S-c@-tt3red Thoughts

Washington Post regarding Intention of the US in Lebanon

So I haven’t posted in a couple of days, and that is mostly because i have not really heard anything interesting that is different than what the news has been saying. there is a cease fire, though all the barricades are still in place, and the country is in chaos of course.

My parents are doing ok, still hangin’ in there, though dealing with all the deficiencies in resources, just like everyone else.

This morning, my dad sent me an article that was in the Washington Post that stated some stuff about the intention of the US in Lebanon. I thouhgt it was interesting. make of it what you will

THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE WASHINGTON POST.

Summary:

The war on Lebanon of July 2006 presents a much-awaited opportunity for The United States to place a ‘robust enough’ force in southern Lebanon
along the Tapline route connecting Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s oilfields to the Mediterranean. In this way the US secures a vital route and prepares
the ground for Syrian-Israeli talks.

US goals in Lebanon:

In Lebanon, the US is intent on securing the vital — and only — pipeline route that connects the Saudi and Iraqi oil fields to the Mediterranean, and onto the lucrative European market as part of a longstanding strategy to beat Russian energy sales to the EU.

On its way to the Mediterranean refineries of Zahrani south of Sidon, Tapline crosses through the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights and into the heartland of the Lebanese south. To ensure the safe passage of oil through Tapline, the US seeks to bring regional stability by coercing Israel and Syria to resolve the Golan dispute and solve the border and resource disputes between Lebanon, Israel, and Syria. The current war seems to be a step in that direction.

Following several years of pressure on both Israel and Syria, including stripping Syria of its influence on the Lebanese government while simultaneously exposing the role of the Israeli lobby in determining US foreign policy, there remain three issues before the negotiations can resume on US terms:

First, the US needs a pretext to place troops in southern Lebanon — and eventually the Golan - to secure the route. Israel has adamantly resisted
this option for years, sometimes even mobilizing its domestic partners in the US to oppose such moves.

Second, the US needs to stabilize the route by adjusting the power balance by weakening Hizballah’s military capability so that the US-backed Lebanese army could control all of the country including the areas controlled currently by Hizballah.

Third, the US needs to ensure that its presence in the area is accepted – if not called for — by all the parties involved. From the Lebanon side, for years US funded NGOs have been active in the south, in what seems to be a prescient sense of positioning of US ‘public diplomacy’ with the local population. (Today, the multinational force of about 7,000 will be dominated by NATO forces, including Turkish troops, with token contingents from Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Russia. The actual US role today seems to be limited, but it might change during the course of the resolution. The main base will be near the port of Sidon, and another logistical base may be established near Tripoli). From the Israeli side, preventing Hizballah rocket fire will be the primary role of the US-led force and will be tolerated only if it appears ‘robust enough’ to do so.

So what is the US strategy?

1- Encourage Israel to destroy Hizballah’s fighting capability.
2- Hope that the escalation in fighting will result in a serious and credible threat from Hizballah to Israel that Israel cannot solve on its own.
3- Make sure there are US partners both in Lebanon and Israel that support US presence on the border zone (Siniora and Peres).
4- Sell the idea of multinational troops that are more effective than UNIFIL troops as the only alternative to a continuous war.
5- Ensure that Syria is not alienated, and perhaps engaged, so that it can negotiate Golan with an exhausted, dependent Israel.

Why is the US silent on Lebanese infrastructure destruction?

1- It needs to give Israel space and time (3 weeks seems to be the pre-war agreement) to complete the task–at the risk of being complicit in the war crimes against Lebanon, more blatantly than in Kosovo.
2- It foresees that its presence in Lebanon will bring it the lion’s share of lucrative contracts to rebuild, following the same logic used in Panama,Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
3- It might have been the price Israel demanded for Israel to accept the multinational force. The logic is that since Lebanon is going to become a US ‘affiliate’, in preparation for a peaceful agreement, the economic war is about to begin. ‘Setting back Lebanon 20 years’, the stated goal of the IDF before the attacks, fits the convoluted logic of giving Israel a ‘head start’.
4- Targeting civilian infrastructure brings unity to the Lebanese polity, something that serves the US intention of stabilizing the country in the aftermath, marked by Washington’s insistence that Sinioria’s democracy is not weakened.
5- Escalating the war and widening the target base increases Hizballah’s response against Israel, prompting its people to call for an end to the war.

The precedents for this approach of using a simmering conflict as a pretext to bring in the troops are several. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Panama’s invasion, and the establishment of bases in Macedonia during the Kosovo crisis are all examples of the US exploiting a local conflict to provide a pretext for the US to intervene militarily. The strategic goal is the securing of the transportation and marketing routes of energy from Saudi Arabia to the European market.

The conflict exploited is the Hizballah-Israel simmering confrontation.