May 12, 2008
Ruminations on Strategy
The big question for me over the past day or two has been: what is Hezbollah doing? I mean, we have a pretty good idea of what they're doing, but why are they doing it? After the government's climb down over the decisions that triggered this whole thing - declaring Hezbollah's communications network illegal and ousting their friend Wafic Shoukair from his position as head of airport security - Hezbollah announced they and their friends were relinquishing control of West Beirut.
So why the attacks in the Chouf? As opposition militias were transfering control in Beirut to the army, they started a frontal assault on Jumblatt's people in the Chouf, apparently unprovoked. They fought to a stalemate over the course of Sunday, and yet even after it was agreed that PSP positions were to be handed to their friends the Arslan gang and then to the army, they continued fighting here and there. Then overnight they were attacking from the Bekaa side of the mountains, in Barouk and Niha. I'll post a map in a second.
Jumblatt intimated last night that this was some sort of personal vendetta against him. But that seems like a pretty petty reason to risk an all out civil war. It could be that they were trying to get revenge for their losses on Friday night, or rescue their captured fighters. But again that's kind of petty, those fighters are dead (friends have pictures of them after they were - yes - executed), and I'm still not convinced this was actually Hezbollah and not one or more of their proxies on the front lines. I don't think they would take the risk for a few dead SSNP or Amal guys.
One theory I heard in the office today was that Hezbollah wants to control that area because it links their positions in the Bekaa with those south of Beirut. That's more compelling, and more ominous - uniting their lines could indicate that they intend to then move from there further into hostile territory, and not back to the negotiating table.
But that's the big question. If they're not going back to the negotiating table, if they're really maneuvering for a better military position, then this is just a lull and not an end to the fighting. I don't believe they actually want to invade and occupy the rest of Lebanon. Otherwise, why withdraw from West Beirut, when they'd just have to retake it?
They could be positioning in order to support opposition Christians in battles for control of Christian areas similar to what we saw in West Beirut and the Chouf. But so far there have been no indications that opposition Christians are ready and willing to hit the streets. The recent events have left that bloc even further divided and confused, with some utterly disgusted with Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah and support for this, and others quietly cheering the assault on Sunni and Druze power.
I think the takeover of West Beirut was more peaceful than Hezbollah expected, and the government's quick capitulation left them with too big a win, and they had to withdraw. But it seems that they're not ready to go back to the table yet, despite the likelihood that they could get just about everything they've been demanding for the past year and a half. I think they know that's a poisoned chalice at this point - an "political compromise" earned at gunpoint is going to be seen as completely illegitimate. It could be that they don't have plans to go back to negotiating with the present crew, and will continue putting their friends - or the army - in charge everywhere in order to force March 14 out of power.
If that's the scenario, this is an entirely new game, and March 14 attempts to make concessions and call for dialogue are dangerously obsolete. It would also mean that this is very much not over, and that remaining March 14 strongholds - Saida (Sidon) and the Christian areas - are next. Word is coming in as I type that there is shelling in Damour, which is roughly half way from Beirut to Saida.
Posted by ben at May 12, 2008 06:06 AM