THE BLOG of John Gelles July 20, 2006

At a rally in favor of American foreign policy, including regime change in Iraq (in Fall 2003), Karen Loberg (the Ventura Star) took the picture. It made the front page. I was famous for a day.

Charles Krauthammer expresses the optimistic opinion that the outcome of a decade of anti-terrorist war at the beginning of this new century may bring peace and democratic advance to the Middle East. He foresees the possbility that the nations of that region, and the great Northern Hemisphere nations which need its oil, will adjust to policies that value and protect Israel in its present location. Within centuries after such immediate outcome, Israel and its Muslim and Christian friends and neighbors will, under this view, come to see religious hate as an oxymoron. They will chose religion over hate. They will eventually come to appreciate the full possibility for pluralism --- and be glad for Jews, Bahai's and even secular humanists, in the search for a human future not predicated on endless war. I have always liked to read Charles Krauthammer. He believes, in spite of all temptation to be pessimistic, that civilization has at least an even chance to move forward --- and not in reverse. And he clothes his optimism in realistic sentences full of enough detail to make you tell him thanks.

If Lebanon Regains Its Sovereign Monopoly Over the Use of Force Against a Neighbor, Can Peace in the Middle East be Far Behind?

Copyrighted work reprinted here is for educational non profit purposes --- and at the teachable moment. It was offered free to me on the internet (as a member of a wide audience) and is copied here free to others adding to its value) --- it is fair use of the work

© 2006 The Washington Post Company Lebanon The Only Exit Strategy Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy                   [A decisive military outcome] By Charles Krauthammer Wednesday, July 19, 2006; A19 There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end? The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity. Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East. Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon. The resolution enjoyed the sponsorship of the United States and, yes, France. As the former mandatory power in Lebanon, France was important in helping the Lebanese expel Syria during last year's Cedar Revolution, but it understands that Lebanon's independence and security are forfeit so long as Hezbollah -- a lawless, terrorist, private militia answering to Syria and Iran -- occupies south Lebanon as a rogue mini-state. Then there are the Arabs, beginning with the Lebanese who want Hezbollah out. The majority of Lebanese -- Christian, Druze, Sunni Muslim and secular -- bitterly resent their country's being hijacked by Hezbollah and turned into a war zone. And in the name of what Lebanese interest? Israel evacuated every square inch of Lebanon six years ago. The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged. Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat. Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south. But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression. The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese. It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing. Just as in Kuwait in 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty. Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West? letters@charleskrauthammer.com © 2006 The Washington Post Company Lebanon The Only Exit Strategy Earlier Date     Reply     Archive     TIEA HOME