Slaughterhouse Beirut
Even many of the players in Iraq and Lebanon are similar: Syria, Iran, ferocious fighters in the mountains (the Druze and Christians in Lebanon, the Kurds in Iraq), competing and combative Shiite factions (Amal and Hizbullah in Lebanon; the Dawa, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq).
If we Americans had stayed in Lebanon, could we have made a difference? It would be nice to think so, but we didn't really have the option.
The U.S. Marines went into the country in 1982 to help Israel usher out the Palestine Liberation Organization, then went in again when Israel's Christian militia allies massacred defenseless Palestinian civilians at Beirut's Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. A young political officer from the U.S. embassy, Ryan Crocker, was one of the first outsiders to see the carnage up close. Amid the stench of decaying flesh he counted 106 bodies, 27 of them women and children. But this was "by no means a complete figure," he said in a cable to Washington dictated over his car radio. Washington decided the atrocity demanded some sort of American solution. But what sort? Nobody was sure. But in went the Marines again.
It turned out the Palestinians were far from the only fighters in Lebanon, and Iran nurtured one new group, the Shiite Party of God, or Hizbullah, that proved especially effective. Its recruits were willing to commit suicide to kill their foreign enemies: the Israelis occupying the southern part of Lebanon, the French who had come in as part of the same deployment as the Americans trying to stabilize the situation, and the Americans themselves. The Party of God blew up the U.S. Embassy, it blew up the Marine barracks, it blew up the U.S. Embassy again.
The Reagan administration's exit strategy from Lebanon was to train up units of the Lebanese Army to act as effective keepers of the peace. But the Lebanese Sixth Brigade, responsible for most of the capital, was mostly made up of Shiites. In February 1984 the entire brigade, in effect, joined the ranks of one of the militias. And the Marines at that point had no choice but to get back on their boats.
The critical differences in Iraq are that Americans have stayed much longer already, fought much harder, and died in much greater numbers. Iraq is bigger. It is even more complicated. And it has oil, which means, especially given today's markets, that it is vital to the world's economy. The Bush administration, moreover, has created an Iraqi military that is incapable of defending itself from direct aggression by others in the neighborhood, whether Iran or Israel, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, should any of those countries want to pick a fight or stake out a little territory. So at the same time that Iraq has become America's curse, it has become its dependency.
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: sarmadmn @ 05/17/2008 3:19:09 PM
Comment: The only way out for the US is to support a rising national trend in Iraq and establish a
national Iraqi government rather than the current sectarian one, by now it is obvious that the bet on the sectarian forces has lead to submitting the country to Iran and civil unrest, I hope that the Americans have learned their lessons from the past four years. All the current Shiate paries are ???Made in Iran??? as a result their ideology was is a reflection of the standard ???Islamic Revolution??? which considers US as the ???Great Devil???, the Bush administration and Iran may have found common enemy in Saddam Hussain but as facts on the ground change so does the loyalties. Promoting nationalism can lead to a true democracy at some point of time the other option is a bunch of war lords fighting over influence territories
Posted By: sarmadmn @ 05/17/2008 3:15:32 PM
Comment: The only way out for the US is to support a rising national trend in Iraq and establish a
national Iraqi government rather than the current sectarian one, by now it is obvious that the bet on the sectarian forces has lead to submitting the country to Iran and civil unrest, I hope that the Americans have learned their lessons from the past four years. All the current Shiate paries are ???Made in Iran??? as a result their ideology was is a reflection of the standard ???Islamic Revolution??? which considers US as the ???Great Devil???, the Bush administration and Iran may have found common enemy in Saddam Hussain but as facts on the ground change so does the loyalties. Promoting nationalism can lead to a true democracy at some point of time the other option is a bunch of war lords fighting over influence territories
Posted By: Froggie76 @ 05/16/2008 11:42:27 AM
Comment: Hezbollah existed before Reagan involved the US in the lebanese civil war, but at that time it was a minority shiite militia competing against other Shiite factions. What changed was Syrian and Iranian involvements in using Hezbollah as a proxy. The ensuing struggle for domination among Lebanese Shias was then won by Hezbollah, and this (not US departure) explains its influence today.
And this happened because of Israeli and US involvement in Lebanon, and the fact that the US was hellbent on letting no government (democratically elected or not) be set-up in Iran (as elesewhere in the world - think Pinochet in Chile) that was not pro-US, while a strategic motto of Israel in its struggle for existence, was "divide and rule", not matter the human cost (for non-jewish people that is). That's how Sabra and Chatila happened, or why Palestinians revolted against their "getthoisation" (Intifadas).
Finally, it is hugely hypocritical and short-sighted to see how the term of "terrorism" is being applied by US officials and citizens to anyone who is using asymetrical warfare against US policies .... remember the US-sponsored mass massacres of the Contras in Nicaragua ? or the Taliban being called "freedom-fighters" when against the USSR, but coward terrorists when against US troops, while still using the same tactics ?