« Interests, Democracy, and Partisanship | Main | Polling Lebanon »
Here Comes Hezbollah
The fly in the ointment, of course, arises when it turns out that Hezbollah's pro-Syria rally is a lot bigger than the earlier anti-Syria rallies. I don't really think the anti-Hezbollah paranoia so often on display in America is warranted, but there you have it. As I've been saying, it's never really been clear to me why people thought they could blithely conflate Lebanese democracy with Syrian pullback from Lebanon. These are just different things. Interrelated, yes, but still different.
March 8, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834728a8869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Here Comes Hezbollah:
Comments
Hmm. That sucks.
Posted by: JP | Mar 8, 2005 11:53:18 AM
Stalin was also able to produce huge rallies supporting him; as was Saddam. Why would you think that Lebanese would want to live under a Hezbollah tyrrany any more than Iraqis wanted to live under Saddam? or Iranians want to live under the mullahs?
Hezbullah understands that a Syrian pullback will weaken them and they need to do whatever they can to stall that. It is a "fly in the ointment", but only a fly.
Posted by: Nudnik | Mar 8, 2005 12:00:01 PM
Stalin was the head of a totalitarian regime. Hezbollah doesn't have that kind of power. I have a hard time believing that they can just manufacture something like this without at least some level of genuine popular support.
OT: Was Paul Krugman assassinated today? Just a joke, but when I first saw that pic, my heart skipped a beat.
Posted by: JP | Mar 8, 2005 12:04:30 PM
Yup, the pro-Syrian rallies are produced by Stalin and anti-Syrian by Freedom. It's sligtly upsetting that Stalin-produced crowds are so much bigger than Freedom's, though.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 8, 2005 12:10:46 PM
An-Nahar reports that the Syrian mukhabarat has been pressuring municipalities in areas directly under its control in the north of Lebanon and the Bekaa to participate in the loyalist rally today. In one particular town, in the northern district of Akkar, clashes broke out between citizens and the mukhabarat. The mukhabarat had arrested a young man after an argument on participation in the rally, so the townspeople intercepted their vehicle and disarmed them and forced them to release the young man. More interesting is the report about busloads crossing the Syrian border carrying Syrians to participate in the rally, to boost its numbers.
Rallies produced by tyrants are always bigger than the ones produced by "people power".
Posted by: Nudnik | Mar 8, 2005 12:17:45 PM
Nudnik:
Why would you think that Lebanese would want to live under a Hezbollah tyrrany any more than Iraqis wanted to live under Saddam?
It's a mystery to me too. Why would people in the US want to live under a regime that is taking away their civil liberties, and openly proclaims an allegiance to a ghost in the sky, Bush's heavenly father, instead of more rational administration?
People seem to like authoritarian regimes, don't they? They should all be as enlightened and liberal as you and me, shouldn't they?
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 12:24:36 PM
From Better Lucky Than Good:
Sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due. Like Chauncey Gardner in Being There, right now everything in the Middle East seems to be coming up roses for George W. Bush - and the United States.
But like Chauncey, Bush the born-again democratic idealist has a series of happy accidents to thank for his success. The combination of the death of Arafat, Viktor Yushchenko's dioxin-tainted soup, bungling Syrian intelligence agents, and an all-powerful Shi'ite cleric may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat for Bush. In large part, it appears to be fate, not foresight, that has been the engine of democratic reform in that part of the world.
The Bush administration and its fellow travelers are understandably feeling vindicated about the turn of events in the Middle East. Unfortunately for the United States, progress does not reflect prescience, and vindication does not necessarily mean victory. Saved by Sistani, prodded by Putin, urged by Ukraine, assisted by Arafat and aided by Assad, Bush shows once again that it is better to be lucky than good...
- MORE -
Posted by: Jon | Mar 8, 2005 12:25:26 PM
Rallies produced by tyrants are always bigger than the ones produced by "people power".
That's funny, I swore that the "people power" protests of the Iraq invasion were huge. Global even. Not so the anti-Iraq ones. That said there was massive organization and pleading encouragement on the part of the anti-war population to get more people to the rally. Were the totalitarian? I'm just saying that it isn't as clear as tyrant vs freedom. There may actually be some alternative takes on what is going on on the ground.
Still, it is a bummer.
Posted by: reggie | Mar 8, 2005 12:27:05 PM
Were the "anti-war" population totalitarian? They were certainly supporting one; and organized by Stalinist groups.
Posted by: Nudnik | Mar 8, 2005 12:33:50 PM
Nudnik,
But even accepting your version of the fascist compulsory counter-rallying at work here, don’t you see the problem? The “freedom” protests in Lebanon were just another in a long line of spectacles harnessed (note: I’m not saying staged) by the Bush Administration for the benefit of an American public deeply conflicted about its policies. See purple fingers, Saddam statues toppling, codpiece flightsuit carrier landings. Even when these events can be categorized as a “good thing” they have an equivocal relationship to present reality. Democratic elections in Lebanon would actually decrease the political power of the largely pro-Western Christians and other groups that turned out last week. It’s not simply Stalinist v. Freedomist. There are extremely difficult questions that aren’t even being addressed because of the clapping about young ladies on shoulders waving flags yay freedom.
Posted by: festus | Mar 8, 2005 12:37:59 PM
And don't forget that 5 weeks after the Iraqi elections, the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq still haven't been able to agree on a government, let alone start what will surely be the contentious process of writing a constitution.
I hope it isn't true, but the little bubble of magically expanding freedom in the Middle East we've seen over the last month may have peaked. Things will probably start to get messy again.
There will be a continuing debate in this country over how much credit Bush should get, and what US policy should be. But all of that is basically irrelevant at this point. In part because of it's past mistakes, I don't think the US really has much influence at this point. It will be up to the different factions in these countries to find a way to get along with each other.
Posted by: RC | Mar 8, 2005 12:44:31 PM
Festus,
I think it is far from clear that elections would "decrease the political power of the largely pro-Western Christians" in Lebanon. Lebanon has more experience with democarcy than most of the Middle East countries, and without Syrian (and by extension Hizbollah) control would more than likely be pro-Western, as it was before all the unpleasantness there in the '70s.
Sure there are difficult questions, but the question of whether we want Syria out of Lebanon is fairly simple. It is something that we need to support more than just for the sake of the Lebanese. If, with US support, the Lebanese can get rid of Syria, it will send ripples into Iran - that US is really serious this time and would support democrats there.
Posted by: Nudnik | Mar 8, 2005 12:54:39 PM
What do you think the chances are that the Pentagon wants to dive back into the murk of Lebanon, 22 years after the Reagan retreat following the Marine barracks disaster?
Bush can and undoubtedly will use Lebanon for "Freedom is on the march" speech fodder, but the reality, as usual, is quite different.
Posted by: Bragan | Mar 8, 2005 12:59:42 PM
... Were the "anti-war" population totalitarian? They were certainly supporting one; and organized by Stalinist groups. ...
Apparently "nudnik" is a most appropriate nom de plume.
Posted by: synykyl | Mar 8, 2005 1:08:04 PM
Lol, nice funny thread here...
I hope it isn't true, but the little bubble of magically expanding freedom in the Middle East we've seen over the last month may have peaked.
Why, I'm expecting the Saudi Prince Abdullah to say some nice things about Democracy in the next few days.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 8, 2005 1:22:15 PM
It would be nice to think that all the conservatives, who have hit on human rights and freedom as their latest excuse for why the Iraq war wasn't just a brilliant re-election strategy on the part of Rove and Bush, really are converts to the the Carter school of international relations. And, no, the war in Iraq doesn't imply a more muscular version; Bush's second term will end with nothing more than negotiations (bellicose, but still just talk) with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, and communist China.
But I think we all know that when the annoying reality of these countries rears its ugly head (that is, that if Saudi Arabia were a democracy that expressed the will of the people, that they would be even more anti-American and anti-Israeli than they are now) and the neocons will be agitating for the overthrow of elected regimes, as they did with Salvador Allende. Human rights and democracy my ass.
Think, conservatives, think: If Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc. all become transparent democracies, who will we send our prisoners to when we want them tortured?
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 1:31:03 PM
Nudnik jumps the shark (can you say Godwin's law?).
Now the anti-Iraq war protests were arranged by Communists. Good grief.
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 1:34:12 PM
Nudnik:
the question of whether we want Syria out of Lebanon is fairly simple
Maybe, but conservatives get the simple questions wrong so often, one still must ask.
--Is Mubarak a friend or foe of democracy and freedom?
--Was Iraq or Saudi Arabia more complicit in 9/11?
--Is the earth closer to a thousand or billion years old?
--Should the US send prisoners to Syria to be tortured?
All simple questions that many conservatives are having trouble with.
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 1:38:34 PM
Nudnik:
Before the 70's, Lebanon's Christians were not the minority they are today. Makes a difference.
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 1:40:12 PM
Maybe I have my organizations confused, but isn't Hezbollah strongly supported by Syria? So Hezbollah's power while Syria is still around isn't the same as Hezbollah's power once Syria leaves.
"Now the anti-Iraq war protests were arranged by Communists. Good grief."
Now? In the US many of the anti-Iraq war protests really were arranged by ANSWER which is a front for actual Communist groups. That is a fact. Just because you didn't know it doesn't make it a non-fact.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Mar 8, 2005 1:56:07 PM
Sebastian:
Now? In the US many of the anti-Iraq war protests really were arranged by ANSWER which is a front for actual Communist groups. That is a fact. Just because you didn't know it doesn't make it a non-fact.
True, but I don't think this diminishes many of the valid concerns anti-war protesters had. Most of the people who attended the demonstrations had no clue about ANSWER's intentions.
This fact was lost on David Horowitz, who wrote an article about the anti-war demonstrators called "100,000 Communists Protest the War."
Posted by: Brad R. | Mar 8, 2005 2:06:04 PM
Sebastian Holsclaw:
Don't be deliberately obtuse. The question was whether the democratic impulse could put as many people on the street as totalitarian regimes. Apparently you think that most of the anti-Iraq war protestors were put on the street by ANSWER, acting as a totalitarian regime. If not, your fact is irrelevant. If people who are free to choose, choose communism, or theocracy, then that is still democracy. Get it? I'm not sure you do judging by the conservative response to Salvador Allende's election.
And if a democratic Iraq wants the US out, and strengthens its ties to terror and Iran, beyond what Saddam ever did, then that is freedom and democracy.
Sometimes I think that conservatives think that the only legitimate expression of democracy is voting Republican; everything else is coerced.
Nice to have facts, Sebastian; even nicer to be able to interpret their meaning, and know which are relevant.
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 8, 2005 2:22:25 PM
What's missing from this discussion is the abysmal job the US media has been doing. People on the ground and Al-Jazeera have been portraying the demonstration as "anti-foreign influence" and calling for the implementatino of the Taif accords. These people aren't all Hizbullah lackeys chanting for Syria to stay. See this post from Abu Aardvark:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/03/hizbollah_prote.html
Posted by: Rashad | Mar 8, 2005 2:41:20 PM
I don't really think the anti-Hezbollah paranoia so often on display in America is warranted
Perhaps this book will change your mind....
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with "sleeper" cells around the world, including in at least a dozen US cities. Their ideology is vehemently anti-US, in the mold of their original idol, Ayatollah Khomeini. They have been true pioneers of terrorism, being the first, for example, to use suicide bombings on a large scale. Prior to 9/11, they had killed more Americans than any terrorist organization in the world.
What, precisely, could they possibly do, that they haven't yet done, for you to concede that at least some of that "anti-Hezbollah paranoia" you deride might, in fact, be warranted?
Posted by: Dan Simon | Mar 8, 2005 2:41:34 PM
Hezbollah is a complex organization. It is a social service organization, a political party, the only Lebanese militia left, a Shi'ite religious movement, a source of Lebanese pride for booting Israel out, the most disciplined political force in Lebanon, a proxy for Iran and Syria, AND an international terrorist organization. Keep all these facets in mind when you consider the 500,000 marching in the streets of Beirut today. Perhaps it is a sign of freedom and democracy that the Cedarites and Hezbollah are merely shouting instead of shooting at this point. But don't for a second think that the Cedarites can carry on their merry way. It'd be like holding a US election and disfranchasing the former Confederate states. It might cause a legitimacy problem.
Posted by: Elrod | Mar 8, 2005 3:13:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
