My friends will tell you I’m an unabashed Mac guy. I love Apple products for their smoothness, their workability, their iconic and reassuring workflows. The Soon-to-be Mrs. Back-to-Iraq rolls her eyes at my obsession… Likewise, as you can imagine, I’m no great fan of Windows.
This morning, as I listened to my friend’s complaints about the unpredictability of Windows — sometimes things stop working and then start again for no apparent reason whatsoever — I realized that Lebanon works exactly the same way. And with the current, stupid crisis in Lebanon paralyzing this place — locking it up, so to speak — it occurred to me that Lebanon, such as it is, must be using Windows as its operating system. Some similarities:
- It doesn’t feel well put-together. It’s a house of cards with an inconsistent, incongruous interface. Where Mac OS X feels all of a piece, Windows (and Lebanon) feels cobbled together. It’s as if someone just slapped some legacy religions and/or code together and said, “Go to town, play nice.” Well, .dll files aren’t always compatible, and, Sunnis and Shi’ites, for example, don’t always get on together. Usually they do, but when they don’t, look out.
- Following that, both Windows and modern Lebanon were designed not with the users in mind, but the designers. In Microsoft’s case, Windows primarily exists to make money for Bill Gates and Microsoft. Its reliable cash stream come from big business, which tends to lock its employees into using an OS that is obviously on its last legs. Same for Lebanon. It was designed by the French using legacy Ottoman code which it stole — much like Microsoft did a shady deal to get MS-DOS — and set up to serve colonial interests, rather than that of the Lebanese.
- Modern Lebanon is, specifically, like Windows Vista. It’s shiny, nice to look at and easily seduces. But the moment you actually try to work with it, the nasty underpinnings — whether it’s sectarianism or that damned Windows registry — come up and bite you in the ass.
- It’s prone to viruses/outside interference by foreign powers that gum up the works. These can lead to…
- … Lock-ups that paralyze the entire computer and/or country. One difference: In the case of Lebanon, rebooting is a total hassle.
- It can be used to spew out junk email and/or jihadis if taken over by a hostile outsider.
- And finally, when it crashes, it crashes hard. Blue Screen of Civil War, anyone?
I know, I know… I’m opening myself up to fans of Windows who will tell me they’ve never, ever had a computer crash or a virus. Likewise, I’m opening myself up to partisans of Lebanon who tell me that the place works just fine if you know how to work it. Obviously, I don’t or I’d be happily ginning up my wasta and/or bleakly submitting to the mess that’s Microsoft Office.
That’s not to say Lebanon and Gates’ little piece software don’t have their charms. The biggest one: In both cases, whether it’s politics or software, there are more games.
My last column of the year is up at Spot-on now, looking at the dynamics of Syria’s participation in the Annapolis conference. An excerpt:
There’s a Middle Eastern proverb making the rounds these days: You can’t make war without Egypt and you can’t have peace without Syria. And if Syria’s sitting down at the table, as it’s indicated it will do at next week, it’s a safe bet that the fate of two key parts of the region — the Golan and Lebanon — are up for discussion.
In two of the most intractable problems of the region — Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the Syrian regime has been the immovable obstacle. Because outside the U.S., the Middle East isn’t just defined by the Israeli-Arab conflict. It’s a Gordian Knot of conflicts involving Israelis and Palestinians, Israel and Arabs, Arab Shi’ites and Arab Sunnis, Arabs and Iranians and the West and Iran. They’re all intertwined, but the common thread in this tangled skein is Syria and the regime of its President Bashar al-Assad.
And in the past 48 hours, there has been signs of movement that might, just might signal some kind of accord that the Syrians will accept. The Golan, the uplands seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war, is reportedly on the table at the Annapolis conference which begins Tuesday. This was the precondition for Syria to attend the conference, said its foreign minister, Walid Muallem.
That’s very good news for the Americans, the Israelis and possibly the Lebanese. Why? Because with Syria’s participation — along with Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states at the ministerial level — a success in Annapolis might mean the beginning of a real discussion of a Grand Bargain for the region, not just another fitful start to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The thinking is that if the Syrians are shown some flexibility on the Golan, they might also show some flexibility in Lebanon, which is in the midst of its worst political crisis since the end of the 1975 – 1990 Civil War — a political crisis stoked in large part by Syria and its allies in Lebanon.
You might be surprised at my conclusions.
BEIRUT – Well, Beirut is now in a state of nervous waiting… Waiting for something, anything to happen. Lahoud finished out his term last night with all the pomp and circumstance he could muster. Too bad he couldn’t muster any local politicians to see him off, so despised he’s become. But before he left office, he may have put Lebanon under military control after he declared a state of emergency.
Or did he? Some commentators are noting that his language — “There are conditions and risks on the ground that could lead to a state of emergency” — doesn’t actually do anything more than reiterate the current security status quo. The Army has already been responsible for security in Lebanon since an Interior Ministry decision about six months ago.
And there’s been no uprising by Hezbollah, Aoun seems to be keeping his head down and Siniora’s government is still around. Michel Suleiman, commander of the Army, has pledged to follow the orders of the cabinet. Sure doesn’t sound like a military takeover to me.
What it sounds like is people waiting to see what happens with Syria in Annapolis. If the Golan is put on the agenda, and Syria gets some forward momentum from Israel, then things might very well ease up here. I am working on a column explaining this dynamic for Spot-on, which should be up tomorrow. Until then, let’s hope no one does anything stupid here. The atmosphere is a tight as a garrote.
BEIRUT – Michel Aoun threw a fastball on the eve of the last day of Emile Lahoud’s term, proposing an interesting initiative to break the deadlock.
I’m still getting translation, but it appears that he will withdraw his candidacy for the presidency — which he has claimed as his “right” — but he will nominate a candidate who is not part of the his Free Patriotic Movement bloc. This president would uphold his agreement with Hezbollah over its arms. (Aoun believes only his Memorandum of Understanding with the Party of God protects the Shi’ite militia from a military attack.)
Saad Hariri, leader of the Future Movement and the pro-Western bloc in the government, should in turn nominate a prime minister who is not part of the majority bloc, but who would support the international tribunal investigating the assassination of Saad’s father, Rafik Hariri. The tribunal is bitterly opposed by Syria and its allies in Lebanon.
There was also something about the majority would get 55 percent of the cabinet and the opposition would get 45 percent — including two “sovereign” ministries. That gives it veto power. That won’t play well, probably.
What’s most interesting is that Aoun made this initiative publicly, in a press conference, rather than the usual under-the-table manner of Lebanese politicians.
Quck reax analysis: This allows Hezbollah to accept another candidate other than Aoun, who was reportedly giving Hezbollah and even Syria headaches. So I think Aoun has been made to realize he doesn’t have nearly the amount of support among his allies or even among the Christians he thought he did, and he was becoming an obstacle to getting Hezbollah out of the corner it had painted itself into. Because make no doubt: this initiative wouldn’t have gone forward without Syria’s blessing. It does allows Aoun to save some face. Maybe it will keep everyone happy until the next crisis.
In short, this is movement forward in a country where deadlock has been the order of the day for months.
Your play, March 14.
UPDATE: Hariri has rejected Aoun’s proposal and called for parliamentarians to gather for a vote tomorrow. Hezbollah and its allies have said they will boycott any session, meaning March 14 could be heading for a 50+1 vote. This could lead to a coup, two rival governments, street fighting and a host of problems. This could be game on.
You may notice things look a little different around here. I finally found some free time (and energy) to fix this damn blog, which had been nagging at me for a while now.
Gone is the old design — but enough remains that you should still feel comfortable. Comments are back again, so yay, more spam in the comments. Hopefully you all will make use of them.
There are still some tweaks and other little things going on, so kick the tires. If you find something that doesn’t work or look right, [drop me a line](mailto:chris@back-to-iraq.com?subject=That’s messed up, man). In the meantime, I’m getting ready to get married, so December ain’t going to be very interesting, I’m afraid. But 2008 is a new life, a new wife and all that, so things can only get better, right?
