Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

How Not to Help Lebanon

by Elliott Abrams
October 21, 2012

A bombing today in Beirut assassinated the head of the Intelligence Bureau of that country’s Internal Security Forces, Wissam Hassan, a Sunni officer who was a leading foe of the Assad regime and of Hezbollah.

The White House has now issued the following statement :

Statement by NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor on Attack in Beirut

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attack today in Beirut that killed Lebanese Internal Security Forces Information Bureau Director Wissam al-Hassan and at least seven others, and wounded dozens more.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those killed and injured in this heinous attack and with the Lebanese people, who have sacrificed greatly to overcome war and violence.  Lebanon’s security and stability are vital both for the Lebanese people and their neighbors.  There is no justification for using assassination as a political tool.  The United States will stand by the Government of Lebanon and the people of Lebanon as they work to bring those responsible for this barbaric attack to justice and build a future where all Lebanese can live in security and dignity.

What’s wrong with this statement?

1. It is not a statement by the President, or the Secretary of State, or the National Security Advisor. Instead it is a press release by the NSC spokesman, not even by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.  All this suggests that this attack is pretty low on the agenda of the White House.

2. The statement makes no mention of Syria, when Wissam Hassan was an opponent of the Assad regime and when every single news story on this murder notes that it is a clear sign that the war in Syrian war is now destabilizing Lebanon.

3. The statement speaks of Lebanon’s “security and stability.” What about the country’s sovereignty, which Assad’s forces are violating every day–including with this assassination? What about democracy in Lebanon, which reappeared after the murder of Rafik Hariri in 2005, and is under threat now from Syria and Hezbollah?

4. The statement says “Lebanon’s security and stability are vital both for the Lebanese people and their neighbors.” Logically, this would suggest that they aren’t important to us: we aren’t Lebanese and we aren’t their neighbors. Yet the United States has long viewed Lebanon’s fate as an important one for us, not just for Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. So the message, like the messenger (the NSC spokesman) tends to undermine America’s past, present, and future role.

5. In the aftermath of a vicious and brutal murder like this, some platitudes just make things worse. We will “stand by the people of Lebanon” so they can build a future of “security and dignity?” Again, that future apparently does not include national sovereignty or democracy, both at risk today from Hezbollah and the Assad regime. And the term “stand by” them is so vague as to have no meaning at all.

Lebanese patriots seeing this statement must be disheartened. They deserve sympathy, and genuine help–which would begin with genuine help to the rebels seeking to bring the Assad regime to an end.

Post a Comment 5 Comments

  • Posted by Dean Smallwood

    A “sovereign nation” is one which controls its borders and that which appens within those borders . Lebanon fails on both counts . More important for the U.S. is the utter lack of a foreign policy regarding the Middle East coming from the Obama administration . Much is made in the U.S. news media over Obama’s foreign policy “successes” . I , for one , would like to know exactly what those “successes” are . What IS the “Obama Doctrine” ?

  • Posted by Dean Smallwood

    A “sovereign nation” is one which controls its borders and that which happens within those borders . Lebanon fails on both counts . More important for the U.S. is the utter lack of a foreign policy regarding the Middle East coming from the Obama administration . Much is made in the U.S. news media over Obama’s foreign policy “successes” . I , for one , would like to know exactly what those “successes” are . What IS the “Obama Doctrine” ?

  • Posted by drew dubester

    unfortunately the time for america to get involved in syria has passed as, helping arm the anti assad forces now means arming the radical islamists as well. neither libya, nor egypt have worked out as americas ‘best case’ fantasy scenario.. for that matter, iraq and afghanistan probably wont be our best friends any time soon.. the obama administration is doing the only thing that makes sense at this point.. keeping relatively quiet on the sidelines and waiting to see what shakes out. the REAL problem here is the same as in lebanon.. when you have a civil conflict w/3 sides it isnt really possible to ‘pick a winner’.

  • Posted by stephen Albert

    I don’t think that the time has past to get involved in Syria. However, even if it were, what is going on here is that Syria is getting re-involved in Lebanon.

    This is the first car bomb attack in Lebanon in some time. Not only did it target a security officer,It targeted someone who had been carrying out investigations for an international tribunal. That’s something to rally the democratic world around.

    This should be the time for the United States and other democracies to firmly state their support for the sovereignty of an Arab country and support the demands of the Future Movement for a peaceful change of government.

    In past couple of weeks:

    Hezbollah had flown a drone over Israel.
    The Syrians have fired artillery into Turkey killing five civilians.
    Hezbollah has been firing on Free Syrian Army positions.
    This car bomb attack ripped through central Beirut.

    Syria and ir allies are sowing the seeds of regional war. Just as the Obama Administration and other Western democracies were slow to react to the early protests in Syria, they are slow to react to this situation. Therein lies the danger of further conflict.

  • Posted by Dave Boutilier

    I keep wishing that when “The United States condemns in the strongest terms…” we would use strong terms in the condemnation. Whenever that circumlocution is used, the statement itself is invariably flaccid and without force.

    Apparently, we remain unable to call evil by its name and speak clearly of our revulsion to its deeds.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required