Bear Hug

Russia is shows every intention of expanding its conflict with the United States and NATO to the Middle East. President Assad just completed a trip to Moscow, where he met with Medvedev and Putin. Assad was not especially coy about the purpose of the meetings: "Of course military and technical cooperation is the main issue. Weapons purchases are very important...I think we should speed it up."

Fresh on the heels of Assad's visit, newspapers have reported that Hezbollah has struck a deal with Russia to purchase new anti-tank and anti-air missiles. Assad also said that he was willing to discuss placing Russian-built missile defense systems on Syrian territory.

Notes on a Murder

"As he drove past the houses that lined the main street of his village of Betroumine in the northern district of Koura, Father Camille Katrib pointed out the identity of the occupants. 'This man is a doctor -- he works in the United States. This is the house of the mayor -- he pays out of his own pocket for many of the goods of the village, sometimes he even puts the stamps on letters.' Father Katrib paused, and then continued in a hushed voice. 'And this is the house of the murderer.'"

Read it all here.

1957 All Over Again

In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. The realization that the USSR had beaten the Americans in getting a satellite into orbit triggered the "space race," and fear that the Soviets were technologically ahead the Americans led to John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign pledge to close the "missile gap."

Fast-forward over a half a century: Iran has just launched a rocket that could serve as its first satellite carrier. There was no actual satellite aboard the rocket, and the Americans are claiming that the launch actually failed. But no matter: the test has inspired concern among Western security officials, and the Iranian government has magnanimously offered to launch the satellites of other Muslim nations.

While Sputnik inspired near-panic in the West, the Iranian test should serve to put the current international balance of power in the proper perspective. Compared to America's 20th century enemies, the Iranian-led coalition is almost laughably weak. At best, Iran can stunt American plans until the US becomes disinterested or fundamentally weakened by other factors. But in terms of establishing a rival order, Iran isn't a threat -- it's a joke.

The Growling Bear

As Georgia still reels from the Russian invasion, some Middle East experts are already contemplating what a resurgent Russia means for the Middle East order (forgive the oxymoron).

"The main aim will be to weaken America's position in the Middle East. In this respect, there are differences of opinion in the Kremlin. Some ex-generals have come on record to the effect that a war with America is inevitable in a perspective of 10-15 years. The influence of these radical military men should not be overrated. But it is certainly true that the belief that America is Russia's worst and most dangerous enemy is quite common...The downfall of the Soviet empire is thought to be mainly if not entirely America's fault; Washington, it is believed, is trying to hurt Russia all the time in every possible way."

Russia's historical ally in the Middle East, dating from the Soviet era, has been Syria. They have also completed military deals with the Iranian regime. If Russia plans to use these states to launch an insurgency against America's regional allies, the obvious target is, first, Iraq -- and then Lebanon. It sounds like a classic proxy battle; welcome back to the Cold War.

Russia has already played an active diplomatic role in Syria and Lebanon recently. In what direction it pushes Syria now, post-Georgia invasion, bears watching.

The SLA Today

What is the fate of proxies who are no longer of use to the states that sponsored them? In the case of the South Lebanon Army, an Israeli-sponsored militia that ruled South Lebanon until the Israeli pullout in 2000, the answer is -- nothing good:

"On Sunday, approximately 100 SLA soldiers and their family members demonstrated opposite the David Gate at the Kirya base in Tel Aviv...The protesters feel betrayed by the Defense Ministry, which they believe abandoned them after many years of service.

...

"We want the minimum that we deserve. I am not a new immigrant, I fought, served in the army and I deserve to be treated by the Defense Ministry. This is what we want. You can't throw people at the Immigrant Absorption Ministry,” said a former SLA officer."

There aren't many handouts around here, on either side of the border.

Where I'm Calling From

"Barely a hundred years ago, Lebanese Christians readily proclaimed themselves Syrian, Syrians looked to Mecca for a king, Jews in the Holy Land called themselves Palestinian...and my grandfather Botros liked to think of himself as an Ottoman citizen...None of the present-day Middle Eastern states existed, and even the term 'Middle East' hadn't been invented. The commonly used term was 'Asian Turkey.' Since then, scores of people have died for allegedly eternal homelands, and many more will die tomorrow."

So says Amin Maalouf, whose memoir "Origins" Origins" has recently been translated into English. The book traces the stories of his ancestors -- who include a successful retail businessmen in Havana, a "tragic hunger artist," his freethinking grandfather Butros, Catholics, Protestants, a Melkite priest, and even a Mormon branch. I read Maalouf's "Rock of Tanios," his fictionalized account of the Lebanese civil war. It was good -- not excellent, but good enough to pick up "Origins" if I find myself with a free weekend.

The New York Times published a positive review today. It describes Maalouf as "a polemicist on behalf of the mongrel life," a partisan for a more tolerant sense of identity. Slate published a review a few weeks ago, which uses the book as a launching point to discuss a "lost age of liberalism" that Maalouf's grandfather allegedly represented. I have not read the book yet, but I can say the NYT's review made me more eager to pick up the book.

The Arab Street, Revisited

I don't know anything about the "Lebanese Development Network," but they have released a poll purportedly measuring the popularity of Lebanon's political parties, broken down by religious sect. I have expressed skepticism about the accuracy of polling in the Middle East before. The LDN poll asked respondents "What political party best represents your point of view?" It shows Hezbollah's popularity among the Shia community dropping from 64% in December 2006 to 40% in April 2008. Importantly, all polling was completed before the Hezbollah-led occupation of West Beirut in May.

Assuming these results are accurate (and that's a big assumption), they run counter to the results reached by Shibley Telhami's Brookings Institute poll of Arab public opinion, which showed widespread popular support for Nasrallah. The two polls' results are not, of course, mutually contradictory -- Hezbollah's popularity could conceivably be soaring in the Arab world at large and plummeting in Lebanon -- but it would make for a strange dynamic.

From the Telhami poll, the most interesting result came when Lebanese respondents were asked "Describe your attitude towards Israel's power." They were given the options of answering that Israel's power was expanding, that it was impossible to know if Israel would get stronger or weaker, or that Israel was weak and it was only a matter of time before it was defeated. Check out the growing divide between sects, from 2006 to 2008, in their perception of Israel's strength. It sure doesn't seem like a formula for different community's seeing eye to eye on a "national defense strategy."

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.
  

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.

Memo To Sheikh Saad

Here's what the "Sunni street" is saying. From the LAT:

"'We are prepared to fight for a few hours but not more,' said one of the Sunni fighters in the waning moments of the battle. 'Where do we get ammunition and weapons from? We are blocked. The roads are blocked. Even Saad Hariri has left us to face our fate alone.'"

And this, from yesterday's New York Times:

"'Saad Hariri let us down,' said one young man in Tarik Jadideh, where the streets were still littered with broken glass on Friday, and blackened building facades bore witness to fierce battles the night before with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. 'We don't want the Future Movement any more, or the whole Hariri family.' The man refused to give his name, because Mr. Hariri is such an important figure in the area."

The army neglected to confront Hezbollah's militiamen, with the idea that letting one side run roughshod would limit casualties. This might have been true in the short term, but it is only going to ensure the recurrence of violence in the future.

There is no community in the world that will roll over meekly when its government or political leaders are unable to protect them. Since it seems to be a fantasy that the Lebanese army is going to do anything positive, Saad Hariri is going to be under intense pressure from his supporters to (re)build a stronger, larger, and better-trained militia. If he does not, he will no longer be the leader of Lebanese Sunnis. Simple as that.

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?

Israel Watches

Israel announced that it will not intervene in the clashes currently occurring throughout Lebanon, but that they are "closely watching developments" there. Israeli jets flew over South Lebanon today, which just goes to show that Israel's idea of keeping an eye on developments isn't confined to watching CNN.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the Israelis aren't planning to take any immediate action. They don't have any major allies in this country, and any military campaign would only undermine the position of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, which Israel depends on to keep Hezbollah away from its southern border.

However, there is increasing certainty in Israel that military action in Lebanon will be necessary sooner, rather than later. Haaretz is concerned that Hezbollah will use its bolstered domestic position to bully UNIFIL and re-establish its presence on Israel's northern border. That sounds plausible. After this confrontation, Hezbollah will want to show that it is holding onto its weapons for some greater purpose than marching around West Beirut. They also have not yet avenged the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, a fact that is raising recurring questions regarding Hezbollah's military capabilities.

YNet, meanwhile, focuses on the Iranian role in Hezbollah's belligerence. Because of their experience with Hamas, not many Israelis are going to have patience with a newly aggressive, Iranian-funded militia on their border. YNet's analysis of Lebanese politics is ridiculous -- they speak of how Hezbollah is poised to win the next Parliamentary elections and turn Lebanon into an "Iranian colony." Almost certainly, there will be fewer communities willing to ally themselves with Hezbollah after this fiasco. Nevertheless, this is how Israel perceives Lebanon today, a fact which is both ominous and entirely predictable.

Stop the Presses

Originally posted on The Weekly Standard blog:

Of all the scummy things the Hezbollah and its allies have done during their takeover of West Beirut, the burning of pro-government media outlets is one of the worst. Prominent anti-Syrian media figures have long been the target of political violence: journalists Samir Kassir and Gebran Tueni were assassinated during the 2005 Cedar Revolution, and the television anchor May Chidiac barely survived a car bomb assassination attempt.

This time around, Hezbollah militants have ransacked the media offices of the pro-government Future Movement, headed by Saad Hariri, throughout Beirut. Make no mistake: this is an orchestrated attack. Hezbollah's supporters have destroyed Future Movement TV antennas across the city and threatened pro-government journalists. Most egregiously, they invaded and set fire to the Future Movement newspaper, located in West Beirut. As has become routine, the Lebanese army stood by and watched while these offices were destroyed.

This shows that the pro-Syrian forces do have a perverse understanding of the importance of public relations. It is not enough to control the streets, each side is trying to win "hearts and minds." However, Hezbollah's actions have accomplished just the opposite. Their occupation of Beirut's Sunni areas has shattered whatever remaining goodwill the party retained among non-Shia Lebanese.

Fortunately for Lebanon, its journalists are a hardy breed. The Lebanese Press Club organized a march in solidarity of Future media outlets today -- including, among others, May Chidiac. Mustapha, who blogs at Beirut Spring, has also organized a campaign in solidarity of freedom of the press in Lebanon.

The Lebanese will not surrender without a fight.

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?

Hamra Under Siege

One of the two stories I punched out yesterday:

Starting late last night and continuing into the morning, Hezbollah and Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) militiamen engaged in street clashes on the major roads of Hamra and Verdun, among other areas of broader Ras Beirut. "We have an SSNP flag right under us. I'm looking at their guys as we speak," noted Dana, a resident of Hamra. "The ones that I can see are holding their guns...they stop cars; like, every time a car passes by, they stop the car. If they like it, they'll let it go. If they don't, they'll make it turn around."

Fighting has been punctuated by automatic weapons fire and explosions of rocket-propelled grenades. Residents stayed indoors and away from windows, to avoid ricocheting bullets. "Right now, we're looking at about 10 militiamen with what are RPGs mounted on their shoulders, carrying big guns. There are loud bangs, followed by militiamen running down Hamra," stated Sarah, an AUB student. "There were guys in fatigues. At first, I thought they were army. But now, I'm not so sure, because they were wearing masks on their faces...and now these guys aren't in any kinds of uniforms. It has been surreal."

While the Lebanese Army has a presence in Hamra, they are refraining from taking on the militiamen. "On Hamra Street, I don't know, about ten tanks were rolling down the street a couple of hours ago," said Sarah. "They were just talking to the militia guys, standing next to them, and just hanging out. There were not, as far as I can tell, any requests for them to go home."

In the absence of army protection, residents suggested that Hezbollah's control had spread even to the gates of the American University of Beirut. "I just heard that Amal and Hezbollah are on Bliss. Have you heard this? They locked the main gate [of AUB] right now, because they're roaming around," said Hayeon, a South Korean resident of Hamra.

"It's pretty f***ed up," said Ryan, a student at the American University of Beirut studying for a masters degree in Middle Eastern studies. "I was drinking pretty heavily, but you sober up pretty quickly when you're scared. I don't know. We've just been trying to stay indoors, trying not to freak out."

Fighting has died down as the day progressed, as militiamen loyal to Hezbollah and their allies secure their control over West Beirut. "I was walking Hamra Street ten minutes ago, and there was one Hezbollah soldier each five meters," explained Francois, a Hamra resident, around noon. "It seems to be under their control. These are the real fighters. It's like an army, with full equipment and weapons. They are really well-equipped. More than the Lebanese army, by far."

A perplexing sense of order prevails on Hamra's streets, regularly interrupted by sporadic bursts of gunfire. Nevertheless, some people were seen walking the streets and a few shops opened their doors. "Snack Faysal [on Bliss Street] is still open," announced Ryan. "They're really making a killing."

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.

Unlucky Seven

According to the wires, about seven people have been killed in Beirut, Bekaa, and the North in this latest round of fighting. That's obviously seven too many, but let me put this in perspective for those not in Beirut: for much of last night, the city was rattling until dawn with automatic weapons fire and RPG explosions. Frankly, it is surprising that much gunfire can occur in one place with only seven casualties.

Most of the people I've talked to have said that the vast majority of the gunfire is aimed towards the sky. When the militiamen hear gunfire coming from the other side, they direct their weapons in the air and fire in such a way that the bullets will land on their rivals' territory.

What does that tell us? Well, it means that both sides see a mutual interest in keeping the situation somewhat under control. And they're right. People remember the civil war; they know they have to live with each other. All signs from Ras Beirut suggest that Hezbollah is maintaining a professional, but firm, hold on their newly won territory. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from needlessly antagonizing the local population.

As for the Future Movement and the PSP -- look, I'm perfectly willing to believe that, in the end, they would lose a confrontation with Hezbollah. But I'm not willing to believe that they would go down without punching someone in the mouth first. And we simply haven't seen any indication that they've attempted seriously to resist Hezbollah's invasion of their territory. That is the shoe that has yet to drop. But just wait a while.

Rout

It wasn't a battle, really. Hezbollah, and its hangers-on, simply strutted into all of West Beirut and the Future Movement supporters laid down their weapons. There doesn't seem to be enough casualties to suggest that anybody put up a very serious attempt to stop them.

Well -- what are the consequences of such a development? On the political level, it means that the central government is put in an increasingly untenable position. The power of bureaucrats issuing edicts from the Grand Serail is based on the assumption that someone, somewhere on the streets, is going to implement them. If they are just scribbling on pieces of paper, it is going to become increasingly hard to justify their hold on power.

On the other hand, Hezbollah is now occupying territory which is fundamentally hostile to their presence. There is going to be a lot of crowing in the next few days about Hezbollah's superior military capabilities. Very well. There was a lot of crowing in America in April 2003, when the military brought down Saddam Hussein's regime. I have no idea if the retaliation from the Sunni, Druze, and Christian communities will come tomorrow, or five years from now. But I am certain that the sanctity of the "Resistance," in the eyes of non-Shia Lebanese, has been lost forever.

All About History

Yes, I know, I've been negligent. But I don't want you to think that I have given up on Lebanon. I have been writing, just for NOW Lebanon, rather than here. Oh, the stories I could tell. But as a general rule, I am hesitant to write about people I interview for them in this space. I approach them as a journalist for NOW, and have a feeling that many sources might not take too kindly to their words ending up on this blog. So while I am sure that everyone is dying to read an MTV Cribs-esque description of Sami Gemayel's apartment, you're just going to have to do without.

I really enjoyed writing this story, on the difficulty of polling in the Arab world. The point that I wanted to drive home is that accurate polling is a very difficult feat, and the natural obstacles erected in the Arab world only make it more difficult. You can't correct for an unrepresentative sample by merely polling a whole slew of extra people. My favorite example of this is the story of The Literary Digest's presidential poll in 1936.

In that year, the magazine sent out surveys to over ten million Americans, asking them who they would vote for in the Presidential race between the Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Republican challenger Alf Landon. Based on the 2.3 million ballots that were returned, the Digest predicted confidently that Landon would win the election in a landslide. But when Election Day rolled around, it was Roosevelt who won a landslide -- receiving over 60% of the vote, to Landon’s 36%. The Digest’s survey size, though huge, was biased towards more wealthy individuals, who favored the Republican candidate.

See? You thought this blog was history. But, as it turns out, it is just about history.

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?

Who Controls South Lebanon?

The folks over at Harvard University's Olin Institute for Middle Eastern Strategy want to know who rules South Lebanon. They even have a pretty map which delineates the positions and operational boundaries of each UNIFIL deployment, divided by country.

Despite looking like a governing force, I don't think there are any reliable indications that Hezbollah is losing its position of supremacy in the South. It is their country -- they just let UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army drive around. We are coming up on the two-year mark of the Lebanese Army's deployment to the South, and it is immensely disappointing that there hasn't been more progress in winning over the local population's trust and loyalty. It is a job that nobody, strangely, seems interested in accomplishing.

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?

In Profile

Two very good profiles make for enjoyable Sunday reading: Rachel Cooke's profile of Robert Fisk in the Guardian, and Robert Worth's article on Syrian writer Khalid Khalifa's new book, "In Praise of Hatred," in the New York Times.

The Fisk article really is excellent, managing to describe what makes him at one time so admirable and at the other so infuriating. "'Have you read any Fisk?' he asks me on the telephone before I land in Beirut," Cooke writes, "a question that is insulting on so many levels." At the same time, Fisk comes across as intellectually curious, energetic, and courageous. Very well. These qualities are not necessarily contradictory. The same arrogance that can inspire somebody to write the only definitive history of the Lebanese civil war can, if given free reign, destroy good reporting.

The Khalifa article is not quite a profile -- perhaps it was pitched as a report on the Syrian censorship of "In Praise of Hatred" or a retrospective look at the violence between the Assad regime and the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1980s -- but Khalifa steals the show. Someone needs to write a profile of this guy. On why he started writing for television: “I needed a way to pay for alcohol."

At the same time, Khalifa has made his peace with making the compromises necessary in order to continue living in Syria. He is not an exile who comes out with all guns blazing against Syria's censorship of his work; he makes jokes about it, and even is a little peeved over Western moralizing over freedom of expression. How can Khalifa simultaneously possess the towering ambition to be a great author that Worth ascribes to him, and also make flippant jokes about the banning of the book which consumed 13 years of his life? That, at least, is the question I am left with. Maybe it will be answered in the next profile.

The Ivory Tower Crumbles

I wrote a largely pessimistic article on the prospects of Lebanon maintaining its reputation as one of the Middle East's educational hubs in the 21st century. My argument, essentially, is that the newly minted Western universities in the Gulf -- benefiting from a stable political environment and spectacular amounts of wealth -- will supersede institutions like AUB and LAU within a generation.

In fact, a first draft of the piece was even more pessimistic than the final version. The conclusion read something like (paraphrasing):

"Dean Reardon-Anderson credits 'an extraordinary amount of wealth, extraordinary vision, and extraordinary determination or power' for the expansion of the new Gulf universities. 'This combination does not exist everywhere,' he notes. He may as well have added: it does not exist in Lebanon."

Ouch. The center of the action for Western universities opening branches in the Gulf is in Qatar's capital of Doha. However, Dubai and Abu Dhabi have also sponsored new universities. Does the revelation that Dubai holds a massive amount of debt make me glad that we eventually went with a less bombastic conclusion? Well -- it makes me think, at least. In opinion journalism, as well as business, sometimes it is wise to hedge one's bets.

Poof

Muhammad Zouhair Al-Siddiq, one of the key witnesses in the Hariri assassination case, has apparently disappeared, notes Bernard Kouchner. Siddiq was apparently under house arrest in Paris. I suppose that the French prison system generally cajoles its inmates into staying with croissants and tea.

That said, the Siddiq disappearance points to a larger danger facing the Hariri investigation: there is no indication that the UN detectives are any closer at building a case against the assassins than they were two years ago. The utter blandness of the Bellemare report was not disappointing because it failed to give the March 14 forces some sort of confidence boost, but because sooner or later this information will find its way into a courtroom and will have to convince an nonpartisan panel of judges. Now, they have also lost a key witness. So it goes.

Sloppy Writing, Sloppy Thinking

In the pantheon of bland phrases, "a pox on both their houses" must occupy a prominent pedestal. With that in mind, I've been meaning to write about the mind-numbing nature of most Daily Star editorials for a while. And along comes this inevitable piece, accusing Lebanese politicians of being "obtuse," and I could not resist.

What does it say? Well, not much of anything. It stakes out the brave ground that Lebanese politicians should talk, and that they should compromise. It criticizes the "invincible stupidity," whatever that might be, of March 8 and March 14 pols. It asserts the gooey proposition that Lebanon's "irretrievably stubborn politicians [must] be made to understand that however gargantuan their egos, they are meaningless compared to the lives and livelihoods of more than 4 million people." It employs adjectives that do not quite mean what the author seems to believe they mean.

Substantively, I am annoyed by the assumption that all of Lebanon's problems were created by the individual stupidity of Lebanon's political class. It is almost as if the great and wise Lebanese people, whom the Daily Star dares not criticize, did not vote their representatives into office. It ignores that there are important differences between the rivals' vision of Lebanon's future which compromise cannot easily resolve, and that the continuation of the crisis is driven by this division.

Look, if the Daily Star wants to have a pro-opposition editorial page -- well, fine. If they want to offer the Siniora government qualified praise, great. But this sort of writing is worse than wrong. It is boring.

P.S: I am aware that comments are currently broken. My apologies. This was most likely caused by a group of spambots that have been tormenting the site, weighing down old posts with approximately 20,000 useless comments. Anyway, I'm working on getting the problem fixed. For now, if anyone has anything they want to add, feel free to send me an e-mail and I will be happy to post your messages in a new entry. Note: offer does not apply to spambots.

A "Criminal Network"

Many, no doubt, will denigrate UN investigator Daniel Bellemare's first report, which contained the revelation that a "criminal network" was behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. This would be wrong. Mr. Bellemare's report has conclusively ruled out the much-debated theories that Hariri was the victim of an unfortunate gas line explosion, a freak asteroid impact, or a depressed trapeeze artist seeking to lash out at his social isolation from the rest of the circus troupe.

Seriously, the details are too depressing to go into right now. One hopes that investigators are holding back information until the tribunal is up and running, so Syria does not sabotage the investigation more than they are already attempting to. Meanwhile, we know someone in Turtle Bay is annoyed by this milquetoast report. An anonymous "senior diplomat" argued: "Nowhere in the report was it said or implied that Syria is innocent of direct involvement in planning Hariri's murder and carrying it out."

Well, of course. But, as far as the international tribunal is concerned, everyone -- even Syrian officials -- is innocent until proven guilty. And we're no closer to reaching that point than before Mr. Bellemare released his report.