Listening to this "Hizbollah" is a "state within a state" that

[joemurphy]

"cannot be tolerated" stuff from Condoleeza Rice amazes me. We've been "tolerating" the same thing with Sadr's "Mahdi Army" in Iraq for the last 4 years.

I've given up getting any straight information from either my own government or from the media on the Israeli-Lebanon debacle. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Ian David]

1. If we'd done something about it after the UN passed the resolution...

to disarm Hizbollah, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

When Bush said he would get the terrorists anywhere they were, that nobody would be allowed to harbor terrorists, he should have said, "Some restrictions apply."

Now, the situation has reached the boiling point.

How long until Pakistan goes to shit?

[atreides1]

2. And what exactly

Should "WE" have done after the resolution was passed?

[Ian David]

3. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end its military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.

Nine countries voted in favor: Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia.

The resolution was sponsored by France and the United States. The cooperation between these two nations on an issue concerning the Middle East was seen as a significant improvement in their relationship, compared to their earlier bitter disagreement over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Due to the fact that Lebanon was governed by France as a League of Nations mandate 1919-1943, France has long taken a special interest in Lebanon.

<snip>

On October 7, 2004 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council regarding the lack of compliance with Resolution 1559. Mr. Annan concluded his report by saying: "It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past. The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history."<4>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1559

[chimpymustgo]

4. Dare I inquire about the DOZENS of UN Resolutions Israel has ignored?

The ones about them killing people and stealing land.

[joemurphy]

6. As a practical matter, we couldn't enforce 1559 in 2004

We were (and still are) too embroiled in Iraq to enforce it. Of course, that begs a question -- Was it our place to enforce it? Is it America's job to see that all UN Resolutions are enforced?

Would getting embroiled in Lebanese factional politics again really have been a good idea for the US? The last time we tried that we got the Marine Barracks explosion under Reagan, hundreds of deaths, a fuzzy mission, and a hasty and humiliating withdrawal.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Selective "Terrorists"

When have you ever heard Condi mention the Madhi army? Or anyone in this regime? My bets are the name would register about a 10% on a national poll...yet Sadr's militia is the biggest threat to the stability of Baghdad and the major reason we're circling the wagons around the green zone while the rest of the country blows up between Sunni & Shiite and Madhi and their rivals. All we see here is the end result...not the root causes. But then there's an article that says boooosh didn't have a clue about the ethnic make-up of Iraq in the run-up to this invasion...thought all "A-rabs" were "A-rabs".

This is like this regime's former love of the Contras. This wasn't a terrorist group or insurgent militia...they were "freedom fighters". But then, they were on our payroll, too.

The only question I have...and this still seems very cloudy to me...is how intertwined Sadr is with the Iranian leadership. I thought Chalabi was their boy....Sadr has been more of a loose cannon, but the power that keeps Malaki from getting his head blown off. What a mess... Good work, booshie.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Hezbollah is the tip of the spear for the Lebanese governent

To pretend otherwise is silly.

[Igel]

8. Make that 3 years.

I've been dissertating far too long as it is, and don't want an additional year wedged in between April 2003 and August 2006. Took Sadr a while to kill off the opposite in the name of peace and tolerance and establish his tolerance-enforcement folk.

However, there was at least one major skirmish that did it serious harm and probably could have made it much more militant and much less important (simultaneously). But that was ditched as the result of a huge outcry: What's a Shi'ite shrine for if it can't serve as a protected pillbox? Even if Sadr's charged with complicity in the murder of Khoei?

In other words, the Lebanon experience holds precisely true: Instead of risking security in order to garner more security, the powers that were held off, in hopes that kick the can would put it on somebody else's street and would avert serious problems. Now the Mahdi Army is one of the major players in the death squads, and they have the problem, with interest. (Reagan's quips are sometimes true: If you see a boulder coming down the hill side, do nothing--chances are that it'll miss you anyway & and 'don't do something, just sit there!' are decent aphorisms, and largely true, but sometimes horribly foolish. As with other aphorisms.)

On the other hand, there have been more recent skirmishes with the Sadrists.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. There is a considerable difference in scale

and Hezbollah is getting its support from outside Lebanon (Sryria and Iran).