Lebanon update -- bluffs and threats

The bluff game goes on in Lebanon. Syria is repositioning troops into the Bekaa Valley, Karami resigned then was reappointed, Hezbollah mounted massive demonstrations, Syria makes no guarantees, Karami reaches out toward the opposition, the opposition spurns him [story here]. What are we to make of it all? Are we heading toward reconciliation or civil war or something else?

Wretchard over at Belmont Club has an update and tentative analysis. Noting that, while Hezbollah and Syria are strong locally their power is dwarfed by the proximity of American forces, he writes:

Yet have Hezbollah and Syria been so weakened they dare not risk Civil War? While they might be reluctant to break the rack, they will do it in desperation. This is reflected in their tactics. Karami's conciliatory gestures and the ostensible pullback of Syrian troops show they would prefer it if people walked quietly back into line. But the low-level intimidation and veiled threats are meant to convey that if pressed, they can ultimately resort to brute force. 'Come along nicely or we'll turn Hezbollah loose' is the message of the past week. If the Lebanese opposition makes good on their threat of nonparticipation they will effectively be daring Syria to do its worst. And what would that be? Provided that conventional forces are kept out of Lebanon, it would amount to an attempt to maintain colonial rule via a militia and a secret service.

Read the whole thing here.

This is a very dangerous game. It could have a happy outcome, if Syria withdraws and Hezbollah enters the normal political process, or it could be disastrous, if brutal force is used to put down the opposition. And of course there is always the question of how much and in what way the US chooses to exercise its considerable power. But before anybody gets too excited take a look back at what Tony at Across the Bay had to say a few days ago. Despite some low-level thuggery the conditions he notes still apply.

All those who talk about civil war have to keep in mind that it's one thing if Hizbullah threatens violence (which is hasn't), and it's a whole other thing if Syrian pitbulls threaten it (i.e. the Baath, the SSNP, the Nasserites, etc.). The latter are totally inconsequential. That's more like vandalism. Even a Syrian campaign of bombs and assassinations won't necessarily escalate beyond that (as Tueni told the NYT). Those are exposed. The only one that would escalate is one where Hizbullah is involved in violence, as that would pit a whole bunch of Shiites against other Lebanese communities. But everyone has been careful not to go down that route, and all the violence has come from Syria and its petty cronies.

Read the whole post here.

Finally, David Ignatius writing in the WaPo notes that:

1) Assad is holding a weak hand and cannot control the situation. The best he can do is to stage "rent a demonstrator" shows.

2) The massive Hezbollah demonstration was not a sign of Syrian strength. "Calling it a 'pro-Syria' rally was a misnomer; this was a pro-Hezbollah demonstration," -- little more than a show of strength by Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of the group. The grand hooha was simply "a statement that Nasrallah has the ability to sabotage the democracy movement if he chooses." In other words Hezbollah is setting down a marker and demanding a major Shiite role in a new Lebanese government.

3) Hezbollah is ultimately going to have to choose between becoming a political party in a new Lebanon and being stooges for Assad. Ignatius thinks that Nasrallah will choose the former course.

Like Tony, Ignatius notes that for all its macho posturing, Hezbollah has not actually threatened violence, indeed it has repeatedly stated that it wants to negotiate with the Lebanese opposition, and Nasrallah has personally stated his commitment to a free Lebanon. All in all, things actually seem quite hopeful.

If all sides keep their cool a positive outcome is very attainable.

Read the whole thing here.

Claudia Rosett summarizes recent maneuvers and upcoming demonstrations here. She sees a "high-stakes showdown" shaping up. Rosett feels that Bush will be a major player in determining the outcome. By contrast Ignatius feels that US involvement will make things more difficult.

One thing is sure, any action by Israel will be counter-productive. Sharon is mouthing off again, with predictable results, and Bush is trying to shut him up. Read about it at Publius Pundit here.

UPDATE:

David Brooks, in a letter to Andrew Sullivan, takes an optimistic view. He writes:

Two great things have happened in Beirut recently. First the opposition came out on the streets for a series of peaceful rallies. Then on Tuesday Hizbollah came out with peaceful rallies. Many people are treating the latter as setbacks for democracy. But in reality, they are democracy. It's not only the people who we agree with who get to vote and mobilize. It's everybody. In the Arab world there are going to be plenty of anti-American parties. If these parties' first instinct is to try to rally public opinion and not unleash armies, that's great. This is in a country where people used to kill each other, over such things, remember. Now they are rallying. This is part of what Wolfowitz was working for.

Couldn'ta said it better myself.

Read the whole series of comments that led to this posting at Andrew's "Dish" here.