Monday, May 24, 2010 - 7:47 PM

As Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri makes the rounds in Washington today and tomorrow, he faces deep questions in Congress and in the Defense Department about the future of the U.S. military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Supporters of the funding, mostly at the State Department and the White House, argue that strengthening the Lebanese military is the best way to bolster Hariri against the mounting influence of both Syria and Hezbollah, the radical Shiite militant group, inside Lebanon. The Lebanese military, this faction argues, is the most representative of the country's civic institutions and continuing the funding can help convince Hariri that working with the U.S. is a beneficial and defensible strategy.
But many lawmakers and some at the Pentagon, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, are extremely skeptical that continuing to funnel large amounts of cash and supplies to the LAF is really a good way to approach the Lebanon problem. They are angry about statements Hariri has made about Syria's alleged transfer of long-range missiles to Hezbollah, and question whether the military aid to Lebanon is part of a coherent strategy.
"Threats that Lebanon now has huge missiles are similar to what they used to say about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Hariri reportedly said last month. "These are weapons that they did not find and they are still searching for."
But Hariri's reaction to the alleged arms transfers has given many inside the administration pause. There's also a concern he could let U.S. weapons slip into the hands of Hezbollah, although the track record of the LAF in that regard has been solid so far.
"The number one issue now is arms transfers from Syria to Hezbollah and this confounds our policy of supporting the Lebanese military," said Andrew Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Obama administration wants Hariri to use the state's instruments of power, such as the LAF, to confront Syria over the alleged arms transfers, but Hariri is in no position to confront Damascus.
Hariri has been careful not to upset Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is widely thought to have ordered the 2005 assassination of his father, former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
"It would be hard for anyone not to take note that he visited Damascus before he visited Washington," said long-time Lebanon hand Firas Maksad, who said that Hariri is walking a very thin line as he tries to placate the United States and Syria at the same time.
Overall, the arms transfers are on balance a good idea, said Maksad. "We need to think about how we can strengthen our leverage in Beirut. At the end of the day, that's the only hope for a counterbalance to Hezbollah."
But lawmakers, always looking to pinch pennies, and Pentagon officials, who are most concerned about the Hezbollah-Israel tensions, aren't satisfied that strategic hedging is enough of a justification for continued military assistance like on the order of $500 million since 2006.
"The Defense Department has always asked the question: Why are we doing this, what are the objectives, what is the end state we are trying to achieve in Lebanon?," said Aram Nerguizian, visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's an idea that is not linked to an end state. We like the process, but ultimately, what is it that the U.S. is trying to do in Lebanon? That's what hangs in the balance."
Mona Yacoubian , who just released a new report on the Syria-Lebanon situation for the U.S. Institute of Peace, said that there is growing concern inside the administration that the shift of power inside Lebanon toward Hezbollah suggests that it may not be wise to put more resources into the Lebanese military. She argues, however, that the best way to deal with Hezbollah is to help build and strengthen the Lebanese state.
Meanwhile, Hariri is faced to deal with the facts on the ground, which are clearly tipping toward a negative direction, she said.
"He's coming to Washington with a very difficult task. He's got to balance day-to-day concerns with the broader concerns of his ally, the U.S. If he moves to please us, he angers Syria, Hezbollah, and others. If he seems to mimic the U.S. position, he suffers at home. He's in a no-win situation."
The White House readout of Hariri's meeting with President Obama gave little inkling of these tensions, and said the meeting focused on Arab-Israel peace effort, the suspected transfer of Syrian weapons to Hezbollah, and Lebanon's role as rotating president of the U.N. Security Council, which is currently mulling over new sanctions against Iran. But the statement also pointed to President Obama's "determination to continue U.S. efforts to support and strengthen Lebanese institutions such as the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces."
Privately, the White House was sending a much tougher message, however. Hariri brought so many officials into his bilateral with Obama, sources say, there was no way to speak frankly about subjects of real contention, like U.S. military support and Hariri's unhelpful statements regarding the alleged Hezbollah arms transfers. So Obama and Hariri had a separate, private meeting amongst themselves, where we hear the tough messages were really delivered.
Hariri also met with Gates, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, and Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell today. Feltman, who was the U.S. ambassador in Beirut at the time of Rafiq al-Hariri's assassination, released a statement citing Lebanon's role in promoting international security and "the key role of Lebanon in the long-term effort to build a lasting, comprehensive peace in the Middle East."
But Feltman didn't mention Lebanese military assistance, which will be at the top of lawmakers' agendas Tuesday.
"His meetings went very well today," David Schenker, director of the Arab politics program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of Hariri. "I don't think that's going to be the case when he goes to Capitol Hill tomorrow."
The administration has requested $100 million for the LAF in its Fiscal 2011 budget request.
Arvay you have distorted analysis of everything
Lebanon is a failed state it has never been a state and from the power vacume you have Iran and syria sucking it dry for years to advance their own interests. The U.S is not responsible for Lebanon's security when lebanon is not even a state, it has a militia that controlls the country and a weak government who can't show presence or sovereinty in the south.
The Lebanese army is so rich that it buys russian weapons? Who are u kidding the russians are not that desparate and the u.s is supplying the weapons free of chrge and providing assistance to lenbanon.
Why not say Lebanon only needs weapons against Syria and Iran who are killing Lebanese for years and are robbing them of thier future.
It is funny how you blame Israel when we don't even pose a threat as long as we are not attacked, Keep Dreaming
Lebanon and Palestine are and were very viable states w/out IDF
Lebanon is a very viable state without the ugly dreams of East European Jews of Greater Israel Occupying All the Neighbouring Countries.
I think you are conveniently trying to gloss over the fact that Lebanon was the "Paris of the East" before the machinations of the New Jews.
Similarly, the Pre-Partition Palestine was a very viable state with beauty and culture as documented countless times in Jaffa and Jerusalem except for the Jew Stern Gang / Irgun terrorists / IDF killing innocent and powerless Palestinian villagers as targets of opportunity for the beast of Zionism.
On a secondary note, Robert Gates is right about not pedaling arms, but this American arms pedaling should stop not only for Lebanon but also for the prime mover of all terrorism in the Middle East viz. Israel.
Now, that would be fair; and America can claim again that it is not a dishonest broker.
Of course Lebanon was a viable independent state, just so as
long as you ignored Yasser Arafat's "Fatahland" in the south of Lebanon, which staged regular attacks on Israel and attempted to overthrow the government like it attempted to in Jordan.
.
Just so as long as you ignore the decades of civil wars between the various religious and ethnic groups, complete with civilian massacres.
.
Just so as long as you ignored the Syrian occupation, one that went on for longer than Israel's, and the realization that it was Syria that was and is still trying to absorb Lebanon into itself.
.
As well, just as you ignore the fact that the Palestinians living in refugee camps are beholden to a host of economic and political restrictions by their brothers.
.
One must also ignore the fact that the Arab League dicktat prevents Lebanon from controlling the camps themselves, indeed, Lebanese military forces are forbidden from entering these camps, which is why when in 2007, the Fatah Al-Islam terrorist group hid out in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp, the Lebanese military could only shell the group from the outside, pretty much levelling it completely.
.
As for "Pre-partition Palestine, yes, it was a "viable state" . . . that was called the Ottoman Empire.
.
Lal Qila, stop masturbating to dreams of Israeli destruction and Israeli treachery. Don't you have a samovar to sell (rip off) some tourist in the bazaar?
No quite so hard core as the rest, but his main interest is defending Israel. That means a weak Lebanon that can't respond to Israeli acts of war and toeing the AIPAC/Israeli government line of demonizing Hezbollah and Syria.
Sorry F1Fan, but the reality of Hizballah and Syria are pretty
evident. Syria is a familial dictatorship, that along with its secret police, has no compunction about levelling its own cities for the ruling regime to remain in power.
.
As for Hizballah? Their opening act was to send suicide bombers to blow up the US marine and French army barracks when they were sent to Lebanon as peace-keepers in 1983. Over 280 and 50 troops, respectively, lost their lives.
.
As for the Lebanese, they would prefer their foreign policy to rest in the hands of religious extremists led by the mullah's or Iran's Revolutionary Guards. They're just concerned enough to complain about Israel, but just as with the PLO, they allow Hizballah free reign to conduct their own military adventures.
.
"As for the Lebanese, they would prefer their foreign policy to rest in the hands of religious extremists led by the mullah's or Iran's Revolutionary Guards."
Hizballah is not interchangeable with "the Lebanese." Please don't lump 4-5 ethnic and religious groups with very different goals all in with Hassan Nasrallah. You can't simplify a complicated political situation like that which exists in Lebanon.
A huge reason why Hizballah has been so successful is due to the impotence of the LAF (parliamentary politics notwithstanding). Due to civil war issues, it was difficult to unite the armed forces around nationalism, so Hizballah has done well to fill the vacuum and go from representing disenfranchised Shi'a to representing the familiar struggle against occupiers, etc.
Everyone in Lebanon is well aware of Syria's meddling, no one more than Hariri. He is here to campaign for more funding for his military in order to shift power AWAY from Hizballah. The fact that he has to pay attention to not offend Hizballah at home is no different than Netanyahu avoiding criticism of Shas, but even more precarious since there could be violent consequences both from Syria and from Nasrallah's camp.
The Lebanese central government is weak and needs strengthening. It takes more than just military cash to make this happen, but you will never eliminate militias when they seem to care more for the country than the central govt. We shouldn't just send weapons to Lebanon with no conditions, but we can't abandon them as we have done several times now. We have been breaking our backs building Iraqi "democracy" yet the Lebanese democracy project seems to have been abandoned after the marines pulled out...
Compassion, I’m not lumping Hezbollah in with the rest
of the Lebanese. But the reality is, the rest of Lebanon is not only willing to let Hezbollah conduct its own foreign policy, including military adventures, they seem more threatened by taking any action against them rather than facing the consequences of a Hezbollah charge to war. That is the reality, and no “complexity” of Lebanon’s political or ethnic makeup changes that equation.
.
The argument that Hezbollah goes from just being a representative of the Shia, to the familiar “resistor of occupiers” losses ground on the reality that Israel hasn’t been in Lebanon for 10 years. Never wanted to go there in the first place, and wound up going because of Arafat and now Nassrallah. The reality is, there is no Lebanese occupation, unless you want to brand Hezbollah an Iranian / Syrian occupier of Lebanon.
.
And Hezbollah doesn’t care more for Lebanon than the central government. Hezballah’s interests are its own or that of its Iranian masters. Remember, Hezballah went to war with Lebanon’s central government to protect its personal phone service and control of the Beirut Airport. Not only did it fight the government, but it attacked the “opposition parties”, including shutting down both broadcast and print news services. That’s not patriotism, but despotism, something we saw perfected in Iran last summer.
.
I agree with you though, that more needs to be done to pull Lebanon’s democracy project up. There are other ethnic groups that can be supported, and other central organizations that can be expanded. But at some point, Hezballah is going to need to change, or it will be confronted to stop its pursuit of an entitlement policy to violence. The best way for that to happen is for the Lebanese to demand that Hezbollah act like Lebanese, and not a proxy army for Iran. Without that, well, there’s the potential for military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah again, and in that case, once again, the Lebanese are going to come out on the short end of the stick.
Something needs to be done about leaders all over the world being caught between their local populations and their relationships with the US.
Something needs to be done so that local populations don't think that being in a close relationship with the US is a bad thing.
As much as this seemed tied in the Middle East to the US support of Israel, people need to learn that being friends with Israel is not a bad thing.
Israel doesn't like having enemies everywhere, and would love to have peaceful friendships with its Arab neighbors, much like Turkey seeks peace on its borders.
A difficult change for a society that teaches school children of the horrible enemy Israel is and a culture that nurtures grudges and revenge cycles.
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Read More
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE