Should the USA invade Lebanon to take on Hezbollah?

Hold on there, cowboy. Israel withdrew unilaterally. You're just trumpeting the Hezbollah party line, which was "oooh, Israel withdrew, therefore Israel is weak. This is our chance to increase our attacks against Israel".

Which proves, of course, that their true intention was more than just expel the occupiers.

And you know, of course, that the Syrians occupied the country for longer (and are still there) and killed at least ten times more Lebanese than the Israelis did. Right?

yes, they unilaterally LOST. they are LOSERS. and yes, I know Syria occupies an ever decreasing proportion of Lebanon and has been engaged in FITES with various Lebanese groups.

so anyway, if Israel won its war against Hezbollah, surely the US will win theirs too?

And 50 000 dead Lebanese killed by Syrians during their civil war is more than just a few wacky FITES.

PLO and Syrian Occupation during civil war:
100 000 dead
250 000 wounded
800 000 Christians, 500 000 Muslims homeless

Gee, I can see why the Syrians are still in Lebanon, because it would be a shame to be seen as the losers when they've gone through the trouble to kill all those people.

If you're going to pose a serious question re: what to do about Hezbollah, then you should at least get a few facts straight.

My answer to the thread title : obviously not.

(xposts)

Isn't this blitheness on the level of "What's IRAN got to do with the US invading Iraq?" Or was that the whole implicit comparison being drawn?

Hezbollah are laughing as this thread derails into meta nonsense about how Syria is discussed. Once more the real terrorists escape.

Sorted. New thread?

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

They're laughing because their logic of "Israel withdrew, so let's attack Israel even more" is so obtuse and backward, yet people like you seem to believe and condone that reasoning.

The point of the Syria comparisons is to put Hezbollah's actions in context. Conclusions: when Syrians kill scores Muslems and Christians then its not worth getting excited about. But if Jews kill a few, then watch out. That's what Hezbollah is about.

Nevertheless, I still wouldn't go in after them.

(sorry, xpost, maybe I should have deleted this post, but to hell with it. Nonetheless, my answer to the original question is and remains NO.)

The invasion of Lebanon would not just be a quick hit on Hezbollah, but the necessary prelude to unseating the al-Bashir junta. It's called "roll-back". "Roll back syria" was a plan pioneered by David Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith a while back, working alongside JINSA and a Lebanese lobby group called the US Committee for a Free Lebanon (they have a website). It's worth noting that Damascus also supports Hamas, and a main Hamas leader is currently living clean out there. After the recent Hamas attack in Be'er Sheva (the first successful attack since the wall was built, incidentally) Isreal threatened to take out Hamas leaders living abroad, a direct threat to Syria. In fact, the Israelis have openly accused Syria of complicity in the attacks. It's pretty fucking tense, even before you factor in Iran, with their nuke programme, which is more advanced than most realise it seems.

It looks like this: Shi'ite Iran, alongside Hez and Ham, and Sadr in Iraq heading for a direct collision with Isreal, and Kurdish proxies, and Coalition forces -

I mean, that's how it looks, doesn't it?

Hezbollah should be whacked, for sure. Should the US attack Syria? Probably, but they won't because, realistically, they can't. They can't do another Iraq.

oliver, before starting a war a prudent man would ask what 'victory' would look like and whether it is attainable, what that 'victory' might cost as opposed to what it would buy. Some thought should also be given to the possibility of defeat and what that would entail.

The USA has just started a war where all these questions were given mighty short shrift. It would be even less sensible to start another on the same basis.

US policy in the mideast under Bush has taken a radical turn away from the policies of the past, which were highly successful at a very low cost. Instead, Bush has committed us to a very high risk, very high cost course of action that is almost certain to end in disaster. The USA cannot militarily occupy the entire mideast without transforming itself into a brutal military dictatorship over the entire region, in much the same style Israel has subscribed to.

Our enemy believes the cost of keeping to such a course would eventually destroy us. I happen to agree. Israel can only maintain its policy through heavy subsidization. The USA has no sugar daddy to subsidize the much vaster scale of mideast occupation we are embarking upon.

Hezbollah should mostly emphatically NOT be whacked! The only viable solution requires negotiation. The superficially attractive position of "we will never negotiate with terrorists!" is born of invincible arrogance and can only lead us to terrible, terrible consequences in the end.

The story of Wafa Idris, the first female suicide bomber:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1200794,00.html

and

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=palestinian&ID=IA8302

Of course her terrorist bosses tell a different story, but they're the ones who live in opulence while promising a wonderful life in heaven to disadvantaged youth, so who do you think has more credibility in the matter?

In the second article, there was also this wonderful bit of wisdom from the dearly departed Sheik Yassin:

"In our Palestinian society, there is a flow of women towards Jihad and martyrdom, exactly like the young men. But the woman has uniqueness. Islam sets some restrictions for her, and if she goes out to wage Jihad and fight, she must be accompanied by a male chaperon."

What a wonderful vision of modern society he had -- one where women aren't even be allowed out of the streets on their own TO KILL JEWS.

every cause has its extremist wing, and the larger the cause, the larger the extremist elements. i think dialogue is always going to be important, not with extremists, but with moderate forces, because, without dialogue and progress, the moderate forces of any cause are toothless. why do people turn to violent means? what is it that makes them so angry?

personally, in this case, i think america shouldnt be invading anybody. hezbollah is not a threat to america, it is not americas business. the alignment with backing is a mistake, and the sugar daddyism for that state should come at a cost, that isreals wilder and more aggressive policies should be reigned in. how can america ever be considered an impartial and benign force for good in the middle east, when it supports one state vigourously above the others?

oh, you mean Muslims do you? how enlightened of you

So what you're saying is, trying to negotiate with them doesn't work, and and if you refuse to negotiate with them, then you make them angrier. Then what can be done? What is an effective strategy for deatling with them?

You're essentially just confirming the obvious -- negotiating with Hezbollah is nearly impossible because it isn't clear *what they even want*. (besides, perhaps, the destruction of Israel and everyone in it)

Dadaismus, what "rhetoric" are you referring to? Is it what Keith wrote? Stuff said by Israeli govt?

of course, it might be nice, if america, instead of just backing israel come what may, actually extracted some kind of restraint from israel for their money. "hey, isreal, heres some more cash and support, but only if you dont do this", isnt that the normal state of affairs with client states?

as to how it should be done, well, an impartial US in the middle east might make a nice start, rather than being a sugardaddy for one of the more violent states there

not quite

Maybe Syria (who indisputably support Hezbollah) should consider being a bit more neutral and maybe then they'll be taken more seriously.

NYT editorial from a few days ago:

Lebanon's Lost Sovereignty

Published: September 2, 2004

When it comes to occupied Arab territory, Syria applies a brazen double standard and does not even have the decency to be discreet about it: In Iraq, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza, every additional day of foreign occupation is viewed as intolerable, and immediate, unimpeded sovereignty is considered imperative. For Lebanon, under the thumb of Syrian troops for the past 28 years, Damascus never uses the word occupation and never hesitates to abuse Lebanese sovereignty.

Recent days have brought a notably offensive example. In the face of intense opposition across the Lebanese political and religious spectrum, Syria pressured the country's cabinet last weekend into endorsing a constitutional change designed to let President Émile Lahoud extend his expiring six-year term for three more years. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has for years been a fierce foe of Mr. Lahoud and had strongly opposed amending the Constitution. But he suddenly changed his mind after a Friday night meeting with the Syrian chief of military intelligence.

Now, barring a brave last-minute revolt by Lebanon's parliament, Syria will get its way and Mr. Lahoud, who long ago lost his support among the Lebanese but remains a willing tool of Damascus, will stay on. It is not easy for any Lebanese politician to stand up to the ruthless Syrian dictatorship and the 20,000 troops it keeps on hand to enforce its will. This is the third time in a decade that Syria has forced Lebanon to change its Constitution to ensure that there is a pro-Syrian president.

Choosing a president ought to be an internal Lebanese affair, but Syria has made it an international one. That is why the United States and France are now asking the United Nations Security Council to affirm Lebanon's full sovereignty and its right to choose a new president without foreign interference.

Those principles deserve the strong endorsement of every Council member. And Lebanon, the most democratically minded country in the Arab Middle East, deserves the immediate withdrawal of Syrian occupation troops.

http://www.theindependent.co.zw/news/2004/September/Friday3/478.html

United States-based pro-democracy groups Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders helped in compiling the list.

Mugabe has been widely criticised for political repression and human rights abuses. Now he has been ranked fourth in a league of perceived dictators that includes North Korean leader Kim Jong-il , Than Shwe (Burma), Hu Jintao (China), Crown Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia), Theodore Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea), Omar Al Bashir (Sudan), Saparmurat Niyazur (Turkmenistan), Fidel Castro (Cuba) and King Mswati III of Swaziland.

IMHO UN should instruct international forces:

A: Destroy the Jangaweed in Sudan
B: liberate Zimbabwe from Mugabe

amazing stuff.

For instance, I couldn't find a single critical word in the Daily Star about the extension of Pres. Lahoud's mandate.

xpost -- yeah, go to Freedom House's site and look at their rankings. Saudi Arabia, IIRC, were in the bottom five

THE SAUDI LEADERSHIP STRESSES TO THE IRAQI PREMIER ITS KEENNESS ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF IRAQ, ITS UNITY AND STABILITY. THE RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAQ. RESULTS OF ALLAWI'S TOUR IN THE ARAB REGION. THE SAUDI LEADERSHIP REVIEWS WITH POWELL THE DEVELOPMENTS IN PALESTINE AND IRAQ. MUBARAK AL ASSAD SUMMIT STRESSES THE COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT STABILITY IN IRAQ.

for example. They could learn a thing or two from the British tabloids, or vice versa.

anyway, here is an article in the Daily Star about ministers resigning over the extension of Lahoud's term: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=8132

I'd be more impressed by the Maariv article if it wasn't so reliant on "western intelligence sources", probably the same guys who knew where all those WMDs were in Iraq.

that Saudi headline is great... it reminds me of the headlines in "Marxist Leninist News" (a now defunct Irish weekly), where every headline was at least fifty words long and always included the phrase "MAKE THE RICH PAY FOR THE CRISIS".

...the idea that Hezbollah have any interest in negotiation seems a strange one.

The current core of Hezbollah may not want negotiations. Howver, to live, breath and survive, Hezbollah must swim in a sea of sympathizers. Any negotiated solution that redresses the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians and allows them the power to secure their own borders and own national future would dry up support for Hezbollah and create the conditions necessary to eradicate Hezbollah with the free, active and voluntary cooperation of Palestinians.

Further reprisals, invasions and occupations, further injusttices and humiliations forced upon non-combatants, and further extreme repression of Palestinian aspirations will not work. Coerced cooperation is a contradiction in terms.

No doubt you have heard the definition of insanity as repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results than you've always had before. By this measure, both the Israelis and Palestinians are well-advanced into madness. However, only the Israelis have the effective power to change the nature of this war.

Andrew Farrell to thread! what were you saying to me last night over araks concerning the above comment?