OBAMA: A LAMB FOR LIONS
If you haven’t read Barack Obama’s mealy mouthed, pusillanimous statement on the crisis in Lebanon, I would suggest you read it with the fact uppermost in your mind that this is the man who may very well have the responsibility of preventing Iran from achieving its hegemonic aims in the Middle East.
Hezbollah’s power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon’s elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon’s sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.
Yes, the problem with Lebanon is not the militia backed by Damascus and Tehran that who have squared off against almost every US ally in the Middle East. No, in the Obama worldview, the issue is about “the corrupt patronage system.” What is more corrupt than the issues that instigated the current crisis: Hezbollah’s efforts to, a, build a state within a state and, b, undermine the sovereignty of the Lebanese government? And what is a more unfair distribution of services than an armed party at the service of foreign parties?
Obama’s language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it’s essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level.
Noah Pollak had the exact same reaction to the part of Obanma’s statement I highlighted above; who in God’s name does he think is running those thugs from Hizbullah?
Does Obama understand that the people who “have influence with Hezbollah” happen to be the same people on whose behalf Hezbollah is rampaging through Lebanon?
Then there is the absurd prescription:
It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.
So that’s the problem in Lebanon? Economics and the electoral system?
Surely a Lebanese-American like Abu Kais would be grateful to hear such soothing words of peace and reasonableness, yes?
Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing national consensus with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.
During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been building consensus with them. Because what we did back in 1982, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2006 – all that was plain betrayal and unnecessary antagonism, a product of a corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.
We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them.
Yes, this is change we believe in. Get me a time machine.
This has been the favored gambit of the left when dealing with difficult adversaries; pretend the basis for hostility can be found in some Hegelian historical dialectic or worse, deterministic models of human behavior rather than seeing the thug right in front of you who is about to whack you in the face with a two-by-four. Smith again:
Obama’s language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it’s essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy.
Indeed, that fired advisor - Robert Malley - was a favored target of my friend Ed Lasky at The American Thinker - and for good reason; Malley consistently demonstrated an anti-Israeli, pro-Syrian bias in his writings such as this piece he did for the LA Times:
Forget Pelosi: What About Syria?: where Malley calls for outreach to Syria, despite its ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the terrorists committing murder in Iraq; believes it is unreasonable to call for Syria to cut ties with Hezbollah, break with Hamas, or alienate Iran before negotiations; he believes a return of the Golan Heights and engagement with the West will somehow miraculously lead the Syrian regime to take these steps — after they get all they want.
“All they want” most certainly includes Lebanon - either total freedom to dominate the tiny country as they see fit using their proxies or an actual re-occupation. Given the response - or lack thereof - by the international community and specifically western countries like France and the US to Hizbullah’s current rampage, Syria should feel pretty damn comfortable in doing just about whatever they please with Lebanon.
Indeed, Reason Magazine contributor and editorial editor for the Daily Star Michael Young foresaw this series of events and the possible endgame weeks ago:
Is it really in the U.S. interest to engage Syria in this context, when its major Arab allies are in the midst of a conflict with Iran they view as vital? In fact, I’m not at all convinced that asking Arab states to change Syrian behavior through “more robust interactions and investments in the country” would work. The Arabs have repeatedly tried to change Syrian behavior through more congenial means, most prominently at the Arab League summit in Riyadh last year. The Syrians have ignored this. Why? Because they know the price for their return to the Arab fold would be to give up on a return to Lebanon. They’re not about to do that, because only such a return, one that is total, with soldiers, would give Syria the regional relevance it lost in 2005, when it was forced out of Lebanon.
It would also allow Syria, from Beirut, to undermine the Hariri tribunal, which threatens the future of the Syrian regime and which will probably begin operating next year. In this, Syria has the full support of Hezbollah, which realizes that without a Syrian comeback, the party will continue to face a majority in Lebanon that wants the party to disarm. I find it revealing that Jon failed to mention Lebanon once in his post. That’s because advocates of engaging Syria realize that the only way you can bring about an advantageous dialogue with Damascus is to give it something worthwhile. That something can only be Lebanon, the minimal price Syria would demand to offer positive concessions in return.
Young has identified the number one reason for not establishing dialogue with Syria until some minimal conditions are met such as a halt to their support for the Hizbullah thugs who terrorized Christians, Sunnis, and Druze in Lebanon these past few days. The fact is, Syria will, in the end, agree to a compromise regarding a peace deal with Israel or halting their support for Sunni terrorists and insurgents in Iraq only if their interests in Lebanon are recognized and legitimized.
This is why both Republican and Democratic lawmakers who have made the pilgrimage to Damascus to sit down for a spot of tea with Gangster Assad should be royally chastised for their efforts at “personal diplomacy.” And this is why Obama is ten degrees to starboard off base when he proposes negotiations while Syrian proxy Hizbullah terrorizes Lebanon.
If Obama and his advisors can’t see that it is Hizbullah who is solely responsible for the mayhem taking place in Lebanon or if they cannot grasp that the main obstacle to compromise among the sects with regard to everything from the presidential election to economic reform in Lebanon is Syria working through their proxies then God help us, we are about to elect a lamb who is stupidly willing to lie down with lions.
I’m watching Season Six of 24 (aka The Crapalooza) on DVD. As I watch President Wayne Palmer being unsure of himself, not knowing what action to take in the face of suicide bombings across the U.S., and sitting down an negotiate with a known terrorist, I can’t help but see Obama.
As McCain appears weaker and weaker, I’m considering support of Obama. To recover, this country may just need to hit bottom as we did with Jimmy Carter.
Comment by Juan Paxety — 5/12/2008 @ 7:44 am
There is very little that the United States can actually do here. There is no military option. The US military is stretched to thin to present a credible conventional military response to this situation. Also, we have to understand that neither the Siniora government or Hezbollah are allies of the US. Both are bitter enemies of America. If we are going to support one or the other, it is only a question of which one is the least bad of the options but again their is very little we can actually do in this situation.
Siniora govt. a “bitter enemy?”
We don’t usually give extensive foreign aid to “bitter enemies” nor do we agree to train their army, nor do we have so many visits from top levels of “bitter enemy” governments (Hariri, Jumblatt, Siniora, Gemayal, have all been to the White House).
And who is advocating an American military response? Do you see it anywhere in the article? This is a Lebanese problem for sure - but a UN unwilling to enforce its own resolutions regarding Hezballah disarmament and conducting the Hariri tribunal that would prove Syrian-Hezbullah complicity in numerous political assassinations also has something to do with the situation.
“Bitter enemies?” Get real.
Comment by B.Poster — 5/12/2008 @ 8:57 am
Rick, could you list a couple of good (reliable) links for those of us lightly educated on the Lebanese crisis? Who are these players (Hariri, Jumblatt, et al)? How did Hezbollah get such traction in Lebanon?
Also, do you know if McCain has promulgated a Lebanon position and/or solution?
Thanks for assisting me in my homework.
Link to background articles (PDF)
http://www.nowlebanon.com/Library/Files/EnglishDocumentation/Other%20Documents/NOW-SR-Eng.pdf
Link to players in the crisis:
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42129&MID=115&PID=2
More good background here: Day by day reporting on the crisis.
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsCatArticles.aspx?ID=21567&MID=115&PID=2
Comment by Michael B. — 5/12/2008 @ 12:46 pm
[...] we have two great guests: King Banaian and Rick Moran. We’ll talk dhimmitude and economics with King, and Lebanon with [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Ed Morrissey Show: The 57-State Strategy — 5/12/2008 @ 1:09 pm
A lot of good stuff here i found it very informative.
Comment by Mike J — 5/12/2008 @ 4:08 pm
I’m being quite real. Yes, I think “bitter enemies” is probably spot on. Folks can and do take the US government to the cleaners. We are being used for what they can get out of us. In other words, they say one thing to us but do another. I’m not necessarily saying don’t deal with them where we may have a common interest. It should be understood that these people are not our friends but instead are our enemies. Right now it seems we have common enemies. As such, they may not actively turn on us, yet.
No where did I see where you advocated a military response. There is no leverage that we can use diplomatically and the military is to busy right now to pose a credible threat to Hezbollah. There’s little to nothing we can do here.
If Barack Obama or John McCain for that matter want to put their diplomatic skills to work, I have a suggestion. The problem: we are WAY to dependent on foreign oil. The solution: We have vast oil reserves in the US. In addition to this we have huge reserves of coal here as well. Using coal to oil technolgy that is available right now we probably have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We need to build more oil refineries and we need to tap into our own reserves. This would give us some leverage when dealing our enemies. Why have’nt we done it? Oil interests will generally say it is because of environmental regulations. Envrionmental groups will blame the oil companies. Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain should use their diplomatic skills to forge a compromise between big environmental grousp and big oil so that our own oil reserves can be tapped into and we can build more refineries. This might yield positive results for the American people. A fruitless diplomatic mission to Syria will probably yield nothing. We have no “carrots” to offer Syria that they cannot get elsewhere or that they would be interested in and we have no credible “sticks” to use either.
Comment by B.Poster — 5/12/2008 @ 5:17 pm
Well, since Obama comes from Chicago and all, if he’s calling Lebanese patronage corrupt then it’s got to be out there on a whole ‘nother level of corruption. I’m sure that it’s the politicians giving the good jobs to their campaign donors that’s making Lebanon such a hellhole.
If only they had more wrought-iron fences…..
Comment by Greg — 5/12/2008 @ 9:13 pm
Naughty Bits…
Some little political things to mull over:
“An electoral disaster in the making,” or “From the HazMat suit to the Barf Bag”: McCain-Huckabee. Don’t get me started on McCain’s global warming disaster.
Hussein 57: Your future POTUS Barack H…
Trackback by Pro Cynic — 5/12/2008 @ 11:15 pm
SNAFU… are we simply destined to repeat our follies over and over and over again. Every place we have went into to “help” the people, two great examples Somalia, Lebanon, and left when things got testy have turned into bastions of contempt for us, and rightly so. I loved Reagan, I am a Marine, but for the life of me, it was politics, piss poor planning, and lack of security that got my brothers killed there, that could have been fixed, easily. Now with Iraq and the regime change coming here soon, will we do the same thing we have done in the past, I will put money on it. All in the name of “change”, yep economy took a hard hit and is coming back strong, and unemployment is at 5% life is soooo horrible, yes we can my arse………
Comment by jambrowski — 5/13/2008 @ 8:07 am
Let’s see:
Obama wants us to support the UN resolution (read; give them money) against the sale of arms to Hezbollah
Obama wants us to “engage in diplomatic efforts (read: sit down and talk with Hezbollah)
Obama says we should back election reform then goes on to say that P.M. Siniora was democratically elected. Does that mean that he backs changing the democratic process of elections in Lebanon?
He goes on to say that we should work with the “international” community (the U.N.) and the private sector (U.S. businesses) to rebuild what the damn terrorists are blowing up.
Synopsis:
We talk with Hezbolla which should work out about as well as the dealings Chamberlain had with Hitler.
We back the U.N., which is candidate speak for giving them more of the American taxpayer dollars.
Then we get the U.N., who we just gave millions of dollar to, and the private (U.S.) business community to rebuild what Hezbollah has/will blow up.
Sounds like a plan for dealing with terrorists to me, boys and girls.
Comment by retire05 — 5/13/2008 @ 10:18 am
For those of you who aren’t aware of the tired comparison of Chamberlain:
( from Glenn Greenwald’s blogspot- yeah THAT Glen Greenwald, but it is pertinent, imho)
In fact, though Ronald Reagan has been canonized as the Great Churchillan Warrior, back then he was accused of being the new 1938 Neville Chamberlain because he chose to negotiate with the Soviets and sign treaties as an alternative to war. Conservative Caucus Chair Howard Phillips, for instance, “scorned President Reagan as ‘a useful idiot for Kremlin propaganda,’” and published ads which, according to a January 20, 1988 UPI article (via LEXIS):
likens Reagan’s signing of the INF Treaty to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s signing of an accord with Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler in 1938. The ad, with the headline, ”Appeasement Is As Unwise In 1988 As In 1938,” shows pictures of Chamberlain, Hitler, Reagan and Gorbachev overhung by an umbrella. Chamberlain carried an umbrella and it became a World War II symbol for appeasement.
According to the January 19, 1988 St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via LEXIS), when Pat Robertson was campaigning for President in Missouri in 1988, he “suggested that President Ronald Reagan could be compared to Neville Chamberlain . . . by agreeing to a medium-range nuclear arms agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.” The Orange Country Register editorialized in September, 1988 that “Ronald Reagan has become the Neville Chamberlain of the 1980s. The apparent peace of 1988 may be followed by the new wars of 1989 or 1990.” And even the very same Newt Gingrich, in 1985, denounced President Reagan’s rapprochement with Gorbachev as potentially “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.”
God help us that we actually talked to Russia, had Arms-talks etc ( granted the USSR wasn’t a tosspot terrorist organization- they were a BIGGER threat all together.) Move to strike Hitler from the discussion. Next.
Comment by RememberNovember — 5/15/2008 @ 12:16 pm
Whine,Waffle,Wobble, Weep is sure to follow in the next week or two for sure.
Got to nail down those bleeding hearts.
Comment by Rob — 5/18/2008 @ 9:41 pm
[...] took the candidate to task for his naive belief that “those who have influence with Hizbullah” care one whit what [...]
Pingback by PoliticalStage.com » Blog Archive » OBAMA FLUBS HAMAS, HIZBULLAH MULLIGAN — 5/21/2008 @ 1:19 am
[...] in your mind that this is the man who may very well have the responsibility of preventing Iran frohttp://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/05/12/obama-a-lamb-for-lions/Young, evangelical … for Obama? Seattle TimesCollege-age evangelicals are leaving the GOP, looking [...]
Pingback by major political parties of the past — 5/31/2008 @ 4:08 pm