Recently in Politics Category

One of the things writing the U.S. media roundup on IraqSlogger allows me to do is get a high dudgeon up over the crap that passes for analysis on op-ed pages … or sloppy writing in the middle of reporting. (Michael Gordon of the New York Times has been raked over the coals for his indiscriminate use of “al Qaeda” to describe most Iraqis with a Kalashnikov, but thankfully that seems to have been reined in.)

Others have been less careful. On Friday, Leslie Sabbagh of the Christian Science Monitor writes that Petraeus warned of “greatly increased sectarian violence” if the U.S. pulls out too soon. It’s a fairly run-of-the mill story, with stats showing a drop in attacks against civilians and an increase against U.S. troops. Pretty much what you’d expect, but there is some sloppy language in here. Sabbagh writes of a “quick withdrawal,” but few people in Washington are talking about anything hasty. They’re talking about the start of a withdrawal sooner rather than later — one that might take six months, a year, whatever — not a pell-mell rush to the border.

Sabbagh does it again, writing, “The prospect of any hasty removal of US troops has (Petraeus) concerned.” But the general actually said, “If we pull out there will be greatly increased sectarian violence, humanitarian concerns….” Petraeus makes no mention of the speed of the pullout; he questions the wisdom of a pullout altogether. The military command and the Bush White House seem to be envisioning a long-term presence in Iraq that will last years, but reporters are thinking of a evacuation, Saigon style. Those are two very different ideas. Reporters need to let the readers know when Petraeus, Bush, et al. are trying to reframe the debate as a choice between a hasty, unplanned retreat and an indefinite presence. What’s actually being talked about is either an indefinite presence or an orderly withdrawal with proper force-protection over a period of time, but which begins sooner rather than never.

But for an egregious example of high weirdness, check out the Monitor’s publication of an op-ed by Andrew Roberts, author of “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900.” In this extraordinary op-ed, Roberts argues that “the English-speaking peoples” (ESPs) of the world are the ones best able to stand up to radical, totalitarian Islam because Anglophones have never been invaded or fallen under the sway of fascism or communism. “Countries in which English is the primary language are culturally, politically, and militarily different” — read, “better” — “from the rest of ‘the West,’” he writes. “They stand for modernity, religious and sexual toleration, capitalism, diversity, women’s rights, representative institutions — in a word, the future.” Yeah! Suck it, Germany, Spain and Italy! (Who have all committed troops and suffered casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere since 9/11.)

Seriously, this offensively nativist tract must come as a surprise to the those non-English-speaking peoples of the world (poor sods), but maybe they’ll be content to bask in the warm protectorate of the US-Canadian-British-ANZ imperium. There is just so much wrong with this op-ed — such as saying the invasion of South Korea by North Korea was a “surprise” attack for the world’s ESPs when it sounds like it was more a surprise to the South Koreans. And his repetition of the whole ESP phrase is grating. Finally, he just up and ignores the contributions of German soldiers in Afghanistan and the French Navy in patrolling the vital sea lanes throughout the Arabian and Indian oceans. And he trots out the old, “Al Qaeda can’t be appeased because the French would have already done so” trope. WTF? Is this a joke?

There’s much more — so much more. I’m leaving out the pablum from such luminaries as Bill Kristol — “the Bush presidency will be seen as a sucess” — and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I mean, we all know what’s the score with those guys. But I expected a bit more from the Monitor.

Finally, my latest column for Spot-on.com is available. In it, I take up — what else? — the 1st anniversary of the Israel-Hezbollah war. (Some people call it the July War, but since half of it happened in August, I’ll stick with my appellation, thanks.)

That’s all. More to come!

BEIRUT -- The Lebanese army is on the move toward Nahr el-Bared. For the last three hours, the army has been pounding Fatah al-Islam positions with artillery, tanks and mortars. Some believe this is a softening up of position before a full-scale assault on the camp, which would break a 37-year-old precedent keeping Lebanese troops out of the Palestinian camps.

Or it might be another one of the exchanges of fire that have peppered the almost two week stand-off. Although this one looks pretty big.

BEIRUT -- In my previous post, I mentioned that Maj. Gen Ashraf Rifi, the head of the Internal Security Forces told me, he "thinks the army will have to go in" to Nahr el-Bared to uproot the militants of Fatah al-Islam.

"They are very dangerous," he told me in his plush office. "We have no choice, we have to combat them."

Perhaps I underplayed his comments, because if he's right, "going in" would be a huge development. The Palestinians have run their own security in the 12 camps under a 1969 agreement brokered by the Arab League. Now, that agreement was allegedly revoked in 1987 by the Lebanese Parliament, but there's still at least a tacit agreement that the Palestinians mind their own store.

That's not really a viable security option anymore, as we can see just north of Tripoli.

Now, what was Rifi trying to say? Was he merely repeating the phrase of my question -- "Will the army have to go in?" -- because his english isn't so good, as he protested a couple of times? (He spoke well enough to conduct an interview, mind you.) Was he trying to emphasize the point that there are elements in the government that are rarin' to go get those Fatah al-Islam guys while others, perhaps Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, are willing to take a slower approach?

Or was he trying, in his own locution, to emphasize the importance for Lebanon of winning this battle? Because this is make or break time for Lebanon as a sovereign state.

If the army fails at this task of defeating Fatah al-Islam -- and I'm not talking about some mealy-mouthed "arrangement" where a few of the militants are hauled in -- it will undermine the legitimacy of the army as a state institution. And that will very much play right into Hezbollah's hands.

See, Hezbollah has often said it is needed as an armed resistance because the army is too weak to stand up to Israel. (True.) But the Shi'ite group won't put itself under the command of the army because to do so would mean that any attack it launched on Israel such as, say, capturing and killing Israeli troops, would mean Lebanon was the aggressor and as such would bring down the wrath of the Israeli military on Lebanon.

Of course, this is exactly what happened last summer, but let's not quibble. In Lebanese politics, there are apparently no limits on hypocrisy.

If the army fails and is seen as weak or illegitimate, Hezbollah has a strong argument for saying it must keep its arms for the defense of Lebanon. Now, one of the definitions of sovereignty is the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, or violence. Since Lebanon's government and weak army would be unable to claim that following a loss at the hands of Fatah al-Islam, there would be no real sovereignty here. Hezbollah 1, Lebanon 0.

One can argue whether a sovereign Lebanon is a good or bad thing in the grand scheme of things, an argument I can't address on this humble blog, although I favor the former. But it's vitally important to the Lebanese government.

It's so important that some elements of the government, including Rifi's former boss, cabinet member Ahmad Fatfat, are calling for storming the gates of Nahr el-Bared.

There is some buzz that this will be resolved in 48 hours. That may be true, or it might not be. A lot can happen in this small country in that time.

By the way, the donations are working again, and covering this place ain't cheap. Fixers, rented cars, hotel rooms, etc. all cost money and freelancing for newspapers only covers part of it. If you'd like me to keep blogging the developments in Lebanon's latest crisis, please consider dropping some coin in the donate link below and to the right. Thanks.

TRIPOLI -- What the heck is going on up here? That seems to be the big question at the moment. Last night around 9 p.m., fighting started up again between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam. This prompted speculation that the push against the jihadi group had come, and I raced back up to Tripoli from my spot of being stuck in a checkpoint just outside Beirut. (The capital is locked down after three bombs this week, so security is tight.)

Atop the building where the television crews have set up, the owner of the building -- a tightly wound guy in the best of times -- carried around a Kalashnikov and threatened to shoot anyone who turned on their television lights.

In the darkness, you couldn't see who was who, and a rumor -- goosed, apparently by Lebanese military intelligence -- swept through the gang that Fatah al-Islam had sent suicide bombers throughout the nearby area and one might be on the roof. A quick evacuation ensued.

This morning it's quiet again. The fighting stopped around 6 a.m., and we're back to waiting for something to happen.

My feeling is that Fuad Siniora's government is a bit confused, as the Palestinian issue is a tricky one. The status of Palestinians in Lebanon is not a purely internal affair, but one belonging to the Arab League thanks to a 1969 agreement that keeps Lebanese authority out of the 12 camps scattered around the country. Further complicating matters, the camp isn't empty. There has been a more or less steady trickle of refugees getting out of the camps, either on foot or in cars, but there are still about 18,000 civilians in the camp, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The humanitarian situation is growing worse by the hour inside the camp, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and scattered demonstrations in other camps have already occurred. More casualties among civilians is going to inflame the Palestinians in Lebanon -- an already seething people who make up about 10 percent of Lebanon's population. Sultan Abu Aynan, the head of Lebanon's branch of Fatah -- the main group in the PLO -- has warned of a general uprising among the Palestinians could occur. Other Arab governments have also expressed concern over the casualties (even while they pledge a rush shipment of weapons to the Lebanese army.)

So a long siege is untenable to the Palestinians and Arab governments around the region. But leaving Fatah al-Islam alone is equally untenable to the Lebanese government. Going into the camp, no mater how carefully, will result in horrific casualties among both the Palestinians and the Lebanese army, perhaps the only state institution almost widely admired by all of Lebanon's quarreling confessional groups. Further complicating matters, members of the opposition, led by the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah, camped out in downtown since Dec. 1, have started making political hay out of this situation by accusing the U.S.-backed government of incompetence and dithering -- charges which aren't entirely untrue.

I mention the various backers because solving the problem of Fatah al-Islam has implications far beyond the borders of Lebanon. While mass casualties on the army's side would be bad, in Lebanon, the fear of the "other" overrides all. It's highly unlikely Siniora's political allies in the Christian and Druze camps would desert him no matter how bad a military assault might be.

(On a side note, Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, urged his supporters -- of which there are many in this conservative Sunni area -- to help the army. Allegedly, some have taken that to heart because I've heard stories from Palestinians who say Future Movement followers are shooting into the camp at anything that moves. How do they know the bullets are from Future Movement supporters? Who knows, but the truth is almost irrelevant in this case; the suspicions indicate the depth of distrust between Palestinians and local residents up here.)

So while army casualties would be bad, large numbers of dead among the Palestinians would be worse. Arab governments in the region such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the various Gulf sheikhdoms would be seen by their own restive populations as helping a government massacre Palestinians -- and it would be an Arab government doing it. Talk about betrayal! (Al Jazeera, by far the most popular news channel throughout the Middle East, is allegedly pushing this narrative, although I can't verify this just yet.) So Cairo, Amman and others are watching this situation very closely.

This would be bad for Siniora because he relies not only on support from the West, but from friendly Arab governments who want to check the Iranian-Syrian axis. Weakening Siniora means strengthening Hezbollah in Lebanon's zero-sum politics, which would further strengthening Syria, right when it's facing a possible United Nations Security Council resolution that would set up the Hariri tribunal under Chapter 7.

The common thread in all of this is Syria. Fatah al-Islam is suspected of being a Syrian marionette and Hezbollah is a Syrian ally. With threats from the north, south and east, the little prime-minister-that-could is rapidly running out of room to maneuver.

BEIRUT -- U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi came under fierce criticism from the White House for her proposed trip to Syria tomorrow, but, oddly, a Republican congressional delegation yesterday to Syria was given a free pass by the same White House.

As Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, said:

I do think that, as a general rule - and this would go for Speaker of the House Pelosi and this apparent trip that she is going to be taking - that we don't think it's a good idea. We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends, and the message that it sends to our allies. I'm not sure what the hopes are to - what she's hoping to accomplish there. I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from, but we do think that's a really bad idea.

Fair enough. But Reps. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Sunday.

The Republicans released a statement that said, "We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue ... We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War."

Quelle horreur! Dialogue? Crickets were the only response from the White House.

Again in fairness, I spoke with a source at a Western embassy in Beirut about this, and the source said the Republicans had been discouraged from going, just as Pelosi and her delegation had been. But, the source said, if a Congressional delegation is determined to go to Damascus, the U.S. embassy in Beirut would help them out. (He asked for anonymity because he's not authorized to talk to the press -- he also committed the unpardonable sin of calling Congress a "co-equal branch of government.")

Pelosi is the highest U.S. official to visit Syria since President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s.

Former U.N. envoy John Bolton is making the rounds of the talk shows -- including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -- making deeply dishonest statements that include the whopper that President Bush never made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat. He's also out charging that regime change is necessary in Iran and boasting that the U.S. delayed the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah last year because it hoped the Jewish state would defeat the Shi'ite militant group.

Who let this guy out of his cave?

He must have a book to sell, because I thought he had slunk off into ignoble obscurity after his term at the U.N. expired and it was made clear to Bush that his re-appointment would not be approved. Apparently not.

His first statement, today, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, was the one that Bush never made the case that Iraq was an "imminent threat." This is an old one, and one easily disproved, for while Bush may not have uttered the words, "imminent," "threat" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, the first result on Google reveals a _Los Angeles Times" story after his 2003 State of the Union Address headlined, "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat."

The Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, has assembled a collection of quotes from administration officials who affirmed that Iraq was, indeed, an "imminent threat."

For example:

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

-- President Bush, 11/23/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

-- President Bush, 10/16/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

-- President Bush, 10/2/02

There are others, from such Bush administration luminaries such as Donald Rumsfeld -- "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent ... I would not be so certain" (9/18/02) -- and official spokesman, Scott McClellan -- "This is about imminent threat" (2/10/03).

So, once again, Bolton is just wrong: deeply, profoundly wrong. And so was I. From my perch outside the United States -- I've been away for several years now -- I had the impression that the neo-cons were diminished or on the run, that the right-wing noise machine was winding down and that American television journalism had developed a least a modicum of skepticism toward the Bush administration. (Thankfully Jon Stewart's interview with Bolton -- while gracious -- was at least more hard hitting.)

"I think there are a lot of Iranians that are unsatisfied with the regime, I think that there is more unrest there than what people believe, I think that the government is constrained because of the fall of oil prices and there is mismanagement of the oil sector of Iran's economy, they've got fewer resources to spread around to keep the populous happy.
"There's a large Iranian diaspora that know what the situation is. So, I think that there are a lot of possibilities. It won't necessarily be easy or quick, but that's not to say we shouldn't be pursuing it.

"In think it's very close to the point where Iran will have completely indigenous mastery over the fuel sites, that is to say the point in which stopping the things from the outside will not be sufficient, so I don't think we have much time. That's why all these negotiations with the Europeans have played to Iran's advantage, because time is on their side, time is not on our side."

How can the Iranian regime be toppled?

"Well, I wish we had started four years ago, but I think through internal dissent and outside pressure, those in general terms are what we have to do." (Emphasis added)

Are people in Washington still talking about changing the regime change in Iran? I mean, honestly? And listening to the Iranian diaspora? That worked so well with the Iraqi diaspora, as led by Ahmad Chalabi.

And finally, Bolton admits to what everyone in Lebanon already knew: That the U.S. dragged its feet in calling for a cease-fire -- allowing Lebanese civilians to be slaughtered -- so that Israel might have some more time to finish off Hezbollah.
As reported by the BBC, an early cease-fire, he said, would be "dangerous and misguided."

It was only when it was obvious that the Shi'ite group would be a tougher enemy to beat that initially thought did America sign on to a cessation of hostilities.

Thank goodness his time is up.

A former translator in Iraq, Dustin Langan, wrote me today to tip me off about an interesting read in Radar, about the lack of good translators in Iraq. He was recruited by MZM Inc., one of the companies connected with the "Duke" Cunningham corruption scandal, to work in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, and he has some good points to make.

One that is personally dear to me is the treatment of the Iraqi translators. As he says:

[Iraqi translators] have been treated terribly. They've been killed. They have not been protected. They have not received visas or anything. They're being killed at very high rates. The result is many people now in Iraq think if you work with the coalition you're an idiot, because you're working with someone who doesn't care about you, and then you're killed.

I've known a few 'terps, as they're called, and my friend George Packer has made this one of his major concerns. It should be one that makes every feeling American -- whether you supported the war or not -- ashamed at how we're treating these people.

Anyway, it's a good interview. Thanks for the tip, Dustin!

BEIRUT -- Well, this is just great. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said that reconciliation with Hezbollah was "impossible" because the Shi'ite militant group wants to replace the current pluralist state and society of Lebanon.

This is bunk. I have my criticisms of Hezbollah, but they don't want to take over the whole country. For one, they don't want the responsibility. They want to be a resistance movement fighting the Israelis; they don't want to be in charge of filling potholes in Tariq el-Jdeide. They want enough power within the current system to guarantee the south remains theirs, so they can move freely in and out of it and keep their weapons, which is the real base of their power. Does anyone think Iran and Syria would continue to finance them if they weren't such an effective tool against Israel? If Hezbollah had no weapons, then they have no money. If they have no money, they have no ability to support their social services, which are a strong draw to Lebanon's poorer Shi'ite population. Without that loyalty, they're nothing -- and Hezbollah knows it. As Hezbollah sees it, they have to protect their weapons if they want to remain politically viable.

But back to Jumblatt (or "Jumbo" as he's affectionately know to local journalists). He's long had a reputation as a dial-a-quote politician/warlord, but he represents one of the smallest communities in Lebanon. (Druze make up maybe 5 percent of the population.)

What's dangerous about his comments, however, is that he's listened to by the rank and file of March 14, and his comments can harden attitudes to any kind of compromise -- which is sorely needed these days. Hezbollah ain't going away, and it has to be integrated into the Lebanese political system somehow -- fully and nonviolently. Jumblatt's comments make that more difficult.

At any rate, his comments came in the wake of the disturbing discovery of two caches of explosives and detonation fuses scattered around Beirut and the rest of the country. Perhaps someone was just trying to dump them, but it's set the place on edge. Careless comments from political leaders are not the best way to calm the situation.

BEIRUT -- Bombs destroyed two commuter buses today in the small Christian community of Ain Alaq, in the mountains north of Beirut.

Reports of fatalities varied, but ranged from three (Red Cross, security forces) to 12 (LBC and other media sources.) Ten to 20 were wounded. The first bomb was apparently attached to the undercarriage of the first bus while the second was in a back seat on the second, according to my fixer, who is trying to find more info. I'll update if this changes.

The wounded were civilians possibly traveling to work, marking a change in the two-year campaign of bombings and assassinations that has wracked Lebanon since the killing of Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005. Before, the attacks were either targeted assassinations of well-known anti-Syrian politicians and journalists or small bombs exploded in buildings late at night so as to minimize casualties. This seems aimed at Iraq- or Israel-style terror. Random, anywhere, pitiless.

Details are still emerging, but speculation is rampant. Was this Syria? Hezbollah? CIA? (A Hezbollah spokesman said it was the latter.) Was it a warning to the March 14 coalition not to attend the big rally planned for downtown tomorrow to mark the two-year anniversary of Hariri's death?

One intriguing connection is to Elias Murr, Lebanon's defense minister. The buses originated in Bteghrin, the home of the Murr family -- they're the major clan there -- and some have wondered if this could be a response to Murr's refusal last week to return a truck full of Hezbollah weapons intercepted by the Lebanese Army?

Elias Murr was the target of a failed assassination in July 2005.

I'm not convinced of that, as it would be a complete turn-around for Hezbollah, who have not (yet) turned their weapons on their fellow Lebanese -- a point of pride for the group.

Also, the attack happened near Bikfaya, the ancestral home of the Gemayel clan. Several of the dead were Gemayels. Lebanon's industry minister, Pierre Gemayel was assassinated in November.

Michel Murr, the defense minister's father, was at the site of the bombing and said it was a message for all Lebanese to come together and transcend politics. That's a nice sentiment, but it's almost assuredly not the message the bombers were trying to send.

More likely, it was a warning to March 14.

"They are trying to sabotage tomorrow's meeting," said Ahmad Fatfat, the former interior minister. "They are trying to divide the Christians. ... The people who are doing this don't want the people to come together and it's another link in the chain" of assassinations.

"I cannot believe any Lebanese is capable of doing such a terrible thing," he added.

Fatfat also said the bombs were placed on the buses yesterday, although he declined to say how he knew that.

Obviously, Fatfat is not-so-subtlely pointing the finger at Syria. A Hezbollah spokesman said the same thing, but blamed the CIA instead of Syria.

I witnessed this in Iraq, too, by the way, early in the insurgency. In 2004, when the violence was much more sporadic and rare than it is now, Iraqis would often tell me, "These bombs could not come from Iraqis. No Iraqi would hurt another Iraqi. This must be the Israelis or CIA."

There's always a natural tendency to believe that outsiders are the ones doing the killing. Witness the immediate reaction to the Murrah Building in 1995. Everyone immediately suspected Arab terrorism, not home-grown white supremacists.

But right now, especially on the eve of the anniversary of the killing of Hariri, everyone in Lebanon -- Hezbollah, March 14, etc. -- is banking on national unity for their own purposes. "Hariri was for all of us," as many say. Other parties -- Syria, especially, but possibly Israel -- would love to see Lebanese at each others' throats. Syria could use any violence as an "I told you so" excuse to intervene again, and Israel probably wouldn't mind seeing Hezbollah on the defensive in its own country.

(Mind you, I'm not accusing Israel of today's bombing; I'm just analyzing who might stand to gain from Lebanese discord.)

UNRELATED (?) NEWS: The Grand Mufti of Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani, the highest ranking Sunni cleric in country, claims in a press release to LBC that he was heckled and threatened by the pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-led March 8 protesters as he led prayers at Hariri's grave in Martyr's Square downtown today. He says he was told to leave or they would burn his car.

(March 8 is a coalition of mostly Shi'ite parties and some Christians, and includes Hezbollah, Amal, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Christian parties of Michel Aoun and Suleiman Franjieh. With the exception of Aoun, they are all solidly pro-Syrian. Aoun just wants to be president and will hitch his horse to whichever wagon he thinks will win.)

Also, in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle, I have a story about the rearming of the Lebanese factions. It might become very relevant after today.

Here's the latest I filed from Lebanon. A much shorter version appeared in the Newark Star-Ledger, but here's the full account:

BEIRUT -- Lebanon's capital is once again a tinderbox, ready to blow because of political rivalries exacerbated by sectarian tensions. Increasingly, the political disputes -- which are ostensibly over international tribunals, presidential terms and the legitimacy of a government -- have grown into religious disputes, mirroring the sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites across the region.

Which leader one supporters is often determined by one's faith. Shi'ites support the Syrian-backed Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has called for the overthrow of the current government as being too close to the United States and cutting Shi'ites out of power for too long. Sunnis, however, support the current government because it is lead by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, who is a member of the Future Movement, a political party headed Saad Hariri, the son of the murdered ex-premier Rafik, who was killed in 2005.

"The political issues are sectarian," explained Tariq Tarqawi, 20, who is, in order, a Palestinian, a Sunni and a car electrician. He lives in Ard Jalloul, a mainly Sunni neighborhood that abuts the mainly Shi'ite suburbs of Beirut. "They love Nasrallah, we love Hariri."

It's a political crisis that has come to a head in the past week, with hundreds of thousands of pro-Syrian supporters filling downtown Beirut and street clashes between Sunni and Shi'ite youths from rival neighborhoods. Nasrallah says his people will continue to demonstrate and paralyze central Beirut until the government resigns. Siniora says he's staying. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it's already turned deadly.

Ali Ahmad Mahmoud, a 20-year-old Shi'ite from the neighborhood, was killed Sunday night in fighting between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Ard Jalloul. Details are murky, but residents say Shi'ite protesters apparently entered the neighborhood spoiling for a fight.

"If we hadn't fought them, they would have come in here and broken everything," said Khalid Hashem, 20, a Sunni from the neighborhood. He was, he added, a friend of Mahmoud. "The Shi'ites are known for this."

According to others, the intruders chanted slogans and insulted Sunni religious figures.

"We could not bear it anymore," said one woman in a pharmacy whose husband would not allow her name to be used. "I did not like Hariri and I had nothing against the Shi'ites, but now things are changing. This is not a political demonstration anymore."

Both Shi'ite and Sunni partisans blame the other side for the shooting, but the question remains: Who killed Ali Ahmad Mahmoud?

The situation is so knife-edge balanced that the head of Lebanese army warned that his forces were being strained to the breaking point as they tried to cope with the security downtown and maintain calm through the tenser neighborhoods of the city. If the protests continued, or worse, turned more violent, the army would be unable to cope, he said.

On Monday, Mahmoud's body was taken down to the demonstration surrounding the Grand Serail, the old Ottoman fortress that serves as the prime minister's office and now, the sleeping quarters for a significant portion of Siniora's cabinet.

The sight of Mahmoud's coffin brought a fresh surge of fury at the government and protestors crowded around the ambulance carrying it. Many carried signs proclaiming Mahmoud a martyr. "Martyred at the hands of the government's militias," read one.

Almost gone were the initial political considerations that had brought the hundreds of thousands into downtown Beirut: the international tribunal, presidential terms and Shi'ite representation. Monday was a day of mourning and passion.

"The blood of the Shi'ites is boiling," chanted the protestors. "Death to Siniora."

Downtown Beirut is a tent city, with the canvas constructions lined up below the Grand Serail, like many a besieging army has done over the centuries in this part of the world. At any hour, chanting protestors crowd up against coils of concertina wire while Lebanese Army and Hezbollah discipline men keep them relatively at bay.

For Iman Fakhiya, 29, from the Shi'ite town of Taibe in the south, this protest is simply a matter of fairness for the Shi'ites, who have traditionally been the underdogs in Lebanon.

Hezbollah gained support in the south because the government in Beirut rarely provided services to the rural and impoverished South and Bekaa Valley, the homelands for the country's Shi'ites. And over 23 years, since its formation in 1982, it has softened its Islamic rhetoric, and now provides for Shi'ites when the government doesn't, such as schools and hospitals, and defends them when the elite of Lebanon won't. Even today, on online forums revolving around events in Beirut, supporters of the government often talk of the Shi'ites downtown as "scum" and dirty outsiders.

"I think my parents' generation accepted this but we won't," she said. "They want to keep us down. We just want our rights. Why is the presidency for the Christians and the prime ministership for the Sunnis?"

For her, it is only a matter of time, literally. She would stay for as long as it takes, she said, no matter how uncomfortable she was.

"It doesn't matter," she said as she pulled the blanket tighter. "We've been hurting for a long time. We are used to it."

Also, I'll be traveling for the next few weeks, so postings will be infrequent. I hope things don't get out of control here.

IMPORTANT CHANGE: Comments have been changed to allow authenticated commenters only. This means you will have to sign up for a TypeKey account to comment. This will cut down on spam and drive-by commenters. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's a necessary evil these days.

A sea of protesters wave Lebanese flags in Riadh el Solh square in Beirut on Friday in a bid to topple the government. ©2006 Christopher Allbritton

BEIRUT -- In a massive show of force, Lebanon's protestors loyal to Hezbollah and its political allies poured into the streets of downtown Beirut by the hundreds of thousands, dwarfing last weeks show of support for the government and delivering a sweeping rebuke to Lebanon's political establishment.

The streets, squares and bridges of several neighborhoods were a sea of red and white Lebanese flags as supporters of the Shi'ite groups Hezbollah and Amal, as well as the Christian groups Marida and the Free Patriotic Movement, took to the streets in an attempt to topple the U.S.-backed government.

"The real problem with this government is that they did not stand with us during the war," said Muhammad Obaid, 40, a Hezbollah supporter, echoing a common complaint of the opposition, which is also called the March 8 coalition.

Hezbollah, which is supported and armed by both Syria and Iran, captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, prompting a massive retaliation by the Jewish state that turned into a 34-day war. More than 1,000 Lebanese died -- mostly civilians -- and the country's infrastructure and industries were devastated. Hezbollah feels that the government in Beirut, which is led by Sunni politician Fuad Siniora, didn't support it enough and even quietly hoped for it to lose the war so that the Shi'ite group would no longer be a viable political opponent.

Hezbollah emerged stronger than ever, however, and demanded more power in the government for itself and its allies in the March 8 coalition. After six cabinet ministers from their political bloc resigned, and Christian industry minister Pierre Gemayel was murdered, the March 8 forces hope to force the resignation of the Siniora government so that new elections can be held -- which they feel they will win.

"The government will fall today," Obaid said confidently.

Obaid comes from a small town in the Bekaa Valley east of Beirut, a stronghold for Hezbollah. He said that the group had paid him to drive his bus to ferry protestors to Beirut. From his village alone, he said there were four large buses and 15 minibuses.

By any count, the crowd was massive, easily topping 1 million people. It was unclear how many people were in the streets because of the sheer numbers, but today's protest may have surpassed the original 2005 protest that gave Siniora's bloc its name -- the March 14 movement. That protest, coming exactly a month after the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri, led to the end of Syria's 29-year occupation of Lebanon, a defeat the regime in Damascus would like to undo with its allies in Lebanon, such as Hezbollah.

Packed and partying crowds of mostly young people stretched from the Christian neighborhood of Gemayze to the east, to the government buildings ringed by concertina wire on the other side of downtown toward the west, and from the site of Hariri's grave near the port up to Sodeco Square in the Christian enclave of Achrafiye. They filled alleyways and overpasses, and all seemed to carry a flag of some sort.

Most carried the Lebanese flag, its red and white stripes framing a green cedar, but becoming a dramatic sweep when thousands upon thousands of the banners waved. But the Lebanese could not resist putting their own party's stamp on their outfits, with Hezbollah members draping the milita's flag about their shoulders and Michel Aoun's Free Patriot Movement supporters wearing orange sweatshirts or baseball caps.

The crowd for the most part was friendly and respectful of the call by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah not to damage property or resort to violence, but a group of young toughs did celebrate the murder of Pierre Gemayel, by saying, "Congratulations to Pierre, when is Geagea next?" Samir Geagea is the leader of another Christian political party called the Lebanese Forces and is particularly hated by the Shi'ites of Lebanon. "We want your wife, Hakim," they chanted referring to Geagea's nickname and his wife, considered one of the more beautiful women in Lebanon. Their jibe was an ugly, sexist chant.

They called the interior minister a Jew while Hezbollah security stood by, watching impassively. It was only after I asked the youths why they were chanting such things -- and their violent reaction when I said "I'm a reporter" in my badly accented Arabic -- that the Hezbollah security guard intervened.

"They are not polite," the guard said as he pushed me away roughly. "I don't want you talking to people who aren't polite."

The March 8 movement has vowed to stay in the streets, staging sit-ins until the government resigns. As night fell, trucks carrying portable toilets and water tanks arrived while tents were being set up in Martyrs' Square.

"If they don't step down, we will stay here," said Hayan Ismael, 22, a physics student from the Bekaa village of Bednayel and a supporter of another Christian group. He said protest organizers had timed the protests for Friday afternoon before the weekend to minimize the economic impact of shutting down the heart of Beirut, indicating that March 8 may be expecting a resolution by Monday morning. Downtown merchants have been complaining for months since the war about all the disruptions to business.

"Every day the government stays and doesn't step down, it makes the economy suffer," said Ismael.

Siniora, however, vowed last night not to step down.

"We will not allow a democratic government to be toppled or its institutions," Siniora said in a televised address. "Nor will we allow a state within a state. We are the legitimate government and responsible for all Lebanese."

BEIRUT -- After today's funeral for Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon is ready to blow.

Tonight, about 1,000 Shi'ite youths gathered along airport road and began protesting what they said were the insults made against Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah at the funeral this afternoon. (Saad Hariri more or less said the majority claimed by Hezbollah and others in the March 8 movement was a mirage.)

Soon, a crowd of Sunni youths gathered nearby, prompting a large response from the Lebanese security forces. Local Hezbollah officials told the Shi'ite crowd to go home, but they were ignored, prompting Nasrallah to call Manar TV, the group's television channel, and issue a call for the crowd to disperse. That, too, initially seemed to be ignored, and it is only after several hours that the protestors drifted home.

In another worrisome development, in a Palestinian camp in the north of the country (I haven't pinned down the name yet), camp residents clashed with Sunni extremists loyal to Jund al-Sham, a group with ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the slain leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

And finally, former Interior Minister Hassan Sabaa has withdrawn his resignation, meaning Ahmad Fatfat is no longer acting interior minister. This is important because it increases the numbr of people in the Siniora cabinet who are full-fledged ministers. The cabinet is normally made up of 24 ministers, with 16 needed for a quorum. Last weekend, five Shi'ite ministers and a pro-Syrian Christian minister resigned, threatening the stability of the government. Then Pierre Gemayel was killed, bringing the number of absent ministers to seven. If two more ministerial seats became vacant, Siniora's government would be automatically dissolved.

Since Fatfat was only an acting minister, there might be some legal justification to dissolve the government if only one more minister was removed. So by bringing Sabaa back, the March 14 forces are solidfying their position and hunkering down for a long fight.

A story I filed for the Singapore Strait Times:

BEIRUT -- Lebanon found itself hurtling further toward political crisis today, brought on by a head-on collision between pro- and anti-Syrian blocs over what appeared to be disputes concerning power-sharing in the government and the approval of an international tribunal to try suspects in the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The tensions boiled over when five Shi'ite and one Christian cabinet ministers resigned from Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government yesterday and today after a new round of national reconciliation talks broke down last week. The Shi'ites, represented mainly by the militant group Hezbollah, are demanding a "national unity" government with one-third of the seats in Siniora's cabinet for themselves and their pro-Syrian political allies, a distribution of power that would give them veto power over any decisions the government makes.

And one of the decisions concerns the approval of an international tribunal to try suspects in the murder of Hariri, who was killed along with 22 other people on Feb. 14, 2005, in a massive car bomb in central Beirut. Siniora's cabinet approved the tribunal Monday after a three-hour meeting downtown, despite the absence of the six pro-Syrian ministers.

"Our aim is to achieve justice and only justice," Siniora said after the meeting. The draft document now goes to the Security Council for endorsement.

But whether Lebanon's prime minister can achieve anything with Hezbollah and its allies arrayed against him is questionable. Were Hezbollah and its allies to gain the veto power they want, the could scuttle the international tribunal.

"We have been waiting for the court to take shape and to reach this day," said Tourism Minister and Siniora ally Joe Sarkis. "If the intentions of all were pure, everyone should have participated in uncovering the truth about who killed Rafik Hariri. ... We should have all been united over this and they could have resigned tomorrow."

Under Lebanon's complicated rules of governance, if one-third of the cabinet resigns, the government collapses and a new must be formed. The remaining 18 ministers seem loyal to Siniora, however, and seem unlikely to resign.

That hasn't stopped some opposition figures from from questioning Siniora's legitimacy. President Emile Lahoud, a Maronite Christian and Syrian ally, said Sunday that Siniora's government was no longer legitimate because the Lebanese constitution requires that "all sects should be justly represented in the Cabinet." He further claimed that with the Shi'ite walkout, all decisions of the cabinet were "null and void."

Siniora says his government has all the legitimacy it needs but without Hezbollah's backing in Parliament, he will find it difficult to get any legislation passed, especially the international tribunal. After its endorsement by the Security Council, it is handed back to the cabinet for final approval, signed by the president and passed by parliament.

The Shi'ite militia has threatened massive street protests unless the cabinet is reshuffled more to its liking, a political switch-up that the group says reflects its real support among the Lebanese in the wake of this summer's 34-day between Hezbollah and Israel, brought on by the group's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12. It was a war that ended in what could best be called a stalemate, but which Hezbollah supporters hailed as a "divine victory." Hezbollah's enemies in the government, however, saw the war as a reckless adventure into which the group dragged Lebanon against its will.

The Shi'ite group was emboldened however, and with what the United States says is backing from Iran and Syria, has made a political putsch against the current, pro-Western Siniora government. There are many in Lebanon who feel that the international tribunal will implicate senior members of the Syrian regime, which relies on Hezbollah to guard its interests in Lebanon and to serve as a vanguard against Israel.

However, the frightful Israeli military response likely left Hezbollah more damaged than it's willing to let on, and its enemies smelled blood in the water. This wasn't something Hezbollah could allow.

"Hezbollah is more concerned, more weakened," said Reinoud Leenders, a former analyst for the International Crisis Group in Beirut. The walkout, the threats and the demands, he said, are intended to tie up the political process in Beirut and buy them time to rearm. "This 'unity government' is clearly designed to paralyze any decision-making process."

Not so, counters Nawar Sahili, a Hezbollah member of parliament but not a cabinet member. By walking out, he says, they are following in the tradition of democracy in which opposition parties don't take part in government.

"I don't think this is very dangerous," he said, but added that elections aren't scheduled until 2009 and that's too long to wait for the pro-Syrian bloc. "Why should we wait when we don't have any power in the government?" he asked.

He played down the possibilities of street protests, which have been effective weapons for Hezbollah in the past. "Maybe it will come later," he said.

But with these latest developments, Lebanon has found itself back in an unwelcome role: as a battlefield for regional and global powers to play out their conflicts. With Iran and Syria backing Hezbollah and its allies, and the U.S. and the West backing the Siniora government, Lebanon's political crisis is a another battle in the new cold war shaping up between Iran and the United States for dominance in Southwest Asia and its oil.

Personal observations:

The feeling here is one of nervous tension among the Sunnis and the anti-Syrian Christians (mainly Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces) and confidence among the Shi'ites and their allies, including the Christian Michel Aoun. (He really wants to be president and sees an alliance with Hezbollah as the way to get there.)

Ultimately, however, this is a proxy battle in the current tussle between the U.S.-Western alliance, which includes Europe, Israel and the United States, and an Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. This is an idea I've been promoting for most of 2006. The idea was sparked by the May contretemps between Hezbollah and Israel following the assassination of two Islamic Jihad members in Saida and a couple of Katyushas got tossed at Israel in retaliation. The Jewish state responded harshly, with air raids across the south, causing Hezbollah to counter-strike.

I said at the time, "Iran's activities in Lebanon are part of its larger plans for the region. By working through and with local Shiite communities, which are found in Bahrain, Iraq, eastern Saudi Arabia and stretching through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's northern frontier, Tehran is well on its way to creating a 'Shiite Crescent' -- a regional axis that allows it to hold most of the cards in any confrontation with the United States or Israel. And nowhere else, with the possible exception of Iraq, is Iran so well positioned as in Lebanon."

The May confrontation settled down after a day. But obviously tensions remained -- until they finally boiled over July 12, when the Shi'ite militant group captured two Israeli soldiers and sparked a 34-day war that killed more than 1,200 people and left up to 4,000 wounded. Lebanon was devastated by the Israeli air force, but Hezbollah emerged politically stronger.

Since then, they've been flexing their muscles and trying to force their way into position in the cabinet that would give them the veto over any decisions -- a recipe for governmental gridlock that would maintain their freedom to do what they please in the south without interference from the U.S.-backed Siniora government.

BEIRUT -- Reaction to the American mid-terms was muted in Beirut, a city still shell-shocked from the summer war with Israel and consumed by its own domestic political drama.

Much of Lebanon's attention is focused not on American politics, but its own, which are dominated by roundtable talks taking place this week among the country's powerful feudal lords who preside over their own sectarian fiefdoms.

"The Lebanese are reading the tea leaves as best they can," said Paul Salem, the director of the Middle East Center for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, based in Beirut. "The (anti-Syrian) March 14 movement is fearing the loss of U.S. power and the other side is relishing the loss of US power."

The "other side" is the pro-Syrian coalition made up of Hezbollah and its allies, which include the Free Patriotic Movement led by Maronite Christian Michel Aoun and a number of smaller parties. The roundtable talks are aimed at banging out a compromise on expanding the current government, a Hezbollah demand following the July-August war and its self-proclaimed "Divine Victory."

The United States "will continue to back the March 14 government and the Siniora government," Salem said. "That won't change because both Democrats and Republicans agree on that."

All across downtown, the commercial heart of Beirut, most people met the news that voters had delivered a sharp rebuke to President Bush with either blank stares or shrugs, despite widespread dislike for the administration's policies and what is seen as unquestioning support for Israel. But among the Lebanese and expats who kept an eye on the elections, there was a palpable sense of satisfaction that the GOP had lost.

"The Democrats won so the authority can change in the U.S.," said one man puffing on a waterpipe who declined to give his name. "There should be changes. There is not one region in the world that is comfortable with current American policies."

Another man, Gabriel Abou Daher, 32, a television producer for a Beirut advertising agency, said he had been following the elections "closely" and was pleased with the results.

"It's a message to President Bush over his international policies," he said. "Maybe he will take another look at them."

As for Lebanon, however, he is not expecting anything different. "We have seen both parties have the same policy regarding Israel," Abou Daher said.

Others thought the Democrats would be even more pro-Israel.

"I get some satisfaction from seeing Bush get slapped in the face, but I don't take any comfort in it," said Marc Sirois, a Canadian and the managing editor for the English-language Daily Star newspaper. "The Democrats are more dependent on the pro-Israeli lobby for campaign funds and to get out the vote than the Republicans are."

He also cautioned that Bush still had two years left in his term and he still has all the powers of the commander in chief "to do whatever he wants."

"The only thing they (Congress) could do is cut the purse strings in Iraq," he said.