in Iraq, Lebanon, and very likely elsewhere continues to deteriorate.... [T]he second possibility is that the President and Secretary of State take seriously the implication of their statements (and the President’s accidentally recorded remarks to Tony Blair) that the real problem is not Hezbollah, but Syria and Iran. That is an oversimplification. Hezbollah is an authentic popular movement that has won thousands of hearts and minds by meeting the needs of Shi’ite Muslims in various parts of the world, including in Lebanon. Syria’s presence in Lebanon, which we insisted on ending several years ago, probably kept a lid on Hezbollah—-the kind of subtlety that the present Administration simply cannot grasp. But the crisis has worked to Iran’s benefit, and a new crisis looms over its uranium enrichment program. Perhaps Seymour Hersh, who last week reported that the Administration viewed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as a dry run for an American attack on Iran, is right, and the Administration regards an attempt to topple Iran from the air as the only real solution to the problems of the Middle East.

In an earlier report Hersh claimed that some Administration figures actually believe that bombing Iran would sour the people on their rulers—-a fantasy parallel to the one trumpeted by the President and Secretary of State last week, that the Lebanese people will realize that it was Hezbollah that brought so much destruction upon them.... [T]he logic of the Administration’s position is driving it inexorably towards another war, and so far, it has been quite consistent about how it sees the problems of the Middle East and what should be done about them—to eliminate those regimes that supposedly stand in the way of the spread of democracy.

Comments

[anne]

Seymour Hersh reference "a":

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060710fa_fact

July 3, 2006

Last Stand
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH

The military's problem with the President's Iran policy.

On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, "the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities." Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started. The question was whether the Administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about "freedom for the Iranian people," and he added, "Iran's leaders have a clear choice." There was an unspoken threat: the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President's direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran....

[anne]

Seymour Hersh reference "b":

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

April 8, 2006

The Iran Plans
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium....

[anne]

Seymour Hersh reference "c":

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact

August 14, 2006

Watching Lebanon
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Washington's interests in Israel's war....

[Where is diplomacy, honest peace-wishing peace-generating diplomacy?]

[howard]

as a small note to this larger matter, i'm starting to doubt that the bush administration can punt iraq to its successor: i don't honestly see how the US status quo in iraq (130K or so sitting ducks, running around, to mix my metaphors, trying to put fingers into holes in dikes) can be sustained for 30 more months.

we all know that bush combines stubborness and shallowness in equal measure, and surely he fundamentally believes the tripe that comes out of his mouth about iraq as the central front in the war on terror, but it's hard to see how reality isn't finally going to punch the little SOB right in the kisser....

[andres]

howard: What you described (the adm. doing nothing as the situation in Iraq goes from worse to hellish) is exactly what's going to happen because there is no political counterweight in Washington DC that will make the White House change its policies--US soldiers will continue to die and it will be left to President Clinton or Edwards or Allen (blech) to clean up the mess, though I hope to God the next administration has the guts to prosecute Bush and Cheney.

At this point, only an Iraqui version of the Tet Offensive is going to have any impact in Washington, but it's just not going to happen because Iran is not North Vietnam and the insurgents are not counterparts of the Viet Cong doing Iran's bidding. Look for more of the same.

[howard]

andres, i felt that way for a long time (and it still may be the correct analysis), but i'd say that any signs that the shiites as a whole were turning on US forces (and i regard that as an increasing possibility as the shiites come to terms with the permanence of the bush administration presence) would stir public opinion to becoming a countervailing force.

don't forget, we've even seen tom friedman give up: that's a sign that today's establishment figures are awaking for their fantasies....

[Barkley Rosser]

Brad,

I generally agree with your guy, but he is'
is ultimately too dismissive of the local
strength and origins in Lebanon of Hezbollah. I have written on this previously here and will not repeat myself.

The bottom line is that focusing on Syrian and Iran is a dead end. Once again, when
Bush cursed out Syria in Moscow on this biz, he simply showed once again that he is an ignorant, incompetent, idiot.

[Movie Guy]

Brad,

You should start studying the clock. Bush is running out of time on too many fronts.

Bush had a backchannel working with Iran prior the incidents with Hamas and Hizballah as encouraged by Iran. The opportunity to peacefully resolve the Iranian situation has since evaporated, as evidenced in the Bush/Blair press conference in the East Room. Regardless, there is little likelihood that Bush/Blair will bomb Iran at this point. Further action via the UN is the route for the next two years. Bush is out of clock.

Certain Bush decisions will be made by early December.

[BC]

Do the math.

30 months at the current rate of 500 troops injured/killed a month means that only 10% of the troops over there get injured or killed.

So, of course we can stay there.

(unless of course, things get 10x nastier)

[Chris]

Not that it's a flattering comparison for any of the main characters (for soon-to-be-obvious reasons), but I think the Post editorial displays the same ignorance of reality and its participants regarding the war in Lebanon as much of the establishment media does regarding the events of the Connecticut Senate race (Lieberman's zombie campaign, or joe-had): "Already, we hear Hezbollah trying to claim victory. But others... are asking themselves what Hezbollah's extremism has really achieved: hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes. Houses and infrastructure destroyed. Hundreds of innocent lives lost. The blame of the world for causing this war."

It's all there: accusing one's opponent of extremism (for no rational reason), implying that a meaningful portion of the population is having second thoughts (based on the speaker's assumption that nobody could identify with the opponent), mocking a claim to victory by imposing its own metrics, suggesting that civilians should spurn their defenders and support the political leaders of their opponents, and claiming that the rest of the world thinks they're stupid for supporting who they do.

The funny thing is, the Post editorial board (or at least the writer) must think this is incisive and revealing about Lebanon, but it's no less incisive and revealing about the establishment media mindset on a number of topics, where the standard attitude is, "You should listen to your betters," but a growing number of people are wondering, "Why the hell would I think that category includes *YOU*?"

[A. Zarkov]

What’s happened is simple. Israel screwed up—royally. The problem stems from both the absolutely incompetent civilian and military leadership. They thought they could eliminate the Party of God mainly through air power, and thereby avoid the high costs associated with a big action on the ground. As they found out, you can’t. The POG was well dug in, and they got their act together so they could keep launching missiles from cheap mobile carriers and scatter before the launch site got destroyed. Bush gave them a green light to take out the POG and they dropped the ball. Of course they faced a really daunting task with POG blending into the civilian population so as to create civilian losses. I would guess POG also had a network of tunnels and bunkers to shield themselves from the bombing. Now had Israel used thermobaric bombs, the outcome might have been different as tunnels and bunkers offer no protection unless airtight. Of course Israel would then have been accused of using weapons of mass destruction. Another downside is the possibility that Syria and Iran would have then have attacked Israel with rockets using chem/bio warheads. This in turn could have led to a nuclear response by Israel. All in all a very unpleasant and risky situation. Israel also failed to mount any kind effective public relations campaign. Of course that’s not easy with an international press corps riddled with anti-Israel types willing to even falsify photographs. Still they should have tried much harder. Now we have a real mess. The US is going to have to face off with Iran soon, and with Russia or China eventually. By all means try your diplomatic approaches, but when they fail, and they will fail, what then? Thanks Jimmie Carter.

[ilsm]

Kaiser says a lot of good things.

Hizbollah is a force to be reckoned and the use of Iranian money for public assistance is a big lesson.

Suppose, Israel had studied the efficiency of the raid where the two soldiers were kidnapped and realized it was a trap?

Suppose Israel went forward on that as they did in the past two days with special ops and quietly snuffed some bad guys?

Then suppose the US sent CARE packages bigger and better than Hizbollah and Iran could deliver?

Suppose the US figures out how to compete for 'heart and minds' with something other than the multi trillion dollar war machine?

Anyway, as Ollie would say to Stanley, "another fine mess you've got us in".

And I propose the Iran nuclear thing is an excuse to keep the multi trillion dollar sword funded.

Iran nukes mean we treat them as we treated the Soviets. The threshold to doing a stupid thing like invading Iraq goes way up.

A rather pleasant thought; that a US/Israeli president may have to weigh some serious consequences prior to taking an ill conceived military action.

[howard]

A. Zarkov, although you make some good points, if you really want to "blame" someone for iran, blame the eisenhower administration and the cia for installing the shah 50 years ago....

[Warren]

Some web sites are claiming that the US (!) cash that Hezbollah is handing out is counterfeit. How much counterfeiting would it take to show up in globally available statistics? See http://www.snappedshot.com/index.php?/archives/70-A-sudden-lack-of-context.html

When Saddam was captured, he had a bag of US currency with him. Still the world standard, for some reason.

The presence of UNIFIL and the LA (Lebanese Army) might inhibit Hezbollah from actually launching new attacks. This would be great for Israel and for peace in general. Let us pray the Lebanese Army finds its spine and that UNIFIL finds some members.

On the other hand, the LA and UNIFIL also present a problem for Israel when and if Hezbollah attacks. How does Israel launch counterfire into areas where LA or UNIFIL might be hit? The new human shields, courtesy of the UN and Lebanon. Imagine the crisis if Israel killed some European soldiers. Imagine the irony if the LA asks Hezbollah for protection.

[A. Zarkov]

howard:

“blame the eisenhower administration and the cia for installing the shah 50 years ago....”

I could, but I won’t-- for the following reasons. First we have a dispute as to whether the 1953 Iran coup was really a coup, or a counter coup. In 1953 the Prime Minister Mossadegh tried to convince the Shah (in power since 1941) to leave the country and the Shah refused, then (acting under his constitutional authority) he dismissed the PM. Mossadegh refused to leave office, and the Shah left Iran. That’s the first coup. With the help of the CIA and the Iranian military the Shah returned and had Mossadegh arrested—the counter coup. There was no change in the constitution or the democratic form of government. From this viewpoint it’s not correct to say that the CIA staged a coup to install a dictatorship to replace a democracy. Of course the Shah did ultimately become an autocrat in 1975 when he replaced Iran’s multiparty system with his Rastakhiz party, but that’s 22 years later.

In 1979 I attended a long (possibly classified) lecture on the details of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Not all of the information was public at that time. The lecture left me with little doubt that Carter undermined the Shah. While the Shah was an autocrat, he wasn’t a despot. For example he observed the sanctity of Mosques and cemeteries, and the revolutionaries used this to their advantage. This wouldn’t happen in a place like Cuba, ruled by a real despot, Castro. For some reason Carter doesn’t seem to mind this kind of dictatorship. For some reason Carter ignored the economic and social progress under the Shah and the fact that Iran was an ally of the US and friendly towards Israel. Pardon the name-calling—what a schmuck.

[Karlsfini]

A Zakov, ah those were the days.

I remember skiing with the Shah at Gstaad and discussing social reform and also where to stash his bullion... alas, I can't remember if the conversation was classified. (Okay, maybe I'm making this up, but it's as likely as your attending a lecture and not remembering if it was classified.)

One of the Shah's minor flunkies lives nextdoor to my in-laws in San Juan Capistrano (just a stones' throw from Kevin Drum's neighborhood.) That's his "little" place. He also has homes in Rome and Monaco and Greece and is now building a modest retirement castle for his kids in Switzerland. (This I'm not making up.)

Tut, tut, wasn't Jimmy Carter naughty to the nice old Shah. And Marcos too, he never treated him right either.

Next time I see Castro's yacht tied up below the casino I've a good mind to march right in and tell him what you and I think about despots who bleed their nations dry.

[derrida derider]

I think its very clear what is happening with UNIFIL. The US and Israel are deliberately telling everyone they are there for a mission (disarming and suppressing Hezbollah) which was never part of the agreement. This is to make UNIFIL - and especially the cheese-eating surrender monkeys who volunteered to head it - a convenient scapegoat when such a mission is not achieved. I can see the meme forming already - "Israel won the war, and US stategery would have been a stunning success, but we were robbed of the fruits of victory by a cowardly UN".

And Warren, the Israelis have already killed European UNIFIL troops on at least two occasions.