Who Does the Opposition Blame?

But down to business.  It is an ugly fact of life that, as an American, you get blamed for many of the region's problems.  Some of these criticisms are valid and some of them are not, and you need to pick your battles.  Here is one battle that is worth fighting: the storyline which blames America for Fatah al-Islam and the recent slew of bombings.

That is the narrative that Seymour Hersh is advancing, and which Hizbullah mouthpiece Al-Manar happily passes on:

[T]he idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah - the Shiite group in the southern Lebanon - would be seen as an asset, as simple as that.

As the story goes, these groups were groomed by America and Siniora to be their attack dogs against Hizbullah, and then turned on their owners.  It totally ignores the larger international situation.  It is just a coincidence, according to Hersh, that these attacks are happening when the international tribunal is on the verge of creation.  Syria could not be involved, because after all they are allied with Hizbullah and the Sunni Islamists don't like Shi'a either.

There are many objections to this line of thinking, but I want to focus on just one of them right now.  Hersh (who was a great journalist, though you are excused for not noticing) credits Syria with more rationality than the United States.  When the confused CNN anchor asked why -- if neither country was ideologically aligned with Fatah al-Islam -- it makes sense for America to be funding the terrorists but not Syria, Hersh answered, "You're assuming logic by the United States government."  And that is about as far as the opposition's ridiculous explanations for the recent violence extends: forget the regional situation, forget who benefits from chaos in Lebanon.  Dick Cheney sure is sketchy, isn't he?

P.S. I'm off to Alay now.  Expect pictures and a report later.