Saturday Morning Links

• Blacksmith Jade wrote a comprehensive history of the politicking that occurred during the 2005 Parliamentary elections, and looks forward to how the situation in primarily the Christian districts of Mount Lebanon will be altered for the rematch in 2009. Conclusion: there will be mud!

• Lebanese politicians and media continue to be optimistic about the imminent formation of a national-unity government. For about two weeks now, according to Lebanon's analysts, the birth of this government has been mere hours away. (Update: NOW Lebanon is currently running a "Breaking News" ticker that says the Cabinet has been formed, and that its makeup will be announced within hours. I am gullibly considering the possibility that this is true.)

• Britain has placed the "military wing" of Hezbollah on its terrorist list, and Mustapha questions the wisdom of trying to split the Shia militia into "good" and "bad" parts. Certainly, it is a distinction that Hezbollah neglects to make. Someone should ask the British government which "wing" of Hezbollah it is still legal to join and raise funds for.

  Nasrallah said that the UK's decision "does not surprise me," and struck back by reminding his followers that the hated Salman Rushdie has British citizenship.
  

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.

The Saudis Are Less Than Pleased

I would not recommend reading Asharq al-Awsat's English site, because -- despite being flush with Saudi petro-dollars -- they seemingly have not thought to invest in a talented Arabic-to-English translator. Nevertheless, the pan-Arab daily is run by Saudi prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the half-brother of King Abdullah, so it's a fair bet that it's editorial line does not stray far from the Saudi government's.

And Asharq al-Awsat has done the journalistic equivalent of bursting an aneurysm in the past few days over Lebanon. Greatest hits include Hezbollah: The End Of A Legend, The Holocaust Of The Resistance, Hezbollah: The Defeat Of Victory, and Hezbollah...The Ugliest Picture. Yes, this has all been published in the past 72 hours.

Okay, so that is the response in print. What will be the response on the ground?

Retreat

The Army is announcing that it will overturn the two government initiatives that started all of this. They will taken control of the probe into Hezbollah's communication network, and have agreed to maintain Gen. Wafiq Shqeir at his post as airport security chief, pending an investigation which, incidentally, has a predetermined result.

Hariri and Jumblatt are announcing that they accept the Army's decision. This is their way to walk back the confrontation, without actually taking an action which overturns their previous actions. How the people of West Beirut react to Hariri, after being left defenseless to Hezbollah's onslaught and then having the government promptly reverse itself, remains to be seen.

P.SAl-Manar is reporting that the opposition is refusing to end their "protest" until "all demands are met." And why shouldn't they? Did the government just think that, if they gave Hezbollah half of what they wanted, they would just go away?

The Situation

Some morning links to get you up to speed:

Mr. Hani Hammoud, a senior advisor to Saad Hariri, declares that what occurred was "a one-sided civil war," and that, "the end result is that Iran has taken over the country."

Analysts seem perplexed about why March 14 would provoke such a conflict, given their poor showing on the ground to date. "The balance of power has shifted dramatically," says Carnegie Center bigwig Paul Salem. "It is odd that the government made such a decision."

David Schenker, at WINEP, urges the US government to push the Lebanese army to take a more active role in constraining Hezbollah.

Barack Obama issued a statement mainly made up of standard American boilerplate regarding Hezbollah. However, given the running coup d'etat in the country, there is a bizarre focus on "work[ing] with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet." I am also outraged that he neglected to mention the pressing issue of civil marriage.

But other than all of that, Lebanon is stable! As things stand today, the big loser has been the Future Movement's Saad Hariri, who can neither defend his supporters' neighborhoods, easily get his message out to the masses, or enforce his will through his position as Parliamentary majority leader. This inefficacy could easily lead Lebanese Sunnis to start looking for other political options. But that, as they say, is another post for another day.

The War's Other Side

Israel Defense Force soldier Yariv Mozer made a film, titled "My First War," based on his experiences during the 2006 Lebanon war. He uses footage that he shot during the war:

"He videotaped as his fellow troops scurried for cover from incoming fire, as ambulances bearing the wounded raced to the hospital, and as disenchantment grew over a misguided battle plan that left the soldiers feeling, as one tells Mozer's camera, like 'somebody fooled us.'

...

Instead, Mozer and his fellow troops received conflicting orders, inadequate protections and an inscrutable strategy. The goal was to stop the rockets, but Hezbollah's Katyushas continued to streak across the sky throughout the war's 33 days. Soldiers slept in the open in orchards that could turn at a moment's notice into fields of fire. Units were ordered into Lebanon, then hastily pulled back when they encountered the enemy."

The film does have its critics. As the Washington Post article points out, there is something inherently limited in any war film that restricts its message to something similar to "Oh, the humanity!" Of course, war is tragic. But that simple trope does not provide any alternatives to another war. Israel and Hezbollah are currently preparing as if another round is inevitable, and Mozer's film is unlikely to do anything to change that reality.

Nevertheless, I'd still like to see it. Is this something that would be legal to show in Lebanon? Would the censors be willing to look in the other direction because of the film's anti-war slant?

Anti-Viagra, anti-Israel

...the title pretty much sums up the politics of Egypt's often-bizarre Al-Ahram Weekly. This strange article warns of the looming threat that Viagra addiction poses to both Egypt's youth and its aged. "Fatal overdoses are not unheard of in Egypt," the author warns darkly.

I have only one complaint. How could the author have neglected to mention the connection between the Zionist entity's national colors, and the little, blue pill?

Assignment Desk

Every journalist knows of stories that they are too busy, lazy, or drunk to actually write. I will leave it to your imagination which one of these obstacles has prevented me from turning the following ideas into articles. Who knows, maybe some of them will still see the light of day. But, for now, I leave them up for your consideration.

• Word Problem: Alastair Crooke argued that Western powers must be willing to talk with radical Islamic forces, including al-Qaeda. Without challenging the ideological assumptions of Islamist movements, he claims, the West's application of force is futile. Meanwhile, Michael Young takes Crooke to task for failing to accurately define radical Islam or distinguish between the different types of political Islam.

  Is there any merit to Crooke's argument? What would a civilizational dialogue between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden sound like? What are the thresholds, if any, that radical Islamist movements need to meet before Western powers engage them?

  Sources: Alistair Crooke, Michael Young, Dennis Ross, Henry Kissinger

• Flagging Interest: The Dutch Embassy has apparently taken down the flag outside of their embassy. This attempt to fly under the radar would perhaps have been more successful if the embassy wasn't located in a prominent building called The Netherlands Tower. Oops.

  Why is the Dutch flag stored somewhere in the building's netherlands? No, that horrible pun would probably not make it into the piece. Are there other embassies which have adopted a lower profile in recent months? Do they know something we don't?

  Sources:Dutch Embassy, other embassies in and around Beirut

• The Day After: The Arab Summit is set to kick off, sans a representative from Lebanon. Half of the Arab heads of state are skipping the trip to Damascus, in protest of Syria's interference in Lebanon and alliance with Iran. It remains to be seen what business the Arab Summit can address with only low-ranking representatives from some of the regional heavyweights, and the importance given to the issue of Lebanon's vacant Presidency.

  Many political developments (or lack thereof) in the past month were explained as manuevering related to the summit. With it finally out of the way, the Arab states could move into a period of greater conflict -- or reconciliation. What are the signs that could determine the direction of regional politics in the medium-term? Bonus points for uncovering information about the much-awaited Syrian "investigation" into Mugniyah's assassination.

  Sources:Marwan Hamadeh, Paul Salem, Joshua Landis, Mohammed Habash

The Press Index

Here's a job for someone with far too much time on their hands, inspired by this article about an alleged influx of foreign journalists to Beirut: tally the number of foreign journalists in the country on any given date, and use that number as a barometer for Lebanon's instability. The logic is that the international press is only going to cover Lebanon if it is about to explode, and that their response will probably be quicker than most foreign countries or, say, am Arab League diplomatic summit.

The LA Times article suggests that there has been a noticeable uptick in the Press Index during the past few months. I'd tend to disagree -- some journalists may have found their way here because of the (relative) calm in Iraq, but we're probably in a holding pattern. Everyone is just waiting for the next shoe to drop, and that can be done from Manhattan.

Lions and Lambs Lying Down Together...

There is a wonderful editorial in the right-leaning Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth opposed to the Israeli government's decision to boycott al-Jazeera, due to their allegedly biased coverage of the violence in Gaza. My favorite graf:

"In fact, it is too bad that we don't see many more boycotts in Israel by official bodies unpleased with media outlets and journalists -- because a boycott on a journalist is in fact a citation. It means that the journalist is fulfilling its journalistic mission as the public's representative, rather than serving as the representative of the government ministry or corporation is reports on.

...

The problem, therefore, is not al-Jazeera. The problem lies with the media outlets and journalists that are not boycotted on occasion. Perhaps this means they are not critical or biting enough. Therefore, here is yet another rule of thumb for the benefit of news consumers: Be careful of journalists who are loved by the government."

Journalists, I think, should always approach their sources with suspicion -- and if that suspicion slips into contempt, so be it. This is a lesson that could be better learned in both Israel, and the Arab world.

Neither Free nor Fair -- But Important

That's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to your right, voting in Iran's Parliamentary elections on Friday. Quite a democrat, he is. The Iranian political system is an endlessly intriguing thing -- designed to maximize the power of the mullahs, but at the same time to provide an outlet for popular expression. By keeping dissenting voices in the system, they have managed so far to maintain the government's stability. So far.

In some ways, the faux-democracy is similar to Syrian-era Lebanon. The trick is to use just the right amount of repression. The threat can come from both directions: too much freedom, and you give power to figures who want to overturn the fundamental structure of the Islamic Republic. Too little freedom, and you alienate a critical mass of people who, once excluded from the political game, become revolutionary.

The problem for the conservatives is that it is becoming harder and harder to find this balance. Even after sweeping disqualifications of many reformist candidates, including former ministers and MPs, the reformists are still probably going to pick up about ten seats in the next Parliament. The conservatives don't believe they can trust them with real power, but also don't dare cut them out from politics completely.

This isn't a dynamic that is going to change the basic nature of the Iranian government in a few months. But the constant balancing act -- like a game of Jenga where blocks keep on being pulled away -- is what to watch in the mid to long-term.

Peace, Now

Especially after the assassination of Mugniyah, everyone seems to be just waiting for the Israeli bombs to fall on Beirut. Here's why it's not likely to happen any time soon:

While Israel and Hamas are currently taking a breather in Gaza, I don't think anybody believes that fighting has stopped. It seems like a folly to open a second front when the violence from the Palestinian territories could just be escalating. There is also reason to believe that Israel will take a marginally more cautious approach in the future, in contrast to their 2006 adventure in Lebanon. Policymakers currently believe their interest is in bolstering the PLO government in the West Bank and proceeding with peace negotiations. However, as recent days have proven, this cannot move forward if Israeli warplanes are bombing Gaza -- and the same probably holds true for Lebanon.

Moreover, the Lebanon front does not currently represent a direct threat to Israel. As Olmert bragged, "we achieved deterrence against Hizbullah, which hasn't dared to fire a single rocket in a year and a half." This is a rather self-serving statement, but it's also true in broad strokes. No attacks are coming from South Lebanon, so it's unclear what an Israeli attack could serve to accomplish. Of course, this all assumes that Hezbollah does not do something overwhelmingly stupid in the coming days...

The Best Things in Life Are Free (But Give Me Money)

The excellent Laura Rozen, in War and Piece, came across the US administration's budget request for the 2009 financial year, for foreign affairs, foreign operations, and foreign aid. Lebanon comes in for $142 million, money meant for "countering threats to Lebanon's sovereignty and security from armed groups backed by Iran and Syria."

Rozen also notes that the administration is requesting a $826 million budget for its foreign affairs in Pakistan.

There are approximately 162 million people in Pakistan. The US investment in Pakistan would be, therefore, about $5.10 per person. There are around four million people in Lebanon. That means that the per capita expenditure of the US in Lebanon will be around $35.50 -- or about seven times greater than for each Pakistani.

We love you. We really love you.

It's Like Beirut Out There

I was watching the HBO series The Wire last night -- incidentally, probably the best show to ever appear on TV -- about the drug trade, politics, and life in Baltimore. The Mayor, fuming over the police department's inability to solve a murder, complains (paraphrase): "It's not like we're in Beirut!" Cheap shot! I walk around Beirut at night and feel perfectly safe, but there are parts of Baltimore that I wouldn't consider visiting after the sun goes down.

In other news, the New York Times has an amusing story of art imitating life -- a little too closely for some nearby Lebanese Army soldiers. Okay, it made me smile. But still, it would be nice if some newspaper would publish a story mentioning that Lebanon is not, in fact, all snipers and car bombs.

This Is Brilliant

How flags explain the world: A 25 year-old Brazilian named Icaro Doria is behind the "Meet the World" Campaign:

"We started to research relevant, global, and current facts and, thus, came up with the idea to put new meanings to the colours of the flags. We used real data taken from the websites of Amnesty International and the UNO"

Everything You Wanted To Know About Imad Mugniyah (And Were Too Afraid To Ask)

Okay, not everything you wanted to know about Mugniyah, which would undoubtedly include more facts about his role in Hezbollah and international terrorism, and the identity of his assassins. Nevertheless, there have been some pretty good analyses of Mugniyah in the international press recently:

• Martin Kramer points out that Hezbollah's posthumous embrace of Mugniyah is an embarassment to scholars who bought Hezbollah's company line, during the past two decades, that they had no idea who Mugniyah was.

  "One of [Hezbollah's] paramount interests is concealing from scrutiny that apparatus of terror that Mughniyah spent his life building. Hiding the clandestine branch protects it from Hezbollah's enemies, and makes it easier to sell the movement to useful idiots in the West, who insist that the movement hasn't done any terror in years, and maybe never did any at all," writes Kramer.

• Nicholas Blanford floats the idea that Syria was behind Mugniyah's assassination, as part of some broader deal with the Americans involving the international tribunal. He gets Walid Jumblatt's tentative support for the idea: "It could have been the Syrians," he said. "Damascus is well protected, and I don't think somebody else could do it." I mean, come on.

• Andrew Exum begins a long, informative thread where he and commentators including Michael Young, David Schenker, and Lee Smith bat around ideas regarding who could have killed Mugniyah. The general consensus seems to be that Syria is not in the business of giving high-profile gifts to the West, and especially ones that are irrevocable. Furthermore, the fact that Mugniyah was killed in the middle of Damascus is an embarassment to the Syrian regime -- if they wanted him dead, they would have killed him elsewhere. "Occam's Razor seems to apply here: Given what we know now, the simplest answer is probably the correct one," writes Exum. And that, of course, is Mossad.

• The LA Times compiled a list of Mugniyah's alleged "greatest hits" (excuse the pun). Ex-CIA officer Robert Baer and Magnus Ranstorp, who wrote a Hezbollah primer, seem to be the go-to guys in the press for commentary on Mugniyah. Quoth Ranstorp: "Certainly within the U.S. intelligence community, some were as eager to get Imad Mughniyah as they were Bin Laden...I'm sure there will be champagne corks popping [in Washington]"
  

Hiding Behind Words

Joshua Landis laments the "missed opportunity" of compromise in Lebanon:

The notion that Lebanon could be pried away from Syria without offering Damascus either security or the return of the Golan was a mirage.

...

It is clear that the Levant's future hinges on establishing a spirit of compromise. This is the lesson of the failure of force in Iraq. Compromise means satisfying the minimal terms demanded by Syria and the Lebanese opposition. Refusing to do so will have grave consequences for Lebanon, its neighbors and the United States."

Those who believe Lebanon is a democracy may be a little confused. In the first election in which Syria did not have the deciding vote, Lebanon elected an anti-Syrian government. In 2009, the Lebanese opposition will have another chance to win a greater number of seats in Lebanon's Parliament, and regain power legally. So then, what are these "grave consequences" that Landis mentions?

Of course, it is not much of a mystery. What Professor Landis means is that, if the opposition's "minimal terms" are not met, some of the majority's leaders will be shot in the head by Syria or its proxies. Other March 14 politicians will be ripped apart when a car packed with explosives detonates beside them. And then there is the possibility of random, chaotic violence among Lebanese that neither side's elites can fully control, which risks hurtling the country into civil war.

I do not expect Professor Landis to define with any specificity these "grave consequences." He is an American, and hardball politics in his home country is at least played with a semblance of rules. He is an academic, and explicit threats of violence are generally frowned upon in the ivory tower. From my limited contact with him, he also seems to be a gentleman, and what lies behind his equivocations is far from gentlemanly. For all these reasons, the true meaning of his words must be embarassing. In Lebanon, they fool nobody.

The Obvious Comparison

"It's therefore likely that Bhutto's assassination will join that of former Lebanese PM Rafiq al-Hariri as an "unsolved mystery." (We're now on our third U.N. special investigator in the Hariri case, with very few little to show for it.)" -Foreign Policy Passport

That is just depressing on too many levels for me to get into right now...

Week In Review

I apologize for neglecting my blogging duties this past week. I'm actually in the States for the holidays. I assumed that I would still be able to write regularly by checking the news online, but it's actually quite hard to stay current without talking to people every day about what they find important. That, and I'm addicted to American football.

So, let me just jot down a few notes about the intersection of American and Lebanese politics. For example, this Naharnet story about a statement from Senator Arlen Specter, and "influential U.S. Senator Patrick Kennedy" following their meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem. For starters, Patrick Kennedy is not a US Senator, but a Congressman. And frankly, he is not particularly influential. But factual nitpickings aside, the real story here is Specter and Kennedy's gullible statements that "[Assad] is ready and the Syrian public opinion is ready" for a peace deal. Neither the West or the East, of course, have a monopoly on misunderstanding the other.

Changing gears: in the "American Opinion" folder in my RSS feed, the only people ever talking about Lebanon are the folks over at National Review's The Corner. Unsurprisingly -- and I'm not complaining -- it's a fairly hawkish scene. There has been talk in Washington about the hawks losing their hold on American foreign policy, but when only one group devotes attention to a specific issue, they are generally going to get their way. Now, hawkish Giuliani advisors Martin Kramer and Stephen Rosen have started a new Middle East blog, under the auspices of Harvard University's Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. This sort of foundation-building is what moves policy in the long-term.

Unbalanced Priorities

There are, I suppose, good reasons for the Western world and its allies to hand over $7.4 billion to the Palestinian Authority. They want to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas vis-a-vis Hamas, they think that these funds can be used as internal leverage to pressure the PA to make internal reforms, and they want to continue the "momentum" begun at the Annapolis Conference. Very well. There are also critics of Monday's conference, who argue that the donors' aid only rewards bad behavior, will only be used to line the pockets of corrupt officials, and strengthens an organization that has never been truly committed to a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't pretend that I am able to weigh these competing claims.

That said, any Lebanese reading about the largesse recently promised to the Palestinians must immediately think about the Paris III conference, and the aid pledged to Lebanon after the 2006 summer war. That package amounted to 7.6 billion -- slightly more than the Palestinians just received. But what's a few hundred million among friends? Lebanon has a population of around 4 million, and had recently been bombarded by one of the world's most advanced militaries for over a month. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a population of around 3.5 million and, while undergoing an Israeli economic blockade, have not experienced anywhere near the destruction that affected Lebanon.

More importantly, a strong Lebanon has the prospect of being a genuine, democratic ally of the West. The Lebanese government has more potential on its worst days than the Palestinian Authority has on its best. Realistically, the best Europe and America can hope for the PA is that it becomes an effective dictatorship which accepts a two-state solution in Palestine (and even that is stretching the boundaries of realism). They want to turn the PA into another Jordan. Forgive me for not being enthralled by the grandiose scope of this vision.

But, of course, Europe and America buy into the notion that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is central to the problems that plague the Middle East. If only it can be solved, the thinking goes, Bashar al-Assad will release his political prisoners, Michel Aoun will stop obstructing the Presidential election, and Hassan Nasrallah will be replaced -- not with Naim Kassem, but perhaps Bassem Sabeh. I am, let us say, unconvinced.

From Turkey To Damascus (And Back Again)

For my money (which, when it comes to reading blogs, is of course nothing), Hannah Allam tells some of the best stories about life and culture in the Middle East. Check out this report on Iraqi interpreter "MAK," who worked with the United States Army -- and then feared for his life in Baghdad, because of the possibility of retribution from anti-US insurgents. After failing to find a legal way out of the Middle East, MAK -- now living quietly in Damascus -- paid $6,000 to a Turkish smuggler who promised to arrange transport to Istanbul, and then into Greece. The result of this gamble may be predictable; the story is not.

Where the "Syrian Track" Stands

One of the primary motivations behind last week's Annapolis Conference was to strengthen Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas in his internal struggle against Hamas, which took over the Gaza Strip in 2007. As such, Israeli - Syrian negotiations were given less attention, and would not have been included at all if Syria hadn't made a discussion of the Golan Heights a prerequisite for showing up. Still, there does seem to be movement on this front behind the scenes. But how serious are these talks?

It's not an idle question. March 14 leaders are basing their decision to support Michel Sleiman for President on the assumption that the Americans and the Syrians struck a deal at Annapolis. If the two rivals are heading for a rapprochement, the thinking goes, America isn't going to support a confrontational approach towards Lebanon's Presidential election. However, there isn't a great deal of public information that supports the claim that the American-Syrian relationship will undergo any dramatic changes.

Here's what's going on: Moscow might host a follow-up conference that would emphasize Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Moscow was a Cold War ally of Syria, and obviously has more pull over the Syrian regime than the American government. The New York Times quotes national security advisor Stephen Hadley saying that if Syria will, "give up their support for terror, let Lebanon alone, [and] support a new Iraqi government," then "there are opportunities for them in the Golan Heights."

Notice the formula: if Syria respects Lebanese independence, they can win back the Golan Heights. Lebanon is where Syria needs to make concessions, not what they win for good behavior elsewhere. This hardly seems to be a development that requires anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders to panic and endorse Michel Sleiman. In fact, they just might be squandering a golden opportunity to secure Lebanese sovereignty once and for all.

Mr. Smith Goes To Beirut

I criticized W. Thomas Smith's Lebanon blog, hosted by National Review Online, a few months ago. It's good to see that other American journalists are picking up on the scent. Yesterday, National Review ran a retraction of some of Smith's posts, and Smith commented on the matter himself.

The retraction is slightly bizarre, because it doesn't name the journalist who brought the inaccuracies of Smith's reporting, or mention the exact criticisms. But apparently, Smith wrote on September 25, 2006, that Beirut's downtown was occupied by "some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen." Now, it turns out that he did not see 200 armed Hezbollahi in downtown per se -- rather, he saw two AK-47s while in a moving vehicle on the highway above the camp. And he was informed, by "very reliable sources" which he of course cannot name, that Hezbollah kept weapons in the tents. He writes, "If I mistakenly conveyed that impression [that he saw many armed Hezbollahi] to my readers, I apologize." How could anyone come away with that impression?

If you think that is bad, check out the news that he broke on September 29. On that date, in case you missed the news, 4,000 - 5,000 Hezbollah gunmen "deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut." Did he see any Hezbollah gunmen?* Well, he saw what he thought were Hezbollah militiamen at road intersections in Achrafieh while passing from a moving car. Now, I was not in this moving car, from which it appears that Mr. Smith does all his reporting. But since he no longer appears willing to stand by his assertion that he actually saw any "Hezbollah gunmen," let me go out on a limb and suggest they were actually Lebanese Army soldiers. Keep in mind, Mr. Smith used to be a United States Marine. The inability to distinguish Hezbollah from the Lebanese Army either means one is being spectacularly stupid, or intentionally sensationalistic.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Lebanon knows that these events didn't happen. So, who fed Mr. Smith this bogus news. According to him, they are "reliable sources within the Cedar Revolution movement, as well as insiders within the Lebanese national security apparatus." None of whom, apparently, are willing to go on the record. Mr. Smith says this is because they need to preserve their safety. Very well. Let me suggest a different explanation. There are plenty of people willing to feed a naive journalist fake news; there is nobody willing to risk their reputations by going on the record with blatant lies. If 4,000 - 5,000 Hezbollah foot soldiers really did deploy to Christian areas of Beirut in September, Lebanon would be tumbling over the precipice into civil war. Christian politicians and security experts would be screaming from the rooftops, not making off the record statements to one foreign journalist/blogger.

Finally, Smith brings up the "flag incident" which I mocked him for months ago, where he bragged about stealing a Hezbollah flag from the dahiyeh. He cites objections that this might put other Western journalists in danger by making Hezbollah the impression that they could be hostile to their interests. He is giving himself too much credit; his blog is nowhere near that influential. The post was actually objectionable because it was juvenile and designed to score cheap political points.

Smith claims to have had wonderful access to top security officials in Lebanon, including Michel Sleiman, "multiple high-ranking military and intelligence officers," and "the special forces and counterterrorist strike force commanders." Those are great contacts; good for him. But with all those available resources, he chose to write about how he stole one of the million Hezbollah flags from dahiyeh? He could have advanced a policy suggesting how to sap Hezbollah's political and military strength. Instead, he chose to thrill his readers in Ohio, rather than do any serious damage to Hezbollah in Beirut. Smith took the lazy way out -- which, come to think about it, sums up his Lebanon reporting very well.

P.S. Welcome to all of Andrew Sullivan's readers. Thanks for showing up!

*Typo fixed.

Syria Today (And For Three Years Running)

Andrew Tabler runs Syria Today, a English-language monthly magazine based in Damascus. Earlier this month, they celebrated their third anniversary -- a proud moment for any startup magazine, and even more of one that operates in Syria's repressive media environment. To mark the occassion, Tabler wrote an account of the differences between Syrian and American cultures when it comes to business and media, and his experience walking the line with the Syrian censors:

"Because of the Syrian government's strict adherence to secular politics, we rarely raise the issue of religion in Syria Today. But we are able to engage in rich debate while grounded in very different cultures. American culture is explicit, freedom-loving, and straightforward. Syrian culture is more indirect, nuanced and hierarchical -- the latter not only due to Syria's authoritarian system of government, but also because of traditional patriarchal family structures. Perhaps this is why one doesn't hear much in Syria about Western business ventures with Arab entrepreneurs; subtlety suits Syrians because involvement with Westerners could be used against them. In the West, we often shout about such things from the rooftops. It's a matter of style, not substance."

Tabler is not under any illusions that he can cover every issue without regards to Syrian repression, but I think his magazine nevertheless provides a useful source of information about Syria to the outside world. And it is surprising how willing he is to push the envelope. He calls the work of the daily Syria Times as "convoluted, Orwellian-style propaganda," and characterizes the last 40 years of Syrian government as "badly administered Soviet-style socialism." Tabler knows as much about Syria as any American I've read, and his voice is a valuable addition to our base of knowledge. Happy birthday, guys.

Now the Syrian Regime Has Gone Too Far!

Bashar al-Assad has blocked Facebook. That bastard. MEMRI suggests that the Syrian government was afraid of the Israelis learning one of the many national security secrets readily available on Facebook. But I just think Bashar was tired of being poked.

America's Isolation Of Syria Is A Joke

Remember how the United States passed restrictive trade sanctions against Syria in 2003? Remember how those sanctions were renewed, with much press attention, every year since? And it's hard to forget President Bush's repeated condemnations of the Syrian government. Well, apparently it was all just hot air. Sorry about that. The United States has been providing the Syrian regime with high-tech exports, under the United Nations Development Program:

"It appears that UNDP, the U.S., and yet another partner in Syria's 'customs modernization,' the European Union, have been engaged in a game of incentive diplomacy with the Assad regime, quietly laying the building blocks for a broader trade-for-peace framework with Syria and its neighbors while talking tough and brandishing trade and financial cudgels that are less than meet the eye."

Read the whole thing. Essentially, the United States is providing the Syrian regime with "sophisticated surveillance equipment" through the UNDP. Syrian purchases of the equipment have been approved by the UNDP's executive board, on which the United States has a seat. Cisco, the US-based company that makes equipment, is subject to the export ban to Syria.

What an embarassment. If I was a Congressman who was serious about isolating Syria, I would be up in arms about Congress's laws being circumvented. If I was President Bush, who routinely blasts Syria for its human rights abuses and murderous role in Lebanon, I would be ashamed.

Around the World

With the Lebanese political situation stalled, I thought I'd turn to some interesting news coming out of the rest of the world. As a side note, I wrote this post - twice - yesterday, only to have my internet browser crash right before posting, so if it happens again I'm just going to assume that this topic is cursed and move on with my life.

Iran is giving out visas to American journalists. Shocking! This journalist blogs about the procedure for getting a visa from the Iranian embassy in Cairo. Here is Step 5: "E-mail the press liaison. Call the press liaison and leave a long-winded message on his voicemail. You can always try to sneak in an 'asalamu alaikum' in hopes he'll recognize the super-secret code that translates, roughly, as 'I fully support your right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.'"

The "Rose Revolution" in the former Soviet republic of Georgia is going down in flames. President Mikhail Saakashvili responded to popular unrest by declaring a state of emergency, and brutally suppressing the protesters. Along with Pakistan, Georgia is the second American ally to take an autocratic turn in recent weeks. On a purely karmic level, this does not bode well for Lebanon's pro-government leaders.

Asharq al-Awsat sent a reporter to northern Iraq to meet with members of the Kurdish nationalist PKK. The PKK adheres to a socialist ideology, and the article focuses on Kurdish women fighters discussing feminism, of all things. It's an interesting read. "I do not view my personal life separately from the lives of other Kurdish women, and I do not aspire to settle down in an isolated home and dedicate myself to my husband and children and house cleaning," said one Kurdish woman, when asked if she wanted to be a mother one day. "I want to dedicate my life and struggle to the liberation of all women like myself."

The Computer Nerds Are Arming

"Stop Offending HizbullaH Not To Be Under Attack!! You Can't Challenge Us!! Shhhhhhh Eh?!?!"

Apparently, computer-proficient Hezbollahi don't handle dissent any better than the normal Party of God functionary. This pro-March 14 website was hacked, and the above message was left on the site. Everyone is holding their breath for the accusation that March 14 hacked their own website to generate sympathy. This anti-Harri, Canadian-based website was also crashed, as the circle of violence continues... (hat tip: Angry Arab)

Hassan, We Hardly Knew Ye

This is tragic, just tragic. From the New York Times:

Hassan Fattah, who has been an anchor for us in Dubai, dashing off to story after story around the region, is resigning to take up an exciting opportunity, becoming managing editor of a new English-language pan-Arab daily. Hassan originally came to our attention through his work founding Iraq Today, an English-language newspaper in Iraq. He will be mentoring young Arab journalists, and we wish him well.

Please permit me a moment of schaudenfreude. Now, permit me a moment of conspiracy theorizing. Did he jump, or was he pushed? If you had a job as the New York Times Middle East foreign correspondent, would you leave to edit a start-up newspaper? Just curious.

Case Closed?

Conventional wisdom is slowly congealing around the opinion that Israel's bombing strike last month did, in fact, target a Syrian nuclear facility. It bears mentioning that this story has been driven in large part by excellent reporting by the New York Times and The Washington Post. The photo on the left shows the suspected nuclear facility in August, before the bombing. After the bombings, satellite photos show that the 150 square-foot building had been completely bulldozed:

"But the images, federal and private analysts said Thursday, suggest that the Syrian authorities rushed to dismantle the facility after the strike, saying its removal could be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt.

'It's a magic act -- here today, gone tomorrow,' said a senior intelligence official. 'It doesn't lower suspicions; it raises them. This was not the long-term decommissioning of a building, which can take a year. It was speedy. It's incredible that they could have gone to that effort to make something go away."

Of course, no amount of information is going to be enough to convince some people. After all, Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha says there wasn't!

Rolled

Updating a previous post on Haaretz's allegations that Jumblatt and Israeli Defense Minister Barak met in Washington: David Schenker blasts the Israeli press for passing on rumors fashioned from Syrian propaganda outfits. Schenker is absolutely right. Outfits like Cham Press, which had previously run a story entitled "Walid Jumblatt: Donkey of Mukhtara and Dog of Feltman," shouldn't be read as anything other than an indicator of the Syrian regime's mood.

Just goes to prove that the freedom of the press is worthless if the press is ignorant.

Sometimes, Americans Are Stupid

W. Thomas Smith of the National Review struck a blow for freedom the other day:

"I snatched a Hezbollah flag -- the yellow banner with the green fist and rifle -- from one of the enemy's strongholds in Lebanon recently. And when I say stronghold, I literally mean a strong, heavily defended battle position where the Lebanese Army and police dare not enter, and I had to enter covertly."

It's hard to decide what is most grating about this post. Maybe it's his description of the dahiyeh as a "heavily defended battle position" that he entered "covertly." What were his James Bond-worthy techniques? Hopping into a taxi and saying "Haret Hreik?"

Mr. Smith's guide into the dahiyeh is a "former Christian militaman," who he seems to be on good terms with. Apparently, his problem isn't with unrepentant militiamen per se -- just militias that aren't fighting on our side. This is the type of person who shouldn't be allowed within a hundred miles of any decision affecting Lebanon.

Oy Vey

I missed this article when it first came out, but the New York Times published a great profile of Syrian Jews living in Brooklyn, New York last week. Presumably many of the "Syrian" Jews come from modern-day Lebanon, as many arrived during the beginning of the 20th century, when Syria and Lebanon were still one country.

The Syrian Jews have worked very hard to maintain the insular community they must have enjoyed in the Middle East in modern-day Brooklyn. They are governed by a strict edict prohibiting marriage to non-Jews, including converts to Judaism. Even most American Jews can't marry into the community. The Syrian Jews require proof, going back three generations and confirmed by an Orthodox rabbi, that their ancestors were married according to Orthodox law. Try asking your typical Manhattan hipster for that sort of documentation, and see what sort of reaction you get.

Anyway, the author captures the Middle Eastern nature of this religious community nicely -- and doesn't ignore the fact that there is something deeply enticing about the close-knit society:

"It's a magical place," he told me. "You come home from school and there are 10 women in the kitchen, your mother and aunts and cousins, cooking special Syrian delicacies. Every celebration is large, full of relatives. The etiquette is what they call fadal -- just come over, don't be formal. Very Middle Eastern. Very seductive and sensual."

For the clearing house of information on Lebanese Judaism, check out The Jews Of Lebanon.

Walid Jumblatt and Ehud Barak?

Haaretz forwards along, unquestioningly, a report published in Syrian mouthpiece Sham Press that Jumblatt is meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Washington DC. Barak is in Washington to discuss Middle East security, and the Iranian nuclear threat. According to the Syrian report, Jumblatt will ask Barak to use his Washington contacts to push for regime change in Syria.

The reasons why the Syrian regime would fabricate such a meeting are pretty obvious. Less clear is why Haaretz, a respectable paper that is certainly aware of the Syrian propaganda machine, would repeat the rumor without independent confirmation. Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz's Washington correspondent whose byline appears over the story, always appeared to be a relatively sharp political observer to my eyes. And the shared anti-Syrian position of Jumblatt and Barak could provide some common ground for the two leaders. I don't discount the possibility that Rosner heard unconfirmed rumors of a Jumblatt-Barak meeting, and decided to get the story in Haaretz by "reporting" on the Sham Press article.

Come Again?

From USA Today:

The military in Lebanon has long been weak, numbering 56,000 personnel, with about 220 battle tanks, no effective air power and no air defense system. Hezbollah guerrillas are widely considered a stronger, more experienced force, and they were able to fight Lebanon's military to a standstill last year.(emphasis mine)

Good to know that the American press thinks that civil war broke out in Lebanon last year...

Talking To Al Qaeda In Lebanon

Speaking of Nibras Kazimi, I just came across his blog. He's currently translating a marathon interview with Faisal Akbar published in Al-Akhbar last week. Akbar was an Al Qaeda militant arrested in Beirut who first admitted to being part of the Hariri assassination, and later recanted. While the first part of the interview does not break any new ground regarding Lebanese political developments, it is a rare look into the organizational structure of a movement that generally remains out of the public eye. For example:

"Usually, the mujaheddin from Lebanon are received after they have been vouched for from persons who are already members in the group, and they are activists who have already pledged allegiance, and they are trustworthy. After someone arrives from Lebanon, he is received in Syria, and is taken to a place that we call a 'madhafeh' [guest house], without letting him know the route or address, and the procedures are called 'secure transfer.' Then this person usually undergoes a security seminar...During this time, he pledges allegiance to the Emir, which binds him to working with the group. I should add that it is the right of a mujahid to stipulate during his pledge of allegiance whether he would be a fighter or a suicide bomber, or to stipulate that he is only to fight the Americans, or to set any conditions that the mujahid may want.

The Syrian Power Struggle

"The afternoon is the worst time for a serious power outage - especially in the middle of a burning hot summer. The hours between one and four or five transform one from a keen-sensed poet into a crazed murderer... You curse your mother and your father who brought you into Syria."

I am a big fan of the international tribunal, but I have always been skeptical of the contention that it poses an existential threat to the Syrian regime. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the "international community" dragging Bashar al-Assad off to the Hague in handcuffs. The greater risk to the Assad regime is popular discontent at living in a poverty-stricken, stagnant country. MEMRI reports on rising resentment caused by the blackouts that swept across Syria this summer. In early August, a hacker broke into the Electricity Ministry's website, and left the message: "I thank all the Electricity Ministry employees, and particularly the [electricity] minister, who so far has offered no solution and has abandoned the country and the people who gave him his job. I also express my gratitude for the tremendous effort of all those in charge of maintenance in the Electricity Ministry - an effort that demonstrates their inability to bear the responsibility and to hold onto their lofty positions. How long will we remain backward? How long?"

Even the normally docile Syrian press got into the act. The Syrian daily Al-Watan wrote, in its daily editorial:

"What is the use of all members of the government stressing the 'improvement' in the citizen's [standard of] living? What is the use of threats, promises, and ultimatums [for solving the crisis] when they are only slogans? The Syrian citizen raises these questions every day, every hour, in an attempt to obtain an explanation of what is going on. Water comes from Allah, but electricity is the government's responsibility... What are the investor, the tourist, and the immigrant told? Are they told that the planning is poor, and that the cause of the crisis is the corruption and neglect? Or are we to reiterate the words of the government and of the electricity minister, that the crisis is temporary and it will be overcome within a short time?"

"All politics is local," said an American politician. It is a principle to live by, even in Syria.

The Anatomy Of Outrage

The shiny building to your right is the Apple store in midtown Manhattan, New York City, contructed in May 2006. The building beneath it is the Kabaa, the holiest shrine in Islam in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, constructed in its present form around the late seventh century.

In October 2006, an Islamist website posted an outraged message that the Apple store was deliberately meant to resemble the Kabaa, and constituted a direct provocation to Muslims. The website alleged that the Apple store would be open 24 hours a day, like the Kabaa, and would sell alcoholic beverages (both untrue statements, but the alcoholic beverage idea is one Apple could take under consideration).

The story gestated for a year, before popping up last week in Kashmir, Pakistan of all places. "Hundreds of students of the local Degree College took out a protest march through the streets of Baramulla town, chanting anti-American and pro-Islam slogans," reads the Islamic Republic News Agency article. "The students said that building a wine-shop or a bar like the Kaaba amounted to the desecration of the holy sites of Islam."

So it goes, in parts of the world. Will this be the next "Danish cartoon" scandal, or do we get a few more months off? (Hat Tip: The Spine, and MacDailyNews for the picture)

Syria Walks The Line

Kudos to Damascus-based reporter Hugh Naylor for publishing this report on Syria's support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. This charge is thrown around Washington with some frequency, but it's impressive that Naylor was able to get Syrians to substantiate his claims. He uncovered information about a conference among Iraqi insurgent groups, with the goal of coordinating efforts against the US military, at a resort outside Damascus. He also quotes a former Syrian Minister of Information comparing the Iraqi insurgency to George Washington fighting to British.

What is clear is that Syria is walking a thin line in Iraq. Syria's role in organizing the insurgency risks bringing down the wrath of the United States. It also endangers Syria's alliance with Iran, which supports the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq and does not take kindly to attacks on the government by ancien regime Sunnis. Syria has a lot of experience destabilizing neighboring countries. They're going to need all of it.

The Greater Lebanon News Service

It is hard, if not impossible, to talk about Lebanese politics without describing what is going on in the broader Western and Arab worlds. So here's a rundown of the important news and commentary, both from within Lebanon and without, during the past few days.

• Nicholas Blanford remembers his meeting with recently-murdered Islamist preacher/Syrian regime agent Abu al-Qaqa. Qaqa was an interesting hybrid -- someone who could channel Islamist energy in Aleppo to causes that aided the Syrian regime. And this should put an end to the arguments that the "secular" Alawite regime could never make common cause with Islamists, right? Glad that's taken care of.

• Seymour Hersh publishes rings the alarm bells over Bush's plan to invade Iran. I can't speak for the Bush Administration, but in my experience this is a scheme that anti-war liberals like to talk about more than pro-war hawks. Most hawks don't harbor any love for the Iranian regime, but at the same time realize that the United States has its hands full in Iraq and can't afford to open up another front in Iran.

  Nevertheless, Hersh can't get enough of this story because it allows him to paint the Bush Administration as reckless -- despite the fact that it has yet to launch a single attack on Iranian forces, in spite of his continuous warnings. Maybe Saad Hariri can provide a brigade of Islamists to help the United States Army occupy Tehran.

• I like Jeha's take on the friends behind some of Lebanon's Presidential candidates. Like me, he seems a bit unsure on where Syria's loyalties lie. Is Boutros Harb really an option? Apparently, he's close to Nabih Berri. Army commander Michel Sleiman is probably the most likely "Syrian candidate," but it's not like he's coming out and screaming that fact from the rooftops. On a similar note: who is the "American candidate?" No, Walid Jumblatt hasn't thrown his name in the ring.

  Scanning the list of potential names, one happy fact does present itself: Lebanon is almost certain to have a better President than Emile Lahoud. OK, the cynics among you may note that there was nowhere to go but up. And, of course, there is still a wide difference among the candidates in their commitment to Lebanese sovereignty, and spreading the control of the state across all parts of the country. But March 14 is going to find itself on better terms with Lebanon's President come late November, and it should start thinking now about how to exploit that fact.

• There was an update earlier this week about the Air Strike That Dares Not Speak Its Name -- namely, last month's Israeli attack on a northern Syria military facility that none of the parties involved wanted to speak about. Bashar al-Assad told the BBC that the Israeli planes hit an "unused military building," an excuse which doesn't even sound like anybody put a great deal of effort into formulating. Funny, considering that almost a month passed between the actual strike and this explanation. Syrian officials had previously only said that Israeli plans had entered Syrian airspace, came under fire from Syrian anti-air guns, and fled back to Occupied Palestine.

  Aviation Week has one explanation for how the Israeli jets could have entered Syrian territory undetected. Apparently, a U.S.-developed "Suter" network attack system can invade enemy sensors, allowing a country to see what the sensors see and even manipulate them so that attacking aircraft can't be seen. I have precisely no idea if that's what happens, but it does jibe with reports in the Kuwaiti press that US jets provided air cover for the Israeli attacks.