Syria backs down; will leave Lebanon

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

its not asking what the biggest problem is

The problem is implied by the solution. If the big problem with the situation is Syria, one would naturally expect either option 2 (or 3, to a lesser extent).

Why didnt someone put keeping the Syrians in as an option?

Because it's not a change. The Syrians are already in, and have been for a few decades. How could keeping them in possibly be the solution to security problems?
.

You'll have to ask the folks who want them to stay.

[Ramo]

Ok - suppose you asked Iraqis what the solution to their security problems is, and the presented options were 1. Withdrawl of US forces 2. Entry by a UN force 3. Disarmament of the Kurdish Peshmerga 4. Building up the Iraqi army - would it be fair to say that only those who chose option 1 actually wanted US troops to depart? I dont think so.

That's funny, I was about to suggest a similar analogy. The thing with Iraq is that virtually everyone wants the US troops out. Not everyone wants them out immediately, some believe that pulling them out too quickly would not be good for Iraqi security. Some believe that the central gov't needs to be able to stop an insurgency, first. I think that Hezb have an analagous position; Syrian troops out now opens up the threat of civil war. The Shia are actually in a very similar position in the two countries; they are the largest single sectarian group, tend to be Islamists, have been denied socio-economic power for a long time, and their chief oppositions are fascistoid.

The irony is that I'd bet an analagous poll in Iraq would show much worse numbers for their occupation.

[RGBVideo]

Quick Question:

It's funny to notice how big news networks in the Internet are giving the impression that Syria has occupied the country after a terrorist/co-operated invasion somehow and is now pulling back -- I thought Lebanon was the safest, most democratic and most diverse nation in the Middle-East before Israel invaded it with US support in the early 80s, wanting to set up a falangist puppet gov't?

[Ramo]

Lebanon was in civil war for several years before Israel invaded. The Phalangists were running the show then.

I'd say that Israel invaded to crush the Palestinian resistance, rather than for setting up any sort of puppet gov't. Syria invaded in '76 for a similar reason - to crush the PLO.

Yes, Lebanon is a complicated place.

[RGBVideo]

Let me just say this to you, Ramo:

Okay, I was wrong... thanks for the info.

[DanS]

It looks to me like Syria is playing its hand OK with the few resources it has available. I don't know what else we can do but pressure them for a fair election in Lebanon. We'll have to polish up our stick.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's funny, I was about to suggest a similar analogy. The thing with Iraq is that virtually everyone wants the US troops out. Not everyone wants them out immediately, some believe that pulling them out too quickly would not be good for Iraqi security. Some believe that the central gov't needs to be able to stop an insurgency, first. I think that Hezb have an analagous position; Syrian troops out now opens up the threat of civil war. The Shia are actually in a very similar position in the two countries; they largest single sectarian group, tend to be Islamists, have been denied socio-economic power for a long time, and their chief oppositions are fascist.

well first of all, theres no active terror insurgency in Lebanon, and the Syrians have been there for 29 years. This is as if the the US were still in Iraq in 2032, and after the insurgency had died down for over a decade. And after the Iraqi govt has a functioning army. I mean really. As for the Lebanese oppositon being fascists, really, thats beneath you. Whats been so striking the last few weeks, is that the Maronites have worked side by side with Sunni Muslims and Druze. Yes, SOME Maronite parties took inspiration from fascism in the 30's - ive got news for you, it was something that infected political catholicism around the world in those days. Holding the Maronite community in Lebanon as fascists is like those who never forgave Sadat for his wartime Nazi sympathies, or who still hold Abbas's long past holocaust denial against him.

And I really dont see that Hezb has any plan for gradual withdrawl by Syria, equivalent to UIA's position on American forces in Iraq. UIA wants to strengthen Iraqs armed forces so US can leave/ Hezb wants to keep the Leb army OUT of south lebanon, and remain the principle force there. I really dont think Hezb is much like UIA at all - its more like the Sadrists.

[Ramo]

Lebanon has been having relatively "fair" elections (to the extent that there's little fraud). To the extent that it's unfair - basically that Muslims have half a vote exists chiefly due to the predominantly Maronite opposition to Syria.

And no problem, VJ.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Thing is, if the Syrians were bussing in hordes of people, we'd probably have solid evidence to that effect. Pictures of huge caravans and whatnot.

Common on Ramo. We both know there were hundreds if not thousands of buses. We both know you can’t get 150,000 people into a city without buses and mass transit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Lebanon was in civil war for several years before Israel invaded. The Phalangists were running the show then.

first of all, not all Maronites were Phalangists. There were several factions among the Maronites, IIRC. Second, while the Maronites had a dominant position out of proportion to their numbers, IIUC its incorrect to say that no one else had influence. While the Pres was always Maronite, IIRC the PM was always a Sunni Muslim. Pre-civil war Lebanon was NOT like South Africa, as seems to be implied.

Of course to the extent that Hezbollah represents a group that wants to impose Islamism on the state, and uses terrorist methods, and wants to subordinate Lebanon to Syria to get its way, they would seem to retroactively justify the fears of generations of Maronite politicians. (Personally I think the Maronites were fools to accept a Lebanon that included the south and the Bekaa valley - one of the reasons I think any Israeli who opposes disengagement is a fool)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Lebanon has been having relatively "fair" elections (to the extent that there's little fraud). To the extent that it's unfair - basically that Muslims have half a vote exists chiefly due to the predominantly Maronite opposition to Syria.

And no problem, VJ.

Can an anti-Hezbollah party organize in the South, where the writ of the Lebanese army does not run, but that of armed Hezb does?

second - why do you say predominantly Maronite - Hariri was a Sunni Muslim, and his community has largely joined the opposition - and Walid Jumblatt and the Druze have been fiercely opposed to Syria as well - while some Maronite pols (not just Lahoud) have supported Syria.

This isnt 1983.

[Ted Striker]

It's a scary situation.

As bad as Syria is, they were keeping peace in the area. That's a gigantic power vaccuum that is left and unfortunatley as mentioned Hezbollah is there and is threatened. Hezbollah has acted as a defacto government in many parts of Syria, they are terrorists bastards but they are pros with the hearts and minds game, offering many social programs. People are going to support Hezbollah in Lebanon not because they hate Israel, they are going to support them because some Hezbollah organization got them a job or made sure they had food on the table every night, when nobody else was looking out for them.

There was a big reason the people were fighting for over 15 years and the country had been occupied numerous times, including by US peacekeepers.


Having a country holding elections doesn't make them a democracy and automatically a good place.

I thought this lesson was learned with the growing pains that Russia has had.

Apparently not.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
IIRC, it's something like:
40% Shia
30% Sunni
15% Maronite
8% Druze
7% Orthodox

You have Christians as being 22% where as what I read put them slightly higher at 25%.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Especially when one political group is armed and the others arent. Note that all other militias in Lebanon have been disarmed, pursuant to the Taif accords, while Hezbollah has not been. And which Hezbollah continues to refuse to do, cause as far as Hezb is concerned theyre NOT another political party, theyre the RESISTANCE. Resistance to a country that hasnt occupied Lebanon for 5 years now, yet supportive of the country that DOES occupy Lebanon.

The Daily Star has a transcript of Nasarallah's speech. The main point is against UN 1559. As for disarming, It would be great for Hezbollah to disarm, or have its militias become part of the government army.

Open elections will require all "parties" to be on even playing field.

Really? Hmmm...I notice you have a woman who voted in Iraq's elections..yup, one in which all the parties were on an even playing field, speically all the ones with large armed militias....

I note with interest that the Hezb rally also was supported by the Lebanese Baathist party (color me unsurprised) and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the old party of Greater Syrianism.

AHHH..shocking that those two parties would be there...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Common on Ramo. We both know there were hundreds if not thousands of buses. We both know you can’t get 150,000 people into a city without buses and mass transit.

Only its a longer ride from Syria than from Lebanon itself.

The allegation that many people in the rally were Syrians comes form complete biased sources (ie. sources that have everything to gain from delegitimizing the rally and trying top play down its size). Its the wisest policy not to take such accsusation at face value- and the only local source yet produces, the Daily Star, from Lebanon, notes that the majority was Lebanese.

So unless you or LoTM can dig up a relatively unbiased source supporitn ghe allegations, they are baseless rumors and do nothing for the debate but create a smokescreen.

Its like the claims o9f the opposition in Venezuela, saying all the people were for them, then they lose. So, again, eithr back up the rumors, or give them up and lets move forward.