My friend Rico and I have been in conversation over the last few days about the situation in the region, and yesterday I made the following comment: 'the fact that the US has decided to attack Syria has just made a war with Israel measurably more likely.' He shot me back an email asking why Israel would enter into a conflict in Lebanon, and my answer went on for so long and in such excessive detail that I decided it deserved blog status. Here it is:
_______________________________
Interesting question. My answer might surprise you: Israel is looking for any excuse to attack Lebanon and if they get one it will be very, very bad for us because they will hit Lebanon very hard.
Hezbullah basically owns the south of Lebanon. They claim to have 50,000 rockets of various kinds aimed at Israel, and this is probably pretty accurate. They also claim not to want a fight with Israel at the moment (Why would they? They've got 10,000 men committed to Syria.), but Israel couldn't care less. They want to get rid of those missiles at almost any cost.
Israel traditionally has very good intelligence in all the surrounding countries. It's probably about right to estimate that they know where 2/3 of those rockets are located. Knowing where they're stored and being able to get at them are two different things, however. And then there are the other 15,000 or so they have no idea about. That's a lot of rockets, some of which are quite large and can certainly hit Haifa and Tel Aviv.
Iran is Hezbullah's supplier. That's why Hezbullah went to war in Syria and thus dragged us several steps closer to the edge of the cliff. They desperately need to keep open their supply pipeline to Iran. The moment Assad falls in Syria they are vulnerable. Hezbullah is a Shia' organization. The opposition in Syria - whether moderate or crazy jihadist - is overwhelmingly Sunni. Although everyone claims solidarity in the fight against Israel, this solidarity would probably not survive a change in regime in Syria. At least, for a while. This would be the moment for Israel to attack in order to try to wipe Hezbullah out at a minimum cost to themselves. Minimum doesn't mean small, they'd probably take very big hits, too. Just smaller than if they let Hezbullah determine the date and time of the battle.
The ONLY way to really hit Hezbullah in Lebanon is to hit it everywhere, including Beirut. Also, the Israelis have always - who knows this in the West? - hit everybody and everyplace whenever they feel threatened. Particularly in Lebanon.
To this day I remember an interview I had back in the 80s with US Marine officers out at the airport. This was the encampment ordered into Lebanon by Reagan, and this was the encampment about to be hit a few days later by a truck bomb that killed over 250 Marines. What nobody knew - and what nobody still knows - is that the Marines had been trading fire, NIGHTLY, with Israeli forces located less than a quarter mile away. I was dumbfounded - weren't we allies? The Marines explained: every nite the Israelis fired indiscriminately in the direction of the poor Shia' neighborhoods next to the airport. The Marines even had a term for this: they called it 'recon by fire'. In other words, fire at everything and see where the return fire comes from! In the course of this, they invariably came a little too close to the Marines, who were under orders to return fire when fired upon. Thus, every night US forces and the Israeli army were trading fire in the suburbs of Beirut! Boys from New York and LA were firing at each other on behalf of allied armies in a third country!
With regard to Lebanon, Israel has for decades had an explicitly ennunciated policy of holding all Lebanese responsible for any incidents that occur on its northern border. Since the 60s this has resulted in repeated destruction of entire villages, of infrastructure and uncounted killed and wounded.
If this happens in coming days the south of Lebanon will be devastated again, Beirut's southern suburbs will again be reduced to smoke and ruin, and even the north will likely get hit. During the 2006 war with Hezbullah, Israel also hit the electricity grid all over the country and lots of other infrastructure that had absolutely nothing to do with Hezbullah. If this happens we'll have no water and no electricity for a while, an unpleasant prospect.
But wait, there's more! The US has decided to hit Syria in the next few days. Many people who know a lot over here think when (not if, the decision has been made) this happens either Syria or Hezbullah may strike out against Israel in retaliation. Poof! Instant war!
What worries me in all this..well, all that is pretty worrisome by itself...but what worries me is that if there is open fighting in Lebanon with anyone, the jihadis, supported by our good friends Saudi Arabia and Qatar (there's another blog post!), will try to take over the battle as they have tried in Syria, Mali, Libya and so on. It will be a long time before Lebanon recovers from that, if it happens.
Postscript, Sept 1, 2013: It appears the decision to attack Syria may not be as firm as it appeared 2 days ago. As of today the UK has voted not to participate and Reuters reported a short while ago that President Obama has asked Congress to debate the action before a final decision is made. Whether he's trying to spread the blame or hoping for a way out of a very dicey situation is unclear - for the moment I'm betting on the latter. I also heard a report yesterday that the US and Iran may have reached some kind of understanding. Whether this includes agreement about an Iranian response to a US strike, or perhaps Iranian pressure on Assad on the use of chemical weapons, I don't know. But, clearly, it's a complicated board and the pieces are all in motion.
If the Israelis and US Marines were exchanging fire due to the historical causes and conditions you outline it seems as if this occurrence should be part of the known facts of the past/current/future situation in the region. If, indeed, this is as known as you suggest, then I wonder three things: 1) why wasn't this more widely publicized at the time; and 2) why isn't more widely discussed (or at least recognized) now; and 3) what can be done to get this information interjected into the broader historical timeline? If a response to these Qs were to materialize, I would request that it go beyond the facile: 1) "cover up," 2) "people are asleep," and 3) "who would care anyway" Thanks, kk
ReplyDeleteHi kk,
ReplyDeleteI actually suggested that this fact is unknown - other than to me and the relatively few people who might have heard my report on Pacifica at the time. If only Pacifica had had a wider audience! As to why it didn't get coverage in the mainstream press: I suppose it was accidental in the sense that I happened to ask a question that other reporters hadn't. The marines were certainly not at all reluctant to talk about it. In fact, they enjoyed telling the story. A few days later most of those marines were lying dead or wounded and the story they had told me was buried by the enormity of that event. I'd add that I think it's no more than an interesting historical sidenote. It's not as if the IDF and the Marines were engaged in open warfare; it was really just a by-product of the two armies' differing rules of engagement. In any case, I tell the story not to prove something about Israeli-American military relations (The USS Liberty story would be more to that point), but to make a point about IDF behavior in Lebanon. This is behavior I've seen with my own eyes. Anyone can accept or reject my account, but it IS my personal account, not the product of research or someone else's experience. Thanks for your comment!
Michel,
DeleteI am just now visiting some of these earlier writings (ah, summer in the PNW). One from July "It's not about politics" of course resonates with my time in Palestine where ALL is colored by politics of the day, which interestingly look pretty much like politics over the past 50 years. You outline the Lebanese penchant for conspiracy. According to cultural theory, one might call this a 'fatalist' tendency - one of Mary Douglas' four main human "world views." When I step WAY back from my experiences in the ME, I often land in a place where I simply feel compassion - not only (or even mostly) for the plight of so many lives, but more deeply, for the fatalist lock on locals' minds that seemed omnipresent when I was there. What would be very interesting (to me anyway) would be for you to attempt to investigate first, IF locals recognize the lock, and if so, secondly ask them why they think it has such power and presence. Finally, I wonder about 'abuse' on a nation-state scale. Books on that subject that focus on the individual level (as in, individuals who were abused in youth and are now adults...but still haven't fully or effectively made peace with it) suggest that the (not yet fully adjusted) adult will generally tend to display 2 main attributes: blame and attack. In my travels through the region I saw a LOT of both; we read about both every day. I wonder if anyone has attempted to analyze some or all of the modern ME experience -- and the penchant for blame and attack -- in social-level abuse terms. I am more interested, however, if any of your Lebanese buddies see any fatalist tendencies when they look at their neighbors or in the mirror and if they think that is OK. To recognize some of that tendency could lead to (some, more) responsibility-taking which is a pain in the neck, of course. You will recall the dinner at my house when my Palestinian guest wanted nothing to do with any responsibility-taking; oh boy, did my food go cold on that evening. I still wonder about any real, lasting change in the ME (or anywhere for that matter) without at lease a modicum of internal/personal revolution... as in "I am part of the problem, and seeing that helps me - maybe - become part of the solution." We all have musings, right? Thx, kk
Hey kk,
DeleteHope you're enjoying the tail end of NW summer. I well remember that night. One of the rare times I've been considered suspect before even arriving in the ME! You raise a whole lot of questions to which I don't have very qood answers (some gunfire just erupted outside, but quite far off...is there a connection? ;->) I'm also about to lose power in a few minutes, and, along with it, the internet. Basically, as I tried to say in my post, I would LIKE to think it's all cultural, but I fail. The early Zionists wanted to expel the Palestinians to Jordan or Iraq, and their letters make frequent reference to how that might be done. Interestingly, Jabotinsky suggested coming out publicly AGAINST such a plan, as the 'suspicious' Arabs would then be in favor of it! I think tribal society fosters inter-group suspicion by the nature of its dynamics. There are so many categories of outsiders and such a hierarchy of 'outsideness' that the whole thing is quite bewildering if you aren't brought up in it. If you are, it seems to make perfect, intuitive sense. It's not beyond reach of intelectual reflection, however. Several people I've talked to about it are completely aware of what they're doing....yet they do it! On the other hand, I don't see a connection between all this and home environments, parent - child relations and so on. Perhaps one could make a case about the extremely patriarchal tone to the 'typical' Arab family, but then one would have to explain away the same tone in many other parts of the world, not to mention historical eras. And one would be ignoring the fact that home life in this part of the world is demonstrably as intimate and loving, in general, as anywhere else. what's more to your point is the clear fact that something like 'abuse' does go on at the level of society and governance. That's obvious from the headlines.
The problem with all this is that the area IS different politically and historically. As I said in my post, it doesn't take very long to enter into a very logical acceptance of the idea that events are determined by hidden forces and that all coercive power is designed to benefit 'hidden hands' at the cost of the suffering many.
My overall take is basically that it's a relative matter. When I call Lebanon a mafia state I'm well aware that France is also, as is the US. So was the USSR and of Russia today there can be no doubt whatever. It's a matter of degree. All power relations in human society seem to inevitably become pyramidal, and the goal of the powerful has to be one of two things: either enforce through fear or obfuscate the truth. Obfuscation, which is the case in most of the West, does entail some compromise, as the exercise of power itself has to be moderated in order to be obfuscated. So, in the US we get relative freedom when compared to the Syrians.
More crucially, we get a relatively conducive environment to something even bigger: a re-orientation away from the idea of government as an enforcer of privilege and denier of access to resources and towards the idea of government as a provider of resources and services. To me this is really important - historic, even. It instantly creates the idea of a shared space, of a commonwealth and of a common committment. And it's the enemy of inter-group suspicion.
Like I said, it's a continuum. But comparing governance in Syria, for example, to governance in Portland gives a pretty good flavor.
Hmm, I think I kind of diverged from your comment, didn't I?
Hi Michel, I find this blog simultaneously fascinating and depressing reading. Very critical information to the current debate about US intentions, and possible outcomes, in Syria. Ma I post a link to your blog on my FB page? Thanks, Jim
ReplyDeleteHi Michel,
ReplyDeleteAm writing to let you know how important your voice is to me, especially wrt current international affairs. Thank you for sharing this blog.
Nancy