.gif) |
| Al-Akhbar/Marwan Tahtah |
Though Hezbollah is technically an ally to the Lebanese coalition government, which the Lebanese army answers to, the Lebanese forces are wary of constructing relations with the Lebanon-based militia. The United States supports the Lebanese army with enormous military aid, including tanks, drones, and aircrafts. The U.S. has also trained a majority of the Lebanese troops, and turned the historically feeble army into an stronger force to be reckoned with. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is backed by Iran, and is considered a terrorist organization in the United States. With their sponsors holding hostile sentiments against one another, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army stand little chance for alliance and cooperation. For the Lebanese army and the United States, it is now essential that they put out a strong front and effective offensive. Otherwise, it would be the perfect opportunity for Hezbollah and Iran to emphasize their indispensability for the stability of the state.
More recently, Hezbollah and the United States directly clashed heads on Saturday, September 2, when Hezbollah accused the United States of putting lives on stake by preventing the passage of 600 Islamic State fighters and their families from eastern Syria, near the Lebanese border, to western Syria, near the Iraqi border.
This was a compromise drawn between Hezbollah and IS, which ended the week-long effort to eject Islamic State presence along the Syrian-Lebanese border. In the swap, Hezbollah would allow IS members evacuate from Lebanon (with no resistance) and relocate near Iraq in return for the bodies of captured Lebanese army soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and an Iranian military adviser. However, the United States, unhappy with this decision, took action to prevent the IS convoy from reaching its destination by bombing the route on which it traveled. United States warplanes have now been monitoring the status of the stranded convoy in Syrian-government-controlled territory, and bombing any Islamic State trucks that try and come to meet it for the past three days.
Hezbollah claims that the actions taken by the United States have put women, children, the injured, and elderly at risk of dying because the convoy does not have access to food or water when American warplanes are bombing the aid coming from the Islamic State. However, the American military says it will not infer with any aid coming from the Syrian government (only interfering when IS tries to help), and claims that a supply delivery has already been made. The convoy itself will also remain unharmed, as there are civilians traveling in the group that they do not wish to harm.
Both Iraq and the Lebanese government have reacted negatively to this decision made by Hezbollah. Though Hezbollah defends its decision by claiming that it will prevent the deaths of more combatants, some people in Lebanon are growing discontent over the authority that Hezbollah holds over the policies and proceedings of the state. Iraq is angry about the potential relocation of the IS fighters, already preparing an offensive of its own.
My Opinion: I think the morality of the US stopping the convoy is a difficult situation to consider, as Hezbollah's negotiation with IS seems extremely promising for the US-backed Lebanon. Many Lebanese civilians were more than happy that the Islamic State was ejected from the Qalamoun region of their country after three years of being in control, showering the Lebanese army with flower petals and gifts when they returned on Wednesday. If the US continues to block the passage of IS members to the Iraqi border, the negotiation may be nullified and the fighting may return to Lebanon. However, some experts warn that this might be "Trojan Horse" move from Hezbollah, as the militant group gets almost all the credit for the victory (the Lebanese army was not involved in brokering the compromise). The increased popularity of Hezbollah is dangerous for the Lebanese state, and some government officials and opponents are worried about the cross-border control that Hezbollah now holds, as well as the potential for increased legitimacy and influence in the country.
Unfortunately, I think that the United States is doing exactly as it should based on its foreign policies, though it may not be the most morally sound option. Because one of the US's top priorities is to support the Lebanese government, preventing the success of deal that would legitimize the threat of Hezbollah's authority is in the US's interests. The US has also been known to have a strict official policy against negotiating with terrorists (though the US has not been very diligent in following this rule, which is poorly worded and has wildly diverged from its original purpose anyway: source), and this is not just a negotiation with terrorists, but a negotiation between two groups that the United States considers as terrorists. Furthermore, because IS is a terrorist group, the United States would logically want to cripple their ranks as much as possible. The decision not to bomb the convoy is definitely a good one, as militaries are supposed to keep civilians out of cross fire as much as possible.
Even more unfortunately, I think the US has come to a standstill about what to do next. The military can't watch over the stranded IS buses forever, and since Assad and IS aren't exactly friendly, I'm not quite sure how often supplies will be delivered, nor how long the supplies will continue coming. When the food and water runs out (or apparently is already running out according to Hezbollah), the US will either have to let the convoy go on, turn them back to where they came from and risk IS retaliation in Lebanon as well as disproval from Lebanon, bomb them, let them starve, turn complete responsibility over to the Syrian government who are unlikely to treat them well, or another version of a horrible, unappealing option that should be morally unthinkable.
Questions:
Do you think that the United States is doing the right thing by interrupting a compromise and preventing the passage of IS members from Lebanon to Iraq?
How will the actions of the United States affect the Lebanese people, given that the decision undermines the authority of the Lebanese government, but also ends the fighting and protects the lives of Lebanese soldiers?
Now that the convoy is stranded in the middle of the desert, what should the next move be?
3 comments:
There appears to be trend of poor decisions by the US government, and a lack of long term thinking when it comes to foreign military interventions. Current military operations such as the bus blockade in these articles stem from the mistakes of the Bush Jr administration, getting into Middle Eastern conflicts with no clear goal, and no exit plan. Fighting an ideology, using conventional tactics against a guerrilla style enemy, makes it almost seem like another Vietnam. This issue with the bus convoy is a clear representation of the issue: acting quickly to solve what seems like a short term problem, and having no perception of what to do afterwards. I think the best option would be to end the blockade; this would allow the short term problem to continue, but it would also end the larger dilemma of how to handle the result (which the government has not had much success in). Overall, it would be best to pull out of the Middle East (for real this time) as sson as possible.
I believe interrupting the compromise is the right thing to do as ISIS does not consist of rational people who would actually be trusted in future circumstances. Contrary to Max, I think there is a clear objective in the Middle East and that is to destroy ISIS to the best of our ability. What comes after is the problem. With a lack of leadership and coherent government from Asad's regime, it makes it difficult to trust that he will stop testing chemical weapons on his own citizens. The US's actions might be controversial although, as claimed in the post, it would only serve to benefit a majority of the population who think ISIS is a force for evil.
Personally, I do not view Hezbollah as a righteous organization.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/israel-versus-hezbollah-round-three/421398/
I am not concerned about the health and well being of terrorists who may be stranded in the desert because they will only try to kill or maim more if they survive.
I agree with comments by both Max and Nick. For starters, the US should have never intervened in the middle east - Bush's claims of weapons of mass destruction came out to be based on a lie. Furthermore, intervention has only continued to destabilize the region, creating an environment that fosters the terrorist organizations we now fear and fight. We had a muddled plan going in to begin with, and absolutely not clear, coherent, or effective exit plan, as is evidenced by the mess we made.
However, Nick also brings up a good point in that there is little moral quandary in keeping terrorists stranded in the desert, and an agreement between two terrorist organizations is hardly the US or any other legitimate sovereign entity has any obligation to recognize.
Finally, I don't think this intervention is necessarily anything to get too caught up on. I agree with Max in that we should get out completely and let the middle east deal with their own problems. It could be argued that we should stay just long enough to defeat terrorist organizations, but our effectiveness in dealing with these organizations is spotty at best and at some point we should recognize the sovereignty of the nations that are there and let them handle their own conflicts and issues just as they let us handle ours. Furthermore, we should consider that because there is most likely little good in protecting ourselves that can come out of staying in the Middle East, there is also little good we can do for others. We are not there to help promote "democracy" or "prosperity". Throughout history we have let genocides and war crimes go unanswered. Involvement in the middle east was never and is not predicated by morals, only by self interest. However, self interest or moral reasoning will lead one to conclude the best thing for the US is to get out of the Middle East and save ourselves billions of dollars and years of death and stalemate.
Post a Comment