Soccer Dad: Endgame?

August 8, 2006

Endgame?

The Lebanese cabinet finally agrees to do something it was obligated to do six years ago: deploy its military to the south to protect Israel's northern border from the likes of Hezbollah.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that the Lebanese government's decision to deploy its army in the south of the country is "interesting" and worthy of further consideration, but said such a move must go hand-in-hand with the disarming of Hezbollah.

The Lebanese cabinet agreed Monday night to deploy troops in the south after an Israel Defense Forces' withdrawal from the area, in a decision supported by all the ministers present, including the five Shi'ite ministers who represent Hezbollah and Amal.

However that may not be enough as a Washington Post editorial correctly points out (regarding an international force)

What does matter, though, is that the Israelis not be forced to withdraw until a serious new force arrives -- one that, unlike UNIFIL, is well-led, well-trained, and able and willing to stand up to Hezbollah. Such a force must deploy not only to the south but to the Syrian border as well, to prevent unauthorized arms shipments. Leaving a vacuum for Hezbollah almost guarantees renewed conflict, and neither the present U.N. force nor the Lebanese army acting alone can fill the vacuum.

Such an agreement would serve Lebanon's interest even more than Israel's. Hezbollah has sought to function as a political party inside Lebanon's democracy and as an independent armed force that subverts the very same democracy. Any cease-fire that allows it to continue to play both roles unimpeded is unlikely to endure for long.

Meanwhile John Waterbury the president of the American University in Beirut considers A Bad Status Quo. Waterbury points to the root causes of the violence

But time has not healed wounds. There has been none of the oft-trumpeted confidence-building. The real issues -- safe and recognized borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the occupied territories including the Golan Heights, refugees, nuclear arms -- all remain unresolved. The balance sheet of death and destruction is longer than ever, bitterness on all sides is deeper than ever, and there is no end in sight.

If the "occupied territories" were really the problem why would Hezbollah have continued its war against Israel after 2000? Why didn't Hamas content itself to governing instead of preparing for war against Israel since the withdrawal from Gaza last year? (In fact if he's right why has there been any conflict since 2000, the year that Israel offered 90+% of what the Palestinians and Syrians wanted and fully withdrew from Lebanon? In none of those cases did Israel's enemies show willingness to accept less than what they demanded or, in the case of Hezbollah, lay down arms because it had accomplished its goal.)

It's hard to imagine greater confidence building measures than the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals yet it's impossible to say that either has led to greater security for Israel.

The New York Times has it paritally right in terms of what's necessary for a ceasefire

For Israel, that must include some assurance that Hezbollah will no longer be able to cross into Israeli territory and kidnap Israeli soldiers or launch its rockets against Israeli towns and cities. Hezbollah will probably claim victory from the fact of having stood up to a four-week onslaught by the region�s mightiest army.

The problem is that there is no such assurance. There should have been in 2000. I don't recall that the Times was particularly exercised when Hezbollah kidnapped and killed the three soldiers months later. Or when Hezbollah was busy building its arsenal with the help of Syria and Iran.

In the end the only assurance that will ensure Israel's safety will be the complete disarming of Hezbollah and, probably, the destruction or capture of its leadership. Anything that can reasonably construed as a victory for Hezbollah will leave it intact to try again. The world didn't care when Hezbollah ignored Israel's withdrawal in 2000, it won't care again.

The Times leaves us with this thought

This ugly war has already killed about 700 Lebanese and more than 90 Israelis. Close to one out of every four people in Lebanon have been routed from their homes. With the human price of combat so high, this settlement must be built to last.

And roughly one in six Israelis has had to flee their homes. The situation was intolerable. Israel must assure the safety of its citizens. If the Times wishes to prevent future recurrences of the violence it should be insisting on a full disarming of Hezbollah. Anything less that depends on the word of terrorists will be doomed to failure. Yes the destruction is terrible, but the Times can't claim clean hands as it never forcefully objected to Hezbollah's arming itself and regular cross border raids.

The Times is even worse today when it urges the United States to Start Talking to Syria. Following the inane advice of its star foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman the editors of the Times want the U.S. to talk to Syria even though "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is undeniably a bad actor."

And this is particularly laughable

Of course, talking isn�t enough. Mr. Bush�s impulse, even when he agrees to talk, is to lecture and not listen. The White House will have to hear what Syria wants and consider what inducements might be worth offering in exchange for Syria�s help.

And what do they expect baby Assad to do? Listen? No he'll lecture. Do they remember President Clinton's efforts to get Assad's father to join the Summit of the Peacemakers in March 1996? Or to accept an Israeli withdrawal in exchange for peace in March 2000?

The elder Assad refused to engage the Americans at either occasion. (This refusal was often called a brilliant negotiating tactic by people who would think that Chauncy Gardner's platitudes were profound. It was simply a refusal to budge from his long held positions.)

That�s not appeasement. That�s negotiation. No one is suggesting Mr. Bush give away the store. At a minimum, however, Mr. Bush will have to start with a clear signal that what the United States wants is a change in Syria�s conduct, not the overthrow of its regime.

Actually granting anything to a bad actor is appeasement. No matter how you spin it.

There is no guarantee that negotiations will persuade any of these countries to do what�s right or even what�s in their obvious self-interest. Mr. Assad is not known for personal courage or good sense. But the price for not trying to talk will be more fury toward the United States and our few remaining allies in the region. That�s no reward.

And engaging Yasser Arafat as Bill Clinton did, did that really enhance America's standing in the region? There are some actors who must be avoided. Assad is one. This editorial is a lot of wishful thinking with no basis for expecting good returns.

Technorai tags: Syria, Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon.