Terrorists and the nations that harbor them
Jihadi terrorists are not strictly bound to the confines of a state, and their calling cards are sometimes hard to read. That’s one of their strengths; it makes it very difficult to strike back at them with weapons of conventional warfare.
But that doesn’t mean they operate on their own without any state support (Austin Bay has written this must-read piece on how the terrorists exploit the system of states and failed states to their advantage).
Afghanistan was a relatively easy case, at least conceptually, because the state sponsoring of Al Qaeda in that country was clear and overt. The other heavy lifters in the promotion of terrorism around the globe are Iran and Syria, while Saudi Arabia has a leading role as well through Wahabism, which acts as a sort of carrier of terrorism.
Remember Bush’s post-9/11 address to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001? In that speech, he formulated some of the basic principles of dealing with state sponsors of terrorism, an early version of the Bush Doctrine:
The Taliban must act immediately. They will hand over terrorists, or they will share in their fate….Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them…From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Although the present war in Lebanon is not being waged by the US, it’s certainly an example of the application of this doctrine. The government of Lebanon has winked at terrorism, failed to root it out, given it safe haven–and even made a home for it in its Parliament, one-fifth of whom are Hezbollah members.
Why is this? Lebanon is a country that used to be one of the most stable in the region. But that all ended, starting with the arrival of the PLO in the late sixties and early seventies, after that group’s violent expulsion from Jordan, where it was trying to topple the government. Lebanon was thereafter ravaged by civil war for several decades. During that time, Israel invaded at intervals to try to root out the terrorists that had taken hold, and Syria took control and rendered Lebanon its puppet state (the latter situation has only recently improved with the expulsion of the Syrians–although not the Syrian influence–in 2005).
It’s interesting to contrast the response of Jordan’s King Hussein to the terrorists who were in his midst and threatening his regime. “Black September“, the name given to the day Hussein cracked down and expelled the PLO from Jordan, was an example of bitter Arab-on-Arab violence. It’s estimated that, in the ten days of that action, between three and five thousand Palestinians in Jordan were killed, both PLO militants and civilians alike. This indiscriminate crackdown never elicited the sort of condemnation that would have occurred had it been performed by Western powers. What’s more, it was effective; the PLO were routed from Jordan and relative stability returned.
After Black September, Jordan’s loss was Lebanon’s gain–or rather, we might say that Jordan’s gain was Lebanon’s loss. The PLO–and Yasser Arafat–relocated to Lebanon, and the country was never the same again.
The lesson is a harsh one. Harboring terrorists does not pay, and not just because of the Bush doctrine or the reaction of the Israelis. Terrorists take advantage of the conditions inherent in failed states, it’s true. But the arrival of terrorists en masse can help to cause a state to fail. That didn’t happen in Jordan because Jordan adopted harsh and somewhat ruthless measures against those terrorists. It happened in Lebanon because Lebanon either wouldn’t or couldn’t do the same effectively.
Now, over three decades later, Lebanon is still reaping the bitter harvest of harboring terrorists, this time Hezbollah. Whether it lacks the will or the ability to root them out, or whether it’s a combination of the two, I don’t know. But the truth is that terrorism is a blight on both the terrorist’s targets and on those who give the terrorists refuge.
The Israelis are attempting in Lebanon to effect a somewhat kinder, gentler Black September (in this case, a Black July), and expel Hezbollah from Lebanon. Will they succeed? They haven’t before; despite previous Israeli incursions into Lebanon for that purpose, Hezbollah has remained there. And, of course, driving Hezbollah from Lebanon would not mean the end of Hezbollah in the world.
But perhaps now the world climate has changed (including that of the Arab world), and it’s understood how necessary this action is. Criticism of Israel in this conflict has been curiously muted, considering that it’s Israel. Maybe the world has finally learned the lesson that terrorism is a blight on us all.
It shouldn’t have had to take this long to understand that.
All excellent points.
Jordon is not alon; in 1982 in Hama Syria showed that it knew how to deal with radical Islamists, and the world was silent on the Syrian attrocities (in attacking the Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian soldiers raped and murdered civilians).
Excuse the typos–I tried to fix them, but Blogger seems to be down at the moment. Ah well, I’ll try to fix them later.
This Wiki article gives a good overview of the Hama massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre
“Thomas Friedman points out that never again have Muslim extremists threatened the Syrian government.”
Sorry if I keep coming up slightly off-topic with the Hama thing, but it is interesting that Syria supports Islamic radicals in Lebanon attacking Israel, while previously eliminating those that are a threat to the Bathist leadership of Syria.
Maybe Bathists can support and align with Islamic radicals or turn on them as situations dictate. Who would have thought?
Thank you, thank you for an excellent post. It did not occur to me that Lebanon’s decline was timed with the arrival of the PLO. Imagine that.
My major concern, and what I have been trying to warn people about, is the danger of having to one day commit to a world-wide “Black September”. I did not have a term for it before, but now I do.
By refusing to acknowledge the enemy and his intentions, by ignoring or diminishing their acts and natures, by refusing to pay the price of prevention now, the West (or the civilized world if you prefer) is making the eventual bill to be paid much higher.
Cease-fires and negotiations do not work with fanatics and tyrants, but only work FOR them. The fact that this needs to be explained over and over again to so many people is maddening.
In regards to the change in European and some Arab attitudes, that’s a good thing to see. Let’s see how long it lasts. My bet it won’t last long enough for Israel to finish the job.
It is my understanding that in Israel, the right has won: the debate was on the Occupied Territories and the security wall, and with the election of Hamas and the success of the wall, the left has lost the main debates. Israel gets it.
Many in the US get it, too, and that seems to include Bush.
With the added weight of Muslim immigration to Europe I suspect quite a few there get it.
Blogger back, typos fixed.
Lebanon is a specal place, if for no other reason than that country is the only example an Arab nation that excelled at something other than hating Jews.
For that very reason, Lebanon has never received much sympathy from the Arab world.
Like the ghetto kid that goes on to make good and go to college, Lebanon has been despise and the target of all kinds of criticism, including not being ‘Arab’ any more.
There are a lot of people in the Arab world that take pleasure in Lebanon’s travails, and support Hizbollah, because that organization is like the gang that moves into the middle class neighborhood, looking to upset the apple cart and looking for recruits to destroy that community from within.
“Criticism of Israel in this conflict has been curiously muted, ”
Yes, true.
And this is why…
Here –
and here
Why, probligo, do you think that happened?
Here’s the truth about Hezbollah, as reported by the “Live From an Israeli Bunker.”
Information is coming in that Hezbollah is firing on Lebanese citizens who are trying to flee their towns after being warned by the IDF to leave the area. They want to go, and Hezbollah is now literally using them as a human shield. Some of them have actually been calling friends and family here stating this!
Most of us knew this already but I’ve posted it for the benefit of the terrorists’ Western supporters who may be looking in.
For those misguided “Lebanese citizens” who have allowed these terrorists free rein in their country, allowing them even to run for office in the Lebanese government: May the chickens that are coming home to roost be not too arduous; may you not be killed, injured and inconvenienced more than necessary to rip out the terrorists’ thread from the fabric of your society. But I wonder what these Lebanese citizens think of their Hezbollah ‘benefactors’ now? Still blaming Israel – or facing the ugly truth?
Great post, Neo. A wonderful linear history lesson about the fate of countries that allow terrorists to gain a foothold. Afghanistan, Iraq, now Lebanon and soon Iran will be facing the music.
Will Europe figure it out before the nests of vipers in their cities destroy them?
Families and social groups with people of mixed ages and vulnerabilities cannot survive for long with terrorists among them, for the terrorists will kill anyone, even themselves, their families, neighbors and friends to advance their insane cause. The current situation is a harsh and costly wake-up call to every appeaser who wondered “why can’t we all just get along?” As the properly reared among us learned in kindergarten and the rest are seeing now in Lebanon, we can’t get along because, while it takes two to co-exist peacefully, it only takes one to make a fight. Or a slaughter.
Hezbollah opposed the government of Lebanon. Just like the Democrats oppose the Republicans. The president of Lebanon is a Syrian stooge, and the current government have only been independent from Syria for one year.
Look at what Hazbollah is unleashing. Lebanon’s Army is probably a thrid of Hezbollahs. Plus Hezbollah has the support of Syria and Iran. How can anyone that understood these facts reasonably expect Lebanon just to remove Hazbollah? The idea that Lebanon had the ablity to just remove Hezbollah is just a PR story invented by Israel. (as a cover for what is really taking place)
Plus you guy is Hama a good example of how to deal with terror. Genocide use to be a bad thing in my book. I guess it is all the rage now.
Plus how are 4.5 million Lebanese going to feed themselves with no road, ports, or trucks? That when the real death count will begin. I am sure Isreal will have nothing to do with it.. Right???
Sorry Don – get what exactly?
And AskMom – “countries that allow terrorists to gain a foothold….Iraq”. In what way was Iraq linked to terrorism before 2003? It is the world centre for terrorism now, for sure, but pre-2003 I think you’ll find it was a mainly secular dictatorship, where Islamists were largely oppressed. Sadam was a tyrant, yes but an Islamist terrorist? no.
Please excuse – I forgot to include the link:
http://israelibunker.blogspot.com
Hizbollah owes no allegiance to Lebanon. Hizbollah pisses and craps all over Lebanon.
Hizbollah would likely kill anyone at all to achieve its aims.
but pre-2003 I think you’ll find it was a mainly secular dictatorship, where Islamists were largely oppressed. Sadam was a tyrant, yes but an Islamist terrorist? no. Saddam supported almost every Muslim terror group in existance, including Ansar al-Islam, which is/was an Al Qaeda group that operated in northern Iraq during Saddam’s regime.
Did Hezbollah suddenly appear one day in Lebanon and run for government office? No, there was a period of accommodation of Hezbollah by the Lebanese, with the Lebanese knowing full well the nature, goal and tactics of Hezbollah, which was also a time of gradual insinuation by Hezbollah into Lebanese institutions.
The US paid a price for its own appeasement and fecklessness by receiving various blows starting with the embassy hostages in ‘79 and culminating with 9/11, and thereafter the Taliban and Saddam paid. Britain paid, and Spain. Indeed, many nations around the globe have paid some rather high prices for appeasement and sympathy toward terrorists. Now comes Lebanon’s time, I think.
Thus the Lebanese, through both fear for themselves(also called fecklessness) and outright sympathy for the murderous terrorism represented by Hezbollah, have allowed terrorism to manifest itself inside their institutions and offices to the point where Hezbollah has a shadow government within the official government, is represented widely in the Lebanese military(weak sister that it is) and even musters its own separate, private army. But now the Piper emerges and begins to play his grim tune and ears begin to ache.
Freudian slips,
I am not going to debate the “why”. For a start I do not know why the US is so consistent in using the veto power every time that Israel is mentioned. I do not know why the Lebanese representative to the UN said what he did. I only draw attention to the fact that both the quoted events did happen.
The “why” they happened might be better explained by the likes of yourself. That might also explain neo’s comment about the very muted international protest.
Sorry Don – get what exactly?
You can’t reason with Islamic terrorists.
And AskMom – “countries that allow terrorists to gain a foothold….Iraq”. In what way was Iraq linked to terrorism before 2003? It is the world centre for terrorism now, for sure, but pre-2003 I think you’ll find it was a mainly secular dictatorship, where Islamists were largely oppressed. Sadam was a tyrant, yes but an Islamist terrorist? no.
Iraq is now the place terrorists go to die, but I think pre-2003 you would find that it was much like Syria; capable of ruthless suppresion of Islamic radicals, and also capable of supporting them. That was a point I was making above. Also, Saddam’s Iraq was becoming more Islamic, and less secular with time.
Ahem: Lebanon declared war on Israel in 1948 and has never ended it.
“Criticism of Israel in this conflict has been curiously muted, ”
Yes, true.
And this is why…
Quotes
Followed by
I am not going to debate the “why”
And Probligo likely wonders why we have trouble accepting Probligo’s reasoning. I’m not going to debate the “why” of this root unseriousness, this fecklessness, I’m just never going to acknowledge any future posts from the same source. You can take Probligo’s advice, or accept Probligo’s arguments, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you end up as bitter and unhappy as Probligo clearly is. But then, let’s not debate the “why”…
This is not an argument!!
Yes it is.
No it’s not.
Yes it is.
This is mere contridiction!!
No it’s not.
probligo- it is not only the US that has problems with UN resolutions as they relate to Israel. Britain, France and most of Europe have more often than not, have been critical of UN resolutions. Why? Because they are one sided.
In addition, you need to familiarize yourself with those UN Resolutions that are beauty contests and those that are actuially enforceable.
They are referred to as series six and series seven resolutions.
See this:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577
Uh,huh! One sided?
Look here
One sided? Seems reasonable to me.
I think the Democrats would purify the Middle East if someone gives them power for 10 years and a nuclear bomb destroys an American city. This would give the Democrats the excuse they have wanted all along.
would have condemned Israel’s current “military assault” in Gaza,
What’s to condemn? Israel has a right to defend itself.
In any case, resetting the situation will simply allow terrorists to survive. Military solutions work against terrorists, but they have to be followed through, stopping things early allows the terrorists to escape.
Hey, Dr. Vic. Nice deja vu moment, there. I seem to remember reading the very same thing over at Protein Wisdom, earlier today.
You got something like a blog route, where you systematically copy and paste the same stuff to as many blogs as possible?
Some people would call that spam.
Imperssive, Pro- that’s ONE.
Of course, there really need be no rush- after all, no one is up in arms that there has yet to be action on Darfur, a situation that is far more egregious.
One would imagine Darfur to be the higher priority- or do black victims mean less?
The attempt to deflect the discussion into a debate about the US exercising the veto is a feckless exercise in futility.
This is about a state, Iran trying to become a regional hegemon and its client state, Syria trying to be the hegemon for the Levant.
The UN is a useless, throughly corrupt irrelevancy. It will be tolerated by the United States only so far as the US can gain benefit. On the day that becomes impossible, the UN will be just a building in New York City ready for conversion.
Islam’s defeat at Siege of Vienna bought the West and Western Culture not quite 500 years of interlude. This time we have quite a few Quislings and rats to deal with while turning our full attention to the current challenge.
You say Lebanon “couldn’t or wouldn’t”, but that’s a pretty big “or”, isn’t it? If it’s “wouldn’t”, then (non-Hezbollah) Lebanon is the equivalent of the Taliban. But if it’s “couldn’t”, then they’re more like the “Northern Alliance” of anti-Taliban factions. Would it have made sense to bomb the Northern Alliance for failing to defeat the Taliban?
“Would it have made sense to bomb the Northern Alliance for failing to defeat the Taliban?”
Yes, if they were giving aid and comfort to the Taliban. Or even refusing to fight them.
Next question?
“Lebanon’s Army is probably a third of Hezbollahs.” Actually, Lebanon’s army is 70,000, while Hezbollah has only 5000-6000 members. It’s also been stated that only 300-500 of hezbollah are actually fighters, the rest just march in the parades.
Consum: Would it have made sense to bomb the Northern Alliance for failing to defeat the Taliban?
The analogy is flawed. If the Northern Alliance were a territory rather than a faction, and if the Taliban were making use of that territory, then yes, of course, it would make sense to bomb it or otherwise render it unusable.
I notice Derek from the UK did not respond when his “Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do Islamic terrorism pre-invasion” was refuted.
Derek? Care to maybe reexamine your assertion?
I only ask because I notice a tendency of some to raise a point or assert something, only to ignore it when someone refutes it.
I didn’t know that Lebanon had declared war on Israel in 1948 — did they ever sign a Peace Agreement? I don’t think so.
HighBeam Encylopedia seems nice.
I think Israel should fight until Lebanon surrenders, and become an Occupying Power. I also note that a ceasefire is not peace.
Then enforce Free Speech and Free Religion, with tough enforcement against any physical infraction or threat.
Those who hate Israel to death must be killed or neutralized; but moderates must be safe to disagree with Hezbollah.
Don wrote:
“What’s to condemn? Israel has a right to defend itself.”
Sure, but deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The first thing Israel did going into Gaza this time was bomb the civilian power supply (the power plant). That’s a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. These things call out for condemnation.
painer man says, The first thing Israel did going into Gaza this time was bomb the civilian power supply (the power plant)
Actually the first thing they did was to take out airfields that could be used for resupply. Somewhat down the list was the power plant, infrastructure aiding the Hez command and control center in Beirut.
You may be aware that the president of Lebanon supports Hez and is now threatening to let the army fight side by side with Hez.
In any regard a State of War has existed between Israel and Lebanon since 1948 and has never been ended by treaty. All targets in Lebanon are therefore in play.
That is not covered in the Conventions. How States fight wars is their own look out.
If Lebanon wants to escape the consequences of its actions the route is very simple. Surrender and conclude a peace treaty recognizing Israel. And, Israeli troops will occupy as required to bring about civil peace. The steps are very simple and are the way that states terminate hostilities. Surrender and the occupying power has the ball in its court.
What part of “simple” don’t you understand?
The first thing Israel did going into Gaza this time was bomb the civilian power supply (the power plant).
Don’t Hezbollah and the civilians use the same power grid? I’ve been to several military bases around the world and while some had back-up power for critical systems, they all tied into the civilian power grid for their power, if there was one available. I find it hard to believe that Hezbollah has their own power generating capability that Israel chose to bypass.
The first thing Israel did going into Gaza this time was bomb the civilian power supply (the power plant).
Don’t Hezbollah and the civilians use the same power grid?
ucfengr, please read carefully. I was talking about Israel’s attack on Gaza, not about the attack on Lebanon.
Israel gave the reason for taking out the power plant in Gaza as “it will make it difficult to move the captured soldier”. This is ridiculous. Cars can still travel when there is no power. The only reason for taking out the Gaza power plant was “collective punishment” for civilians by deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure, something that is outlawed under Geneva conventions.
Notice also that this whole mess started a a result of Israel not recognizing the democratically elected and legitimate government in Gaza, after Hamas was elected. Israel then started waging economic warfare on Gaza by shutting off all flow of funds into Gaza. Hamas retaliated by capturing the soldier (just ONE soldier, mind you). Israel then knocked out the power plant and started bombarding Gaza. It was then and only then that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, and demanded a cease-fire. Israel refused and started bombarding Lebanon also.
Israel is clearly violating international law. It’s a shame that the US is encouraging and abetting this behavior.
Speaking of “terrorists and the states that harbor them”, what about the USA harboring Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, and others who are suspected of having committed acts of terrorism against Cuba?
ucfengr, please read carefully. I was talking about Israel’s attack on Gaza, not about the attack on Lebanon.
Subsitute Hamas for Hezbollah. It’s really a distinction without much of a difference.
Israel gave the reason for taking out the power plant in Gaza as “it will make it difficult to move the captured soldier”. This is ridiculous. Cars can still travel when there is no power.
Disrupting the power is going to have a significant impact on Hamas’ abilty to communicate. Cell phones, computers, etc. are dependent on power to be useful for communications. Hampering Hama communications will make it more difficult to safely move the kidnapped Israelis. Also, while cars are not directly dependent on the power grid, the gas stations where they refuel are.
The only reason for taking out the Gaza power plant was “collective punishment” for civilians by deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure, something that is outlawed under Geneva conventions.
Forgive me, but this is just wrong. There are many military reasons beyond mere “collective punishment” for disrupting the power, transportation, and communications infrastructure of an enemy nation.
Notice also that this whole mess started a a result of Israel not recognizing the democratically elected and legitimate government in Gaza, after Hamas was elected. Israel then started waging economic warfare on Gaza by shutting off all flow of funds into Gaza.
Actually the mess started when the PA “elected” a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people to lead it. It’s kind of silly of you to expect Israel to have any dealings, financial or otherwise with them.
Hamas retaliated by capturing the soldier (just ONE soldier, mind you).
So the “elected” government of the PA commits and act of war against Israel and Israel is just supposed to suck it up? And let’s be honest, this capturing of “one soldier” is not the first act of war committed by Hamas (the democratically and legitimate govenment in Gaza) against Israel, only the latest. Palestinian militants (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) have been launching rockets from Gaza at Israel since the withdrawl.
Israel is clearly violating international law. It’s a shame that the US is encouraging and abetting this behavior.
Is it really clear? For the sake of argument, lets assume it is, but what about the “legitimate government” of Gaza allowing militants to launch rocket attacks from their territory on civilian targets in Israel and kidnap Israeli citizens? Is that a violation of “international law”, or does international law only apply to the US and Israel?
Painer Man wrote: Sure, but deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The first thing Israel did going into Gaza this time was bomb the civilian power supply (the power plant). That’s a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. These things call out for condemnation.
Since the government of Palistine and the terror org that launches missles at the Israeli civilian population is one in the same, it is clear to me that ALL government facilities in Palistine are fair game for Israeli attack.
The consistent rule of war is that you use whatever means it takes to win. Weapons like gas have seen little use since WW1 since they have proven ineffective in war (at least, so far). But if you have an effective means of waging war, you will eventually use it.
Hamas retaliated by capturing the soldier (just ONE soldier, mind you).
That alone shows stark contrast: Israel cares about just one soldier.