William S. Lind believes that the neocons want a civil war in Lebanon.
I think he is probably partly right, at least as far as we are talking about Israel-First neocons rather than messianic democratist neocons. However, I disagree with him that (a) Hezbollah will win a civil war, and (b) that the neocons simply want to destabilize all of the governments in the Middle East.
I think that the neocons are planning not on simply destabilizing Lebanon, but on making certain that their allies in Lebanon (i.e., the Maronites) win. I think that if civil war breaks out, the neocons will do everything in their power to help the Maronites, up to and including getting US troops involved.
If there is a concern that Syria will cause trouble for us if we are in Lebanon, we will see increased pressure for us to invade Syria as well.
Of course, invading Syria won't stop the Lebanese civil war in itself, as contra Krauthammer, not everything bad in Lebanon is caused by Syria. Nonetheless, Syria may not react well to American troops in Lebanon, so an invasion of Lebanon will likely lead to an invasion of Syria. Come to think of it, an invasion of Syria would probably also lead to an invasion of Lebanon, as Lebanon will likely destabilize whenever Syria leaves, whether "voluntarily" or because Syria collapses or is conquered, and that instability would likely cause problems for us in Syria (i.e., if we have our troops there) when Lebanon falls apart.
I think that that is actually the neocon goal, though, to get us to invade both Syria and Lebnaon and to conquer them, or for us to hand them over to the neocons' allies. All they need is to get us to invade one, and then we can be forced into the other.
Run, Uncle Sam, Run!
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment