While We're Talking Hardball Politics...

Here is what I believe, though cannot prove, prompted Murr's statement. The Minister of Defense found himself in a battle to determine the next stage of the battle of Nahr al-Bared. Opposing political forces -- most likely in the Army itself, who by all accounts want blood -- were threatening to pursue Fatah al-Islam to the last man, and fight deep into the camp. Murr was concerned about the cost -- in life, equipment, and time -- the battle would entail. But it has been an open question if the army would back off from its attack, even under direct command from its political leaders.

So, what is Murr's solution? Declare victory. Announce that the army "has destroyed all Fatah al-Islam positions," and that this victory "is dedicated to the Lebanese people." Explain that "what is happening now is some cleanup that the army's heroes are carrying out."

The army is now faced with two choices: directly disobey their nominal boss, or abandon any plans to push the battle into the old camp. With the public in a celebratory mode, it would be hard to build the political support necessary for another support. What is Michel Sulaiman supposed to say? "No, Murr's wrong. We didn't win!" Much safer to take a bow, accept the praise, and quietly begin a long siege and some very hush-hush negotiations.

Or maybe I've been in the Middle East too long, and see conspiracies everywhere. But experience says that politics is a game which is just as dirty and cutthroat as military operations themselves.