Fun with the New York Post on Lebanon

There’s usually not much to be gained by engaging in a pissing match with an opinionated newspaper columnist on Middle Eastern politics, and as a general rule, I prefer to stay away. But sometimes you get served up a softball that’s so gently-arched and juicy that you can’t resist. This new essay in the New York Post — not, I should say, particularly known for fidelity to all things fact — is so ridden with nonsense, that it probably ought to be ignored. No, it REALLY ought to be ignored. But…

In “Losing Lebanon” (sub-hed: “Obama team bungles again”), a fellow named Benny Avni writes:

The Obama administration is effectively siding with America’s enemies in Lebanon.

Sure, President Obama said all the right things after his Monday meet-and-greet with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. But Suleiman is aligned with Syria — and thus, by proxy, with Iran and the Hezbollah terrorists.

Hezbollah, recall, is responsible for killing 220 US Marines in 1993 and for the murder of scores of innocents in places as far as Argentina.

Meanwhile, the administration in the last few months has told the heads of the Western-allied Lebanese factions — who used to visit Washington to discuss ways to confront Iran, Syria and Hezbollah — not to bother, because no one would see them.

He then continues on for some time in this vein. Without tangling with the trickier ideological misappropriations, a few points:

-”But Suleiman is aligned with Syria” — Maybe he’s thinking of Nabih Berri, the Shia Speaker of the Parliament? Michel Sleiman, a Maronite Christian, was elected President in 2008 precisely because of his non-partisan bona fides. He’s a former Army commander who has ties to both sides of the political spectrum in Lebanon, something that was highly unusual and sorely needed in those days. Is he truly a 100% independent free spirit? I’m sure everyone has complaints (a good sign, by the way), and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were things in his biography — I admit I’m not a complete expert — that link him to Syria (he did serve as Army commander during a period of Syrian occupation here). But even those on the far-anti-Syrian side of things here don’t waste much time calling him “pro-Syrian.”

-”aligned with Syria — and thus, by proxy, Iran and the Hezbollah terrorists” — Sigh. There is so much geopolitical nuance lost here it’s kind of sad.

-”Hezbollah, recall, is responsible for killing 220 US Marines in 1993” — 1983, but whatever. This is a lower-echelon sin, but I do find that responsible publications tend to hedge a little when attributing this event to Hezbollah — “accused of,” “allegedly.” There have certainly been some substantial doubts raised about it. Hezbollah denies it. The Marine barracks bombing seems to fall into the category of events that Hezbollah — or, more precisely, people who ended up going on to found Hezbollah — was probably involved in, but no one has proven this conclusively. Again, a lot to ask, minor sin.

-”The Suleiman visit comes after years when the White House avoided hosting any Lebanese officials” — This is just categorically false. In fact, Sleiman’s visit with Bush, in September 2008, ought to undermine the entire premise of this article. But that wouldn’t be much fun, would it?

-”The invitation was extended months ago as part of Obama’s signal to the region that President George W. Bush‘s go-it-alone era is being replaced by “engagement.”” — Short of full on invasion, could the United States have possibly been more “engaged” in a country than the Bush Administration was in Lebanon?

-”the southern Lebanon-based “resistance” organization (which is only second to al Qaeda on America’s list of terrorist groups)” — What about Hamas? What about the Jemaah Islamiya? Abu Sayyaf? The Taliban? Oh, never mind.

-”the visit came soon after the Beirut Cabinet gave its seal of approval for Hezbollah to keep its vast arsenal” — This is kind of true, in the sense that the Cabinet’s recent ministerial statement included affirmation of Hezbollah’s right to arms. But the statement is just a statement, not policy — it was also the exact same language as in the previous statement, a solution that was reached because doing anything else at the time was politically impossible. But that does not mean that Lebanon has now swung to Hezbollah — there is a lot of (appropriate) division and anger over this issue, and part of Sleiman’s purpose in visiting Washington was to tell Obama that the Lebanese government intends to address the issue of Hezbollah’s arms internally. (In fact, the people most frustrated with Sleiman’s mission were Hezbollah officials, who thought the Lebanese President was soft on this issue.) To go on and refer to Lebanon at large as “law-breaking” just because “Hezbollah remains an illegally armed militia” is to conflate some wildly disparate problems.

From here, the article just devolves into a wild mix of misconceptions and assaults on Lebanon of the sort that would be offensive to pretty much everyone across the entire ideological spectrum. It started to make my head spin — I clearly don’t have that blogging spirit. But, ok, one more:

-”America, therefore, should reject any Lebanese Army request for arms. In Lebanon’s current reality, it’s as good as sending arms to Hezbollah. Most important, the administration should end its neglect of Lebanon” — These statement contradict one another. A primary agenda of those who support Lebanon’s efforts to undermine Hezbollah is the fortification of Lebanon’s Army. The United States makes this a matter of public policy, and has for years. American efforts to support Lebanon — that is, to not “neglect” Lebanon — has long included, as a primary means, material support for the Lebanese Army. The point about arms making their way to Hezbollah is a red-herring — it’s a fear (a fair one, although Hezbollah’s weapons are already much better than the Army’s) more than a reality.

I’m going to let Avni have the last word:

“Further negligence could see the Land of Cedars go the way Afghanistan went after the victory over the Soviet invaders. And we all remember how badly that turned out for us.”