The Rise of the Militias

Michael Totten is absolutely correct when he writes, "the incentive for communal re-armament is now greater than it has been since the [Lebanese] civil war ended." He points to Hezbollah's alleged purchase of land outside the Shia areas of Lebanon as a cause, and their role in last May's violence as the cause.

I don't know much about the land purchases, though these allegations have reappeared and disappeared for years in direct relation to the level of political tension. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah has proved itself to be an armed militia willing to use its weapons against their fellow citizens, and this will inevitably cause tensions no matter where they are located in Lebanon. After seeing what happened to their Druze and Sunni political allies, it's easy to see why Christian leaders like Amin Gemayel would be nervous about Hezbollah outposts in Sannine.

But if the Christians are assessing developments and starting to look out for their own skin, the process is even further along with the Sunnis. After being routed in Beirut by Hezbollah, after seeing the impotence of the state in protecting its citizens, and while still engaged in fighting in Tripoli, it is hard to blame them.

Even smooth, Western-educated Sunni MPs no longer have qualms about explaining to Western journalists that they will protect their own instead of waiting for the Lebanese army. "When...the Lebanese army fails to protect me or to disarm those who are attacking innocent Lebanese citizens, I cannot ask the Salafists to disarm because they also have the right to fight Israel and to protect themselves,” said Tripoli MP Misbah al-Ahdab. Ahdab says the only solution is to put the issue of Hezbollah's arms on the table, "otherwise, the whole North will become Salafists, and I can only sympathize with them."

How to separate right from wrong? One tends to slip into the passive voice. The re-militarization of Lebanon's sectarian communities is a direct response to their attempt to maintain their voice in Lebanese society, following Hezbollah's aggression and the state's impotence in protecting its people. At the same time, it is impossible to expect the breakdown of law and order to result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of Lebanon. So it goes. Fatalism is in vogue these days; so it goes.

The Rise of the Militias

Michael Totten is absolutely correct when he writes, "the incentive for communal re-armament is now greater than it has been since the [Lebanese] civil war ended." He points to Hezbollah's alleged purchase of land outside the Shia areas of Lebanon as a cause, and their role in last May's violence as the cause.

I don't know much about the land purchases, though these allegations have reappeared and disappeared for years in direct relation to the level of political tension. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah has proved itself to be an armed militia willing to use its weapons against their fellow citizens, and this will inevitably cause tensions no matter where they are located in Lebanon. After seeing what happened to their Druze and Sunni political allies, it's easy to see why Christian leaders like Amin Gemayel would be nervous about Hezbollah outposts in Sannine.

But if the Christians are assessing developments and starting to look out for their own skin, the process is even further along with the Sunnis. After being routed in Beirut by Hezbollah, after seeing the impotence of the state in protecting its citizens, and while still engaged in fighting in Tripoli, it is hard to blame them.

Even smooth, Western-educated Sunni MPs no longer have qualms about explaining to Western journalists that they will protect their own. "When...the Lebanese army fails to protect me or to disarm those who are attacking innocent Lebanese citizens, I cannot ask the Salafists to disarm because they also have the right to fight Israel and to protect themselves,” said Tripoli MP Misbah al-Ahdab. Ahdab says the only solution is to put the issue of Hezbollah's arms on the table, "otherwise, the whole North will become Salafists, and I can only sympathize with them."

How to separate right from wrong? One tends to slip into the passive voice. The re-militarization of Lebanon's sectarian communities is a direct response to their attempt to maintain their voice in Lebanese society, following Hezbollah's aggression and the state's impotence in protecting its people. At the same time, it is impossible to expect the breakdown of law and order to result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of Lebanon. Fatalism is in vogue these days; so it goes.

Al-Qaeda and Umm Kalthum

Over at the Arabic Media Shack, they are disappointed with the terrorism experts' knowledge of Al-Qaeda's media network. There is a focus, they complain, on what the media network is, and ignores the question of its efficacy. This is because these "experts" are primarily concerned with the short-term task of fighting those extremists who have already turned violent, but know much less about broader Middle East culture:

"It is not an exaggaration to say that [Umm Kalthum] is the most loved Arab of the last several centuries. From Bin Laden’s perspective, she (and anyone who listens to her are infidels or at least behaving in infidel-esque behavior). For example, the Looming Tower tells the story of how a young Bin Laden flipped at his driver who actually dared to play one of her cassetes. For every one person in the MEast who would side with BL in this dispute, there are at least 5,000 who would tell him to pack sand.

What does this have to do with analyzing AQ? Those who don’t know where [Umm Kalthum] stands in Arab society, (or even know who she is in the first place) are also not qualified to speak about where Al-Qaeda stands either."

Smart. And further evidence that a long-term counterinsurgency strategy -- one that does more than blow up those already wielding Kalashnikovs or wearing explosive vests -- depends on a greater understanding of the intellectual and cultural currents of the region.

Hip, Hip, Al-Hurra!

I want to apologize for the month-long radio silence. However, I hope that I will have the time to return to regular posting habits as of now. I also want to apologize for the unbelievably hokey title. It proved irresistible.

Getting down to business: two recent articles about the American-funding Arabic news station Al-Hurra have recently made waves in Washington DC. The first appeared in the Washington Post, and the second was penned by ProPublica, as a joint production with CBS and 60 Minutes. Both pieces contain well-sourced charges that cronyism resulted in hiring low-quality journalists, who subsequently published low-quality reporting. I have no reason or desire to argue that point.

However, there are two more objections, in the longer ProPublica article especially, that are mutually contradictory. First, the author seems scandalized that al-Hurra sometimes broadcasts anti-Western rhetoric. "When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah railed against the U.S. government and threatened Israel, Alhurra carried it live and unedited," the piece says. "When U.S. combat deaths in Iraq surpassed 4,000 in March, Radio Sawa interviewed an anonymous militant who told listeners: 'Occupation is occupation. We need to resist them and kill more than 4,000.'"

Second, the piece criticizes al-Hurra for being a ratings flop. The article contends, rightly, that al-Hurra has made no impact whatsoever on Arab public opinion. But here's the problem: al-Hurra is unwatched precisely because it avoids engaging anti-Western speakers and topics. The news director was forced to resign when people in the States got wind of the fact that he had broadcast Nasrallah's speech, for God's sake. The embarrassment was when al-Hurra ignored the assassination of Sheikh Yassin in favor of a cooking show, not when it aired the full remarks of what is, like it or not, probably the most popular Middle East leader of the day.

If al-Hurra wants to be both well-watched and influential, it shouldn't shy away from the prevailing political currents in the region. It shouldn't be impossible to provide an honest portrayal of what is happening in the Middle East, and also explaining the American point of view on these developments. However, it would require two things which are not likely to exist any time soon: talented journalists at al-Hurra, and an appetite in the USA for giving airtime to our enemies. Oh well.