Condi Rice on the Cease Fire in Lebanon
A tale of baby poo and butterscotch
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Upfront I’d like to say that I am an admirer of Condi Rice. I think, unlike nearly all of her predecessors this century, she has done a creditable job of representing US interests within the State Department and there is less obvious sturm und drang between Defense, State, and the National Security Council now than there was before she assumed the post.
Having said all that her op-ed in today’s Washington Post does her and the administration a disservice.
Read on.
Entitled A Path To Lasting Peace, which is eerily similar to Peace In Our Time Secretary Rice attempts to tart up strategic defeat of Israel and a diplomatic defeat of the US as a positive accomplishment.
For the past month the United States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel. At the same time, we have insisted that a truly effective cease-fire requires a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war. Last Friday we took an important step toward that goal with the unanimous passage of U.N. Resolution 1701. Now the difficult, critical task of implementation begins.
This is simply a non sequitur. I think we can all agree that what is needed is a decisive change from the status quo. I think we can all agree that UNSC 1701 was unanimous. How one is able to infer from this that UNSC 1701 gets any closer to changing the status quo is just mindboggling.
First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive military operations in Lebanon, while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. This agreement went into effect on Monday, after the Israeli and Lebanese cabinets agreed to its conditions.
At this writing the Israeli soldiers have not been released and there is little to no evidence to suggest that they will be released alive “unconditionally.”
Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of Lebanon expand its sovereign authority. The international community is imposing an embargo on all weapons heading into Lebanon without the government's consent. We are also enhancing UNIFIL, the current U.N. force in Lebanon. The new UNIFIL will have a robust mandate, better equipment and as many as 15,000 soldiers -- a sevenfold increase from its current strength. Together with this new international force, the Lebanese Armed Forces will deploy to the south of the country to protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area. As this deployment occurs, Israel will withdraw behind the "Blue Line" and a permanent cease-fire will take hold.
Let’s examine this further. The arms embargo only effects “heading into Lebanon without the government's consent.” Given Lebanese President Lahoud’s status as a pathetic toady to the Assad regime in Syria and his statement that Hezbollah is a part of Lebanon’s armed forces it is hard to be sanguine about the usefulness of this embargo.
The odds of the UN raising 15,000 troops to go to Lebanon within the next two or three months is slim. Their mandate in regards to the use of force is uncertain but it almost certainly will be much closer to that of UNIFIL than that of a military force empowered to actually enforce this UNSC Resolution. The idea that this force will have any effect upon the actions of Hezbollah beyond providing human shields and potential hostages is risible.
Finally, this resolution clearly lays out the political principles to secure a lasting peace: no foreign forces, no weapons and no authority in Lebanon other than that of the sovereign Lebanese government. These principles represent a long-standing international consensus that has been affirmed and reaffirmed for decades -- but never fully implemented. Now, for the first time, the international community has put its full weight behind a practical political framework to help the Lebanese government realize these principles, including the disarmament of all militias operating on its territory.
Great. But numerous UNSC Resolutions laying out those principles have been passed since UNSC 425 (March 19, 1978) stated:
[The UNSC c]alls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignity and political independence of Lebanon with its internationally recognized boundaries[.]
For thirty years we all have acknowledged that the territorial integrity of Lebanon are critical to stabilizing this particular bit of the Middle East but it remains more than a little unclear why the recent resolution, UNSC Resolution 1701, is significantly more likely to be honored than its predecessors.
The implementation of Resolution 1701 will not only benefit Lebanon and Israel; it also has important regional implications. Simply put: This is a victory for all who are committed to moderation and democracy in the Middle East -- and a defeat for those who wish to undermine these principles with violence, particularly the governments of Syria and Iran.
Let’s cut to the chase here. This is not a victory for moderation or democracy or Israel or the US or Lebanon. Make no mistake about it, the Israeli expedition into Lebanon and the US diplomatic response have sent a clear message to Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah that no matter what their provocation we will not act forcefully. Lebanon is doomed to exist as a vassal state of Syria which is little more than an Iranian proxy. Hezbollah will reoccupy southern Lebanon and be able with some justification claim it was victorious.
How Israel will react to this is unknown. In the past Israel has largely cowed its enemies with the aura of invincibility. That aura was first damaged by the tactical surprise achieved by Arab armies during the first hours of the Yom Kippur War. It may have been fatally injured by Prime Minister Olmert’s Hamlet-like behavior during this war. Israel’s armed forces have not only suffered significant casualties but have failed to either cripple Hezbollah or free their kidnapped soldiers. Will this weaken Israeli resolve as it emboldens their enemies? Only time will tell.
Madam Secretary, as my father used to say, don’t feed me baby poo and tell me it’s butterscotch. This is most decidedly not butterscotch.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | What’s missing? — Comments (4) »
Condi Rice on the Cease Fire in Lebanon 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I.e., that this agreement makes the most sense as a prelude to resuming hostilities. But I'm not sure that's going to work out.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It is a defeat on two levels. First, because Israel went to war to release their soldiers and they didn't. Second, it is a defeat because Hezbollah will not release those soldiers unconditionally. So I fail to see the "restitution". If you want to accept UNSC Resolutions as a good thing in and of themselves, fine, if you require that they actually accomplish something it is hard to see how this is anything but a cataclysmic loss. Unanimity is actually sort of meaningless as the only reason the Russians went along was because they knew the Res was toothless.
Did we make 1441 stick? It seemed that way for a while. Do you really think that now?
The last time Israel left Lebanon was after they had been there for a decade and after we threatened to make their continued receipt of economic aid contingent upon their withdrawal. So is wasn't "turning tail". However, that is the way it was interpreted and if you think the spread of Hezbollah south of the Litani River wasn't directly related to this withdrawal then I don't know what to tell you.
Unless you think Uday and Qusay Hussein are turning into chemical weapons in the grave, or Saddam Hussein is centrifuging uranium in his prison cell, I think the weapons programs of the Iraqi Baathist regime are absolutely, completely terminated.
As for the defeat, I think you're needlessly mixing together the interests of the Israelis with the interests of the Americans. Yes, I think from the Israeli perspective, this deal is a big mistake. If it were me, I'd have wanted to keep fighting. However it's plain that the Israelis didn't want to keep fighting.
Yet I don't see how this is a diplomatic defeat for US, to get the UN to demand peacefully, what Israel wanted to get through force. Unless you think we coerced Olmert's cabinet into supporting this deal so strongly, that is. (But even then, isn't that a diplomatic success at achieving a policy failure?)
If the resolution isn't honored, then that's a failure of the UN, not of the US, I think. They're supposed to be the ones who keep peace, but if they can't do it, then that's just another failure on the pile. This'll be the same song and dance as 1441: 1441 was voted on unanimously, but when Saddam Hussein told Hans Blix to buzz off, nobody wanted to act but the US and the UK.
Well, as long as President Bush and PM Olmert understand that the responsibility lies on the two of them to enforce this new resolution, then it's not only a defeat, but it's the ground work for a long-term victory.
As for the last time in Lebanon, my understanding is that they weren't exactly winning anything militarily after all those years. Their conscripts kept dying, but Hezbollah wasn't any worse for wear.
That's why I think that if and only if this new resolution isn't enforced, then it's a mistake by Israel and the US. I f the Israelis ar just flinching because of memories of how ineffective the last occupation was, then that's a shame.
But that doesn't make it a diplomatic defeat for us to have given them that opportunity.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
when you said 1441 I was thinking 1558. So you are right that in that singular instance a UNSC Resolution was a good thing and actually happened.
As for the remainder, if Hezbollah complies with this, Neil, I'll kiss your butt in public and give you an hour to draw a crowd.
To think I ending up having to type all that because I just rattled off 1441 without clarifying which one that was...
Serves me right.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
it is said, is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country. Much the same is true of a Secretary of State. I'm sure Rice knows that this is mostly hooey forced on the Administration by Olmert's blunders, but having made the agreement the Bush team has no choice but to spin it.
I regard the cease-fire as a wonderful arrangement in theory - if we really could get the Lebanese to take control, that would be preferable to having the Israelis do the job and possibly break Lebanon's democracy and tenuous independence from Syria beyond repair in the process - but, as you say, utterly impractical in light of the facts on the ground.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
At the risk of sounding like oh-so-many American moonbats, what we've recently seen in Israel was the unfortunate specter of an Administration - and a leader - that was clearly not ready for prime time coming to power under bad circumstances from which they were unwilling, and incapable, of adapting.
So, what is the over/under on new elections in Israel? I'm guessing 24-days, unless the Iranians - I mean Hezbollah - break the cease-fire before then, of course.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Lebanon and Hezbollah were crying for a ceasefire, practically Begging, even. And that means they were losing. Israel never should have stopped at this point. They should have let go all that pent up energy and Finished off the Hezbos...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I wish I knew for certain why they didn't just keep going.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Was that Olmert is in it up to his neck and is running scared. He doesn't know what to do and is panisking. Something tells me his government won't survive this and we'll have a new Israeli PM soon...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
streiff, I think you're being a bit unfair to SecState Rice. Seems to me she wasn't playing with a very strong barganing hand, and Team Huzbullah knew it.
If the Israeli government lacked the will to go to the Litani full-up, and do what was necessary to really BEAT Hizbullah, that's not much of a stick for the Bush Administration to brandish. SecState Rice really couldn't have gone to the pro-Hizbullah camp in the UN and said "If y'all don't come up with a better solution, we won't be able to restrain the Israelis, and they want to--and will--finish the job this time." If she had, Team Hizbullah would most likely have said "You're bluffing--we call." And, given the reports of Olmert's waffling, she'd have been sunk.
I sense that Olmert wanted the UN to come in, and deal with some/all of the Hizbullah burden. If so, then he needed the US to broker a deal for Israel, because many UN member countries won't deal with Israel directly. If all that is true, then didn't SecState Rice have to make the best deal she could?
Resolution 1710 is a trap for the UN, if we're willing to spring it. If implemented fully, it seems to be a plus for the Israelis.
But, if it isn't, then the US can use it as even firmer ground to go to other countries (Japan, Italy, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Germany, maybe Britain if it finally wakes up) with decent armies that are willing to fight and say "See, the UN is worthless. It won't even execute its own plan. Y'all asked us to work within multilateral security organizations. We tried, this is what happens."
I think it's likely that many of the people in the countries above are concerned for their own safety in the face of Islamist fascism. A UN failure to rationally execute its own plan (15-0 UNSC vote) should help erode the wishful thinking among many rational citizens in the world who are hoping, hoping, please please that the UN really CAN do something about world security. (The Harold Pinters and Zapateros of the world, on the other hand, aren't worth our time, and we wouldn't want them around in a crisis anyway).
streiff, I agree it would have been great if the Israeli government had been united and willing to fight this to a finish. But, it wasn't, and that weakened our hand. In that respect, I'm not sure what else SecState Rice could have done.
But, you've got more experience at this than I do. What COULD the US have done differently? (Besides not writing this op-ed)
- Refused to back the Israelis if they'd refused to commit to the destruction of Hizbullah?
- Threatened to withhold aid?
- Made a public committment to significantly expanded logstics support (to the extent of becoming Israel's defacto logistics base?)
- Threatened Syria with airstrikes if it didn't cut ties to Hizbullah?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
This Res isn't a trap for the UN because no one cares if they are trapped. If there was a sense of shame in that organization it would have folded decades ago.
I understand why the deal was made but don't expect me to believe this was a victory or that it hurts Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria, or that it makes Lebanon stronger, or that Hezbollah will disarm or the Lebanese Army can hold up its end of the log. Which gets back to my point. The agreement is baby poo, don't try to make me eat it.
This Res isn't a trap for the UN because no one cares if they are trapped. If there was a sense of shame in that organization it would have folded decades ago.
Well, they haven't folded. And I suspect that many of the countries that we'd like to partner with us in the GWOT WANT us to TRY and work within the UN/mulitlateral structure. Is your solution that WE should have gone to war (or threatened war) with Syria and Hizbullah? I'm sorry to say, but it seems the Israeli government didn't have the will for this fight. That leaves us. Or, should we have ORDERED the Israelis into battle?
I understand why the deal was made but don't expect me to believe this was a victory or that it hurts Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria, or that it makes Lebanon stronger, or that Hezbollah will disarm or the Lebanese Army can hold up its end of the log.
Where did I say "Hey, this deal will WORK! THIS is the answer"? I'll stipulate that I think this deal will fail. But, again, given the Israeli's apparent unwillingness to fight this fight all-out, what else could the SecState have done?
Which gets back to my point. The agreement is baby poo, don't try to make me eat it.
I'm not trying to make you eat anything. I simply asked you to propose an alternate course of action that the SecState could have executed, given Israel's apparent unwillingness to decisively commit to a meaningful fight in Lebanon.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
and assuming that Olmert/the Israelis actually wanted the UN involved and a cease fire, our public statements should have been more to the tone that we support our Israeli ally's wishes in this matter with NO BS about what a great deal this is. Then we should have abstained in the UNSC vote.
We also should have made it absolutely clear (assuming the following is true) that the ceasefire, etc is Israel's decision and choice and that we have applied no diplomatic pressure to get them to accept it.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I think Rice made that pretty clear.
Don't blame the SecState because the Israeli government wasn't ready to close the deal. IIRC, Olmert leads a parliamentary government. If all the Israeli government was united against him, if they'd all really wanted to go get Hizbullah once and for all--then why didn't they have a wall-to-wall counseling session with Olmert? The Israeli government DID accept the UN resolution. If it's as flawed as you claim, as bad as you claim, then why did they accept it?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
**The Israeli government DID accept the UN resolution. If it's as flawed as you claim, as bad as you claim, then why did they accept it?**
It's a legitimate question.
The most obvious answers are that either they felt there was some advantage to them to accept, or that they felt they had no choice but to accept. OK. let's throw in a combination, and then get more specific about possibilities.
Israeli leaders thought/recognized that they were being soundly trounced in the PR coverage, being made to look like Nazis themselves, and that people were buying it.
They may have believed they weren't making the headway they should have been, and they wanted to regroup and plan a different strategy, using different tactics.
They may have felt that the "truth would out" during the cease-fire, as it has, about the amount of control and support Hezbollah has in southern Lebanon. Whether that will matter to anybody but their supporters only time will tell.
They may have felt they were digging themselves into a hole, and they just wanted to stop digging.
They may be looking upon this as just the first battle in the war, not the whole war. Accepting defeat and withdrawing from a battle isn't the same as giving up on the war. They will only lose the war if they quit fighting forever. This is the philosophy of the Islamofascists, too, of course.
Any of these reasons might be enough for the Israelis to accept a very bad deal for now, believing it will be for the best, longer run. If you give Yassar Arafat the benefit of the doubt, that may have been his thinking when he turned down that sweetheart deal negotiated by Clinton/etc. years ago. By our standards, it was too good to turn down, but he did, possibly believing he'd do as well or better later, without having to agree to anything with the Israelis.
I'm sure somebody else has already thought of better answers elsewhere, but that's what I could come up with off the top.
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
I don't see this resolution as a final defeat. If, however, Israel chooses not to insist that the UN uphold its end of the bargain (which it currently isn't), if Israel quietly accepts a non-implemented deal, then they will have been beaten. We're not there yet.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Where is the Cowboy? Did Hillary put his testicles in her lock box? Iran and Syria are violating UN resolutions and the Bush doctrine by arming a terrorist group waging war with the acquiescence of a nation-state, ie Lebanon. The Bush Doctrine is dead.
Woe is us. Weakness and appeasement invites aggression. Americans will die because of Bush's weakness vs Iran. I suspect that an attack will be a miscalculation as such an attack will rile the cowboy from his slumber, but that will not bring back the lives that will be lost due to Bush.
He will have no Clinton to blame this time.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
Was President Bush supposed to order the IDF not to withdraw or something?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Given the Israeli stance on this issue, what should "the Cowboy" have done? Demanded that Olmert resign? Insisted on an IDF bayonet charge? Sent the Marines into south Lebanon? Bombed Damascus?
Cripes! Everyone wants to vent on this subject, but it seems that no one wants to acknowledge the constraints the SecState faced, constrains placed on her by the way the Israeli government handled this whole matter.
Am I wrong? OK--show me where and how.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Given the Israeli stance on this issue, what should "the Cowboy" have done? Demanded that Olmert resign? Insisted on an IDF bayonet charge? Sent the Marines into south Lebanon? Bombed Damascus?
Cripes! Everyone wants to vent on this subject, but it seems that no one wants to acknowledge the constraints the SecState faced, constraints placed on her by the way the Israeli government handled this whole matter.
Am I wrong? OK--show me where and how.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
spelled "constraints" correctly. (I think).
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The President said, you cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy, and one foot in the camp of terror. The Cowboy rep unfortunately, my dear gamecock, is precisely why we can't go into Lebanon and do the job ourselves. Indeed it reminds me of Roosevelt, who desperately wanted to go after Hitler and his Nazi thugs, as the American people decided that the rise of fascism was Europe's problem. And can you imagine the outrage on the left if we went in to Lebanon with Israel? Perhaps then, of course the Jews would see quite clearly which party is on their side (We might even get Lieberman to switch Parties permanently). But the second we go into Lebanon under the Bush doctrine of wiping out Islamofascists in countries that house them, we're looking at the next crusade. And don't get me wrong, I would support going into Lebanon; I think with our military and Israel's we could eliminate Hezbollah in a month, if that. But a military action involving the US in the Middle East in an explicit military alliance means we are no longer just fighting Hezbollah. All of the sudden our old buddies Al-Qaeda show up in Southern Lebanon and begin to fuel more hatred. Look, the Zionist enemy and the Great Satan ally themselves to wipe out Islam! It would be, to be quite frank, pure Hell. Now if this was September 12, 2001 when we still had the media and the American people on the side of you and me I'd say bring it on. But with Iraq needing our full attention, I don't think we could committ to another military front especially with the risk that it becomes a chance for martyrdom to kill a US soldier. But I understand your frustration. I feek the same way about the Islamofascist genocide in Sudan; why can't we get a few good men there? Fear not, good will triumph over evil.
"When possible we are bringing terrorists to justice. And when necessary, we are bringing justice to the terrorists."-Secretary Rice
There is no reason for our presence there. Israel could have seriously hurt Hezbollah if they hadn't wasted time with a stupid air war.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Unanimity is crucial for the next point actually.
So how does that make a UN requirement that Hezbollah do that, a diplomatic defeat for us? When France, Russia, and China vote in favor of giving Israel full restitution for the act that started the fighting, what on Earth is wrong with that?
How far have we come, that instead of vetoing the aims of the US and the Zionist Entity, that they now vote with the Great Satan and Israel?
Two words: Bush Doctrine. We made 1441 stick, didn't we?
And this aura wasn't damaged at all by the last time they turned tail on Lebanon?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong