Winter of our Discontent

BEIRUT – Any­one pay­ing any atten­tion to al-wada (the sit­u­a­tion) in Lebanon knows things ain’t good. The weather is affect­ing every­thing, from food deliv­er­ies to elec­tric­ity. Skiing’s good up in Faraya, I hear, though. Last weekend’s unrest was extremely unset­tling. Seven peo­ple were killed and now Hezbol­lah and Amal are call­ing for revenge against the Army. March 8 — the Hezbollah-led oppo­si­tion — is look­ing more and more intran­si­gent, and unwill­ing to come to any solu­tion other than a com­plete cav­ing of the gov­ern­ment to their demands: veto power in the cab­i­net, pick­ing the pres­i­dent and a lock-in to the Syr­ian orbit.
Of course, the pro-Western gov­ern­ment of Fuad Sin­iora is unwill­ing to do that, cre­at­ing a sit­u­a­tion that is ripe for explo­sion. The atmos­phere is tense, and Lebanese are jumpy. Already there are small daily clashes and assaults on Army posi­tions. Lebanese media are rife with reports that Syria now opposes Army Chief Michel Sleiman for pres­i­dent (not sure why, really; per­haps he’s not so in their camp as they thought he was?) and prefers for­mer For­eign Min­is­ter Fares Boueiz for the post.
Mrs. Back to Iraq, a bet­ter observer of Lebanese pol­i­tics than I am, doesn’t think last week’s protest-turned-street-battle was spon­ta­neous. The dahiyeh, she said, is like Syria. Not much hap­pens there with­out Hezbollah’s notice and approval. They’re try­ing to dis­credit the proto-presidency of Sleiman before it even hap­pens. I agree with her, but I won­der if the protests really did start spon­ta­neously and Hezbol­lah, rec­og­niz­ing an oppor­tu­nity, allowed them to bal­loon into a con­fronta­tion with the state. At any rate, “Black Sun­day” has led to a pre­dictable amount of finger-pointing and blame-shifting.
My friend, Mitch Prothero, has a good piece in Slate on last weekend’s vio­lence.
Most peo­ple I talk to think the al-wada will go on until 2009, when there are par­lia­men­tary elec­tions. Then Hezbol­lah and the rest of the March 8 folks will likely win these and that will be the end of the so-called Cedar Rev­o­lu­tion. Lebanon will return to the Syr­ian fold and politi­cians like Walid Jum­blatt and Saad Hariri will be spend­ing a lot of time in Paris and Riyadh.
That’s Hezbollah’s real goals, I think. Not to take over the coun­try and install an Islamic state. Hezbol­lah is at heart a rev­o­lu­tion­ary move­ment and they’re smart enough to know that their pop­u­lar­ity comes from that mys­tique as well as their social ser­vices that oper­ate sep­a­rately from the woe­fully inef­fi­cient Lebanese ser­vices.
If they “took over” and became the gov­ern­ment, they would lose the rev­o­lu­tion­ary aura. From Hezbollah’s point of view, It’s much bet­ter to be a net­work of guerilla com­man­ders in south­ern Lebanon fight­ing Zion­ist occu­piers than to be in charge of fix­ing pot­holes and mak­ing sure the elec­tric­ity is on. Because they don’t get blamed for the screw-ups then. (And Lebanon is noth­ing but one big screw-up when it comes to basic infra­struc­ture.)
It works like this: If Hezbol­lah gives up its weapons — as every other mili­tia in Lebanon did at the end of the 1975 – 1990 Civil War — they lose their value to Iran and Syria as a force on the north­ern flank of Israel. They would be just another polit­i­cal party in Lebanon. With­out that fire­power, what rea­son is there for Syria and Iran to con­tinue fun­nel­ing money and matériel to the group? And with­out the money, those much-admired social ser­vices will come to an end. Lebanese are eas­ily bought, frankly, and their loy­al­ties are not usu­ally so ide­o­log­i­cal. They fol­low lead­ers who deliver on patron­age, jobs and ser­vices. With­out the loy­alty of the Shi’ites, pri­mar­ily bought and paid for with those ser­vices — not, as is claimed, because of an inborn rev­o­lu­tion­ary mind­set — Hezbol­lah would quickly fall apart.
That’s what’s at stake here. That’s why Hezbol­lah must have veto power and con­trol the pres­i­dency — to pre­vent any deci­sion regard­ing its weapons; to remove UNIFIL as an irri­tant in the south; to pre­vent the Lebanese gov­ern­ment from extend­ing author­ity to south Beirut and other areas of Hezbol­lah­stan.
Samir Geagea, a March 14 leader, said the goal is to so par­a­lyze Lebanon that Syria will be asked to inter­vene again, as it did in 1975, but he inflates the issue, I think. I think Syria very much wants a return to pre­em­i­nence in its tiny neigh­bor, but troops are not in the cards. The plan is to return to the 2004 sta­tus quo ante, as Con­doleezza Rice intoned so often dur­ing the Israel-Hezbollah war. They want to get back to a pro­tected sta­tus in the south, being a free-range guerilla move­ment. They want to pre­serve their weapons, which is their real con­stituency.
Hezbollah’s plan, when it comes to Syria and its weapons, is to par­a­lyze and protect.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Confrontation That Wasn’t

iranianboat.jpgOK. Hav­ing watched the video of the Iran­ian speed boats “swarm­ing” the U.S. naval ves­sels, I’m left with a strong sense of being under­whelmed. That’s it? Some­thing out of “Miami Vice“? Where are the white boxes that were spo­ken of in the ini­tial reports? What’s the deal with the weird robotic monot­one? And again, why was this put out when it was, on the eve of Pres­i­dent Bush’s trip to the Mid­dle East in a bid to round up oppo­si­tion to Iran? Mind you, I am not ques­tion­ing the per­for­mance or patri­o­tism of the sailors involved. They per­formed exactly as they’re sup­posed to. What I am say­ing is that something’s off about this on the Pentagon’s end.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pentagon: IRGC Boats ‘Harass’ U.S. Naval Vessels in Gulf

Hey every­body! I’m back after a long hia­tus, hon­ey­moon and oodles of time with the in-laws. But I’m back in Beirut now and ready for action. And what a day to come back to work. In a very dis­turb­ing devel­op­ment, five Iran­ian Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Guard boats harassed three big U.S. naval ves­sels in the Ara­bian Gulf, nearly spark­ing a sea bat­tle, accord­ing to the Pen­ta­gon. Over the week­end, the five smaller ves­sels threat­ened an Amer­i­can frigate, destroyer and cruiser in the Strait of Hor­muz.
“Five small boats were act­ing in a very aggres­sive way, charg­ing the ships, drop­ping boxes in the water in front of the ships and caus­ing our ships to take eva­sive maneu­vers,” a Pen­ta­gon offi­cial said. There was also com­mu­ni­ca­tions between the Amer­i­cans and the Ira­ni­ans, which the Pen­ta­gon described to the effect of, “we’re com­ing at you and you’ll explode in a cou­ple min­utes.”
The story doesn’t describe them beyond “small boats,” so they could be patrol boats or the Iran­ian equiv­a­lent of the Amer­i­can RHIBs (Rigid Hull Inflat­able Boats), but even so, they could do some real dam­age. The U.S.S. Cole and the UK 15 are high on everyone’s mind in the Gulf, as is the attack on the U.S.S. Fire­bolt.
And from my time with the Amer­i­can, British and Aus­tralian forces in the Gulf, I can tell you the Ira­ni­ans are con­sid­ered the fore­most threat. As I wrote back in July last year:

The Ira­ni­ans are a con­stant pres­ence in the Gulf, which is nat­ural con­sid­er­ing its long coast­line on the Gulf. And not far from KAAOT, they’ve made a naval base on a crane that sunk dur­ing the 1980 – 88 Iran-Iraq War. (Part of it still sticks up out of the water.) You can see it with the naked eye and Amer­i­can com­man­ders say the Ira­ni­ans are con­duct­ing recon ops on the Coali­tion forces. The Iran­ian Navy gets some respect from [Cmdr. Jim Aiken, 40, who cap­tains the Amer­i­can guided mis­sile destroyer Chung-Hoon] and other com­man­ders, who told me that when pass­ing through the bot­tle­neck to the Gulf called the [Strait of Hormuz](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/hormuz.gif&imgrefurl=http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/printpage/hormuz.htm&h=426&w=427&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=WdgznmPezyzFtM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstrait%2Bof%2Bhormuz%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D6j8%26sa%3DX), a pass­ing Iran­ian Navy ship pre­sented col­ors and her sailors saluted, hold­ing fast to naval tra­di­tions the world over. But the IRGC Navy is a dif­fer­ent story. The Coali­tion sailors I spoke with called them thugs and accused them of basi­cally run­ning a pro­tec­tion racket on dhows that ven­ture into their part of the Gulf.

At the time, I asked Aiken what would hap­pen if the Ira­ni­ans tried to grab some U.S. sailors like they to the 15 British com­man­dos back in March 2007. He mum­bled some stuff before finally say­ing the U.S. would shoot back. And that’s almost what hap­pened in this inci­dent. The Pen­ta­gon offi­cial said the Ira­ni­ans turned back “lit­er­ally at the very moment that U.S. forced were prepar­ing to open fire.” What does this mean? I’m not sure yet; it could be just one of those things but it’s inter­est­ing that the IRGC took over Iran’s naval com­mand in the Gulf back in Novem­ber, accord­ing to the U.S. Navy. It could be a probe, a provo­ca­tion or some yahoos out of con­trol. The IRGC isn’t the most uni­fied or dis­ci­plined of armed forces. But no mat­ter what, the Ira­ni­ans have given Pres­i­dent Bush some fresh PR to use against them when he comes call­ing on the region this week to shore up an anti-Iran coali­tion among Arab states.
UPDATE 1÷8÷08 10:36:24 AM: Folks more knowl­edge­able than me are chew­ing this over, and they’re smelling a rat. It is awfully con­ve­nient that an inci­dent hap­pens on the even of Bush’s visit to the region where con­tain­ing Iran­ian aggres­sion is high on the president’s agenda. And the Navy claims the IRGC–N is run­ning pro­tec­tion rack­ets and smug­gling. Could the dumped white boxes have been Iran­ian attempts to dump con­tra­band? On the other hand, the U.S.S. Cole inci­dent has made the Navy under­stand­ably twitchy. Those guys out there are switched on, big time. And Iran­ian expla­na­tion that they didn’t rec­og­nize the ships is implau­si­ble at best. A cruiser, destroyer and frigate aren’t small ships, and the only naval power of force in the Gulf’s inter­na­tional waters are going to be either Amer­i­can, British or Aus­tralian. The Ira­ni­ans knew with whom they were play­ing chicken. Per­haps this was an indi­ca­tion from Iran that it can cause trou­ble on mul­ti­ple fronts for the U.S. and its allies?
There’s also a his­tory of Iran­ian aggres­sion in the Gulf dur­ing the 1980 – 88 Iran-Iraq war and the war of the tankers. The Ira­ni­ans laid mines in inter­na­tional waters that led to the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts inci­dent.
So, in short, there are good rea­sons for both sides to pro­voke the other, and it remains to be seen what — if any­thing — will come of this. In all hon­esty, prob­a­bly noth­ing, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Smith Leaves NRO

Posted with­out com­ment: From W. Thomas Smith Jr.: “After much reflec­tion and con­sid­er­a­tion, I am with­draw­ing from my pro­fes­sional rela­tion­ship as a reg­u­lar free­lancer with National Review Online.”
Kathryn Jean Lopez weighs in:

I apol­o­gize to all of our read­ers. We should have required Smith to clearly source all of his orig­i­nal report­ing from Lebanon. Smith let him­self become sus­cep­ti­ble to spin by those tak­ing him around Lebanon, so his report­ing from there should be read with that knowl­edge. (We are attach­ing this note to all his Lebanon report­ing.) This was an edit­ing fail­ure as much as it was a report­ing fail­ure. We let him down, and we let you down, and we’re tak­ing steps to make sure it doesn’t hap­pen again. Smith has, on his own, decided that he will no longer write for NRO. We respect his decision.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I wanna cover this guy’s Lebanon’

SINGAPORE – I know, I know… I said I was tak­ing a break while I get mar­ried, and all, but I’m in Sin­ga­pore wait­ing for a refuel, and I saw that Huff­Post has finally taken down that clown of a jour­nal­ist, W. Thomas Smith Jr. Smith alighted in Lebanon back in Sep­tem­ber for a few weeks and his accounts of my adopted home are ris­i­ble.

I was a source for this story — I called him a “fabulist” — because I always intended to blog on Smith, tear­ing down his crap, but to be hon­est, I was going through a rough blog patch and couldn’t seem to work up the proper dudgeon.

Still, in one of his more fan­tas­tic posts, not men­tioned in the Huff­Post arti­cle, he claimed the Iran­ian Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Guard Corps tried to assas­si­nate an anti-Hezbollah Shi’ite politi­cian with an “acid-weapon.”

I inter­viewed Sayed once. Had cof­fee and sweets with him in his office. Con­ducted a recon­nais­sance mis­sion with one of his armed men and two of mine in one of Sayed’s cars. I rode with him dur­ing a sec­ond recon in another of his cars. And yes­ter­day, mem­bers of the Iran­ian Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Guard Corps (here in Lebanon) attempted to kill Sayed and his fam­ily by sab­o­tag­ing his vehi­cle (the first one I rode in). They planted a delayed acid-weapon on his car’s under­car­riage, which ate through the chas­sis and caused the vehi­cle to basi­cally break in half while he was driving.

As a buddy of mine remarked after that one, “I wanna cover this guy’s Lebanon. It sounds so much more inter­est­ing.” Indeed. Too bad his sto­ries are ridicu­lous falsehoods.

UPDATE: So, some are report­ing that I noti­fied Kathryn-Jean Lopez of Smith’s sto­ries six weeks ago. This is true, how­ever, I sent the email to tank@​nationalreview.​com. Did she get it? Did any­one? Hell if I know since I never received a response. Here’s the text of the email I sent on Oct. 6:

Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Message-Id: <6994FFC1-C88D-4EDB-9C96-47630C6C3C31@mac.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-701486348 To: tank@nationalreview.com Subject: Accuracy alert From: Christopher Allbritton Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:39:27 +0300 --Apple-Mail-2-701486348 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed


Such as this one:

The gen­eral briefed me regard­ing the bat­tle­field at Nahr al-Bared, near his camp, and what I would see today as the first Amer­i­can jour­nal­ist to visit the site of Lebanon’s defeat of Al Qaeda-affiliate Fatah al Islam.

Ah, no.

You do know that almost every Amer­i­can jour­nal­ist liv­ing in Beirut has been up to Nahr el-Bared sev­eral times dur­ing and after the fight­ing? I myself filed sto­ries for the Wash­ing­ton Times(http://​www​.wash​ing​ton​times​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​20070904​/​F​O​R​E​I​G​N​/​109040025​/​1003) and the Newark Star-Ledger(http://www.long-war.com/Allbrittons_Clips/Clips/Entries/2007/9/3_As_Lebanon_war_re-ignites%252C_a_risky_lie_protects_a_friend.html), the day after the fight­ing stopped — and I was in a hell of a lot more dan­ger than your man is in today. (*Star-Ledger* seems to have archived the story, so that link goes to my per­sonal site, but that’s the story that ran there. WaTimes is still available.)

You know, for a pub­li­ca­tion that went after the New Repub­lic so hard for its soldier-in-Iraq stuff, your guy here is hor­ri­bly, hor­ri­bly inac­cu­rate and sen­sa­tion­al­ist. I’m an Amer­i­can and I never have body­guards and never needed one. He is mak­ing Beirut seem much more dan­ger­ous than it is. He also is — as are you, since I assume he’s expens­ing it —  get­ting fleeced by some Lebanese con artists. He doesn’t need weapons and he’s mak­ing a big prob­lem by car­ry­ing them and pub­licly writ­ing about his “recon mis­sions” in the Dahiyah. That’s not what jour­nal­ists do; it’s what spies do, and by his actions, he’s mak­ing every­one sus­pi­cious of west­ern jour­nal­ists. That is the height of irresponsibility.

Sec­ondly, he’s a liar. Hezbol­lah never invaded east Beirut on the 29th. And they don’t have 200 “heav­ily armed” mili­ti­a­men down­town. I passed by today. There are about 40 guys down there with no weapons at all. They sit around, smok­ing shisha in jeans and t-shirts.

Per­haps your man in Beirut should not rely solely on March 14 guys and get a wider per­spec­tive. And stop lying and mak­ing care­less errors. It’s your cred­i­bil­ity on the line, after all.

Sin­cerely,
Christo­pher Allbritton

So, that’s out there now for the record.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
  • Visits

      Wordpress.com stats not installed!
    » wp.com stats helper
  • Community

    Login with Facebook:
    Last visitors
    Powered by Sociable!
  • Facebook Activity

  • Facebook Activity

  • RSS InsurgencyWatch RSS

  • Archives

  • Categories