Posted on Fri, Aug. 04, 2006
Bush administration disappointed after backing change in Lebanon
By Warren P. Strobel
McClatchy Newspapers
Snip...
With Lebanon now convulsed by its worst violence since the 1975-1990 civil war, that assessment, like much of the Bush administration's rhetoric about spreading democracy in the Middle East, appears to have been too rosy.
Snip...
The criticism that the Bush administration failed to think through its policies is similar to that leveled against it in Iraq, where the White House and the Pentagon failed to plan for the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, and in the Palestinian territories, where the administration pushed for elections that brought the terrorist group Hamas into government.
Snip...
"We did nothing, we did absolutely nothing" to bolster the weak Lebanese government after the Syrian withdrawal, said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the comments contradict official policy.
Snip...
Syria also has influence over Hezbollah, but its forces are now out of Lebanon and, in any case, the Bush administration has cut off high-level contact with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy for dealing with Hezbollah is to bolster the reach of Lebanon's central government, which currently has no power in southern Lebanon. Once a robust U.N. peacekeeping force is in place, Rice hopes, the government will be able to disarm Hezbollah.
more...
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15202092.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation Stay out of the Lebanese quagmire
By Ze'ev Schiff
Snip...
Now, everyone is seeking explanations - or excuses - for this state of affairs. The Prime Minister's Office says that the IDF never suggested extensive ground operations alongside the aerial attacks. One of the IDF's original objectives was to clear a one- to two-kilometer strip of territory north of Israel's border and prevent Hezbollah's return to that area. The idea was that, since its forces would not remain in Lebanon, Israel would thwart Hezbollah's attempts to return to the border by firing from within Israeli territory.
Snip...
Let us assume that the government will instruct the IDF to embark on a new phase and seize extensive territory in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah would then move some of its rockets further back, and their range vis-a-vis Israeli targets would be shortened. According to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israel intends to hold the parts of southern Lebanon that it captures until their transfer to a new international peacekeeping force. Two central questions must be asked: When can this force become operative, and what sort of mandate will it be given? Hezbollah has already taken this option into consideration, and plans guerrilla warfare in southern Lebanon to inflict losses on the IDF and to be able to claim that it is again fighting to banish Israeli occupation forces from Lebanese soil.
The IDF must therefore do everything possible to avoid the modus operandi it used during its protracted stay in Lebanon after the 1982 Lebanon War. Israel must not remain in southern Lebanon. It must not base its operations and deployment there on supply convoys, or on transporting soldiers for furloughs in Israel and then back to their bases in Lebanon, or even on permanent military bases in Lebanon, even if they are fortified. These are convenient targets for guerrilla fighters, and this is the kind of situation that Hezbollah anticipates.
A problem will arise if no international peacekeeping force can be found to which the IDF can hand over the territory that it now occupies in southern Lebanon. In such a scenario, Israel will be faced with a dilemma: Stay in southern Lebanon, or withdraw, even if Hezbollah returns to set up bases there? If confronted with this question, Israel must choose withdrawal - in order to avoid again finding itself waist-deep in the Lebanese quagmire.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746310.html