The Other Cedar Revolution

Thousands of protesters from Hezbollah and its allies spent a second night in a tent city in downtown Beirut, within earshot of the office-turned-residence of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

"Beirut is free, Siniora out," thousands chanted during a late Saturday night rally at a central square. The protesters said they would not leave before the government fell.

Link.

I'm confused -- how come the warbloggers of the world aren't posting photos of "protest babes", proclaiming the latest victory for the admininstration's freedom agenda, and crowing about the continuation of the Arab Spring? Democracy = large street protests, right?

Comments

you know, the past few years have been rather strange. how is it that 'liberals' like m. yglesias seem to be express the skeptical and negatory sentiments more appropriate for the heirs of oakeshott, kirk and burke?

Posted by chet snicker | December 2, 2006 7:37 PM

Umm, because we're not dogmatic morons like those on the right? We make the analysis that's appropriate, not the one prescribed in some set of sacred books by some set of Great Men.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 2, 2006 8:10 PM

you know, the past few years have been rather strange. how is it that 'liberals' like m. yglesias seem to be express the skeptical and negatory sentiments more appropriate for the heirs of oakeshott, kirk and burke?

Because they're they're more interested in sniggering at Bush than in freedom?

Posted by Al | December 2, 2006 8:18 PM

WTF?! My sentiments are with "Chet" on this. This post verges on cheering for--certainly sneering at--the (potential) failure of some hopeful events in Lebanon (the Syrian evacuation, the election of a moderate government in Beirut) that have occurred on the current administration's watch. Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese?

Posted by Hal | December 2, 2006 8:18 PM

how come the warbloggers of the world aren't posting photos of "protest babes"

Maybe because there ain't many at a Hezbollah protest? Usually women in chadors aren't babes.

And where does Matthew get this idea that "Democracy = large street protests"? I mean, I understand that the post is supposed to be a "nyah, nyah" at the right, but who would be asinine enough to think that the right believes that "Democracy = large street protests".

Posted by Al | December 2, 2006 8:20 PM

Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese?

As I posted above, the answer to this is: yes.

Posted by Al | December 2, 2006 8:22 PM

"Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese?

As I posted above, the answer to this is: yes." -- al

Matt Y was strenuous in contemporaneously noting the idiocy of the Israeli invasion that brought this current situation on. I'm sure he would have implored Bush to intercede rather than encourage the foolishness that precipitated the probable collapse of the Lebanese government which we are witnessing.

Instead, Bush basically cheered it on (no doubt Al didn't complain either). In Al's case, because cheerleading the worst president ever and the discomfiture of people with good sense was more important than the welfare of the Lebanese.

The current situtation was set in action by that. Yglesias above is essentially noting that he told you so.

I'd say he cared about the Lebanese people when it counted, now the die is cast.

Posted by blatherskite | December 2, 2006 9:00 PM

Al:

Maybe because there ain't many at a Hezbollah protest? Usually women in chadors aren't babes.

I take it from this Al doesn't know what a chador is. I wonder if he knows where Lebanon is.

Until yahoo moves the pictures, there are some protest babes here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Posted by Jon | December 2, 2006 9:07 PM

Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese?

Not the discomfiture, but the lesson they should be learning from it--that military intervention isn't likely to build stable democracies allied to American. Future lives are depending on people getting that lesson through their thick skulls. Fortunately, most people are, leaving Bush and his supporters alone to scream at the darkness.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 2, 2006 9:11 PM

Wait a minute ... Hezbollah does have protest babes! (see slide #5)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6202350.stm

Posted by barney | December 2, 2006 9:14 PM

that military intervention

? What exactly have you been consuming, Consumatopia?

I don't recall any American "military intervention" in Lebanon precipitating the withdrawal of Syrian troops from that country.

Posted by Hal | December 2, 2006 9:18 PM

in fact ...

Posted by old guy | December 2, 2006 9:32 PM

God, the idiocy or right-wing cherry pickers is maddening. They show pictures of attractive women on one side, and unattractive women on the other. It's so stupid, they're not interested in knowing what the world is like, only making themselves feel good about it.

Anyway, is Yglesias using this as an opportunity to "Snigger" at bush? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

The Lebanese are in trouble because Israel bombed them, with the tacit support of bush. Imagining that the political support for Hizbollah as a party is somehow equivalent to "Suffering" you're as far gone as people on the right who think voting for democrats will somehow make America "Weaker", in which case why should anyone bother arguing with you?

Posted by Chad Okere | December 2, 2006 10:09 PM

I believe, Matthew is pointing out the childish view of the warbloggers.

Posted by Hugo | December 2, 2006 10:12 PM

I don't recall any American "military intervention" in Lebanon precipitating the withdrawal of Syrian troops from that country.

The "Arab Spring" meme--that democracy in Iraq was magically transforming the Middle East into pony-land. Recall that? If not, it's linked to up above.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 2, 2006 10:38 PM

Until yahoo moves the pictures, there are some protest babes here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

You have an awfully broad definition of "babe".

Posted by Al | December 2, 2006 10:46 PM

The ignorance in these comments is staggering.

Here's a clue: why don't you all read some of the detailed news reports and the posts from Lebanese bloggers from across the incredibly complicated political spectrum and the 18 sects that share power in Lebanon before deciding who is at fault for what in Lebanon.

Posted by no one | December 2, 2006 11:22 PM

Um, the event directly precipitating these protests was the Lebananese cabinet pressing forward with cooperation with the proposed interational tribunal to investigate and try the likely Syrian sponsored assassins of former PM Harari. This has mobilized Syrian allies within the country. But I guess its a good thing if Syria gets to rule Lebanon for its own benefit and kill anyone who objects. After all, what matters is making Bush look bad. This is apparently the new "realism."

Posted by rd | December 2, 2006 11:25 PM

This post verges on cheering for--certainly sneering at--the (potential) failure of some hopeful events in Lebanon (the Syrian evacuation, the election of a moderate government in Beirut) that have occurred on the current administration's watch. Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese?

Which Lebanese? Lebanon's basic problem is it still isn't a democracy, certainly not in the sense that Americans would understand. It is an awkward compromise between 7 or 8 political clans that hasn't had a census in over 70 years so as not to reveal that Christians are no longer a majority - and that the Shi'ite population is at least 40% (could well be more) of the pop., even though they get only 25% of the seats in Parliament.

The US's mistake was to assume that Hezbollah could be "destroyed" and that they are an Al-Qaeda type fringe group. But they aren't. An attack on Hezbollah is an attack on the Shi'ite community in the context of Lebanese politics. Bush et al. pushed for a maximalist solution, but the very nature of Lebanese society means it can't handle maximalist solutions.

Posted by Ben P | December 2, 2006 11:28 PM

If you wouldn't be so totally consumed with seeing Bush behind every, uh, bush in the Middle East, "Consumatopia", you'd know that the key event precipitating the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, was the assassination of Hariri. But -- pace some of the commenters above -- let me guess: it was the Mossad who did it at Bush's beckoning, right?

I voted for the only socialist in Congress on Nov. 7, but the ugly sneering, schadenfreude and tinfoilhattery on evidence in this thread sometimes makes me wonder what's become of the rational and principled left that I grew up with. We are NOT all Hezbollah, now!

Posted by Hal | December 3, 2006 12:15 AM

I voted for the only socialist in Congress on Nov. 7, but the ugly sneering, schadenfreude and tinfoilhattery on evidence in this thread sometimes makes me wonder what's become of the rational and principled left that I grew up with. We are NOT all Hezbollah, now!

Oh, for fucks sake.

How old are you pretending to be? Because you can go back to leftist sectarian literature from 1967, when the New Left was even then starting to be a little long in the tooth and here this same whining from "socialists" who didn't appreciate how the New Left reacted to the then current (but ever present) "crisis in the middle east". The left before that were Stalinists so I can only assume you grew up some time around the Russian Revolution.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 12:33 AM

And where does Matthew get this idea that "Democracy = large street protests"?

It's a joke, he knows full well you don't think democracy=large street protests, it's what you pretend to believe when forces you believe to be sympathetic to U.S. interests gather and call it democracy.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 12:55 AM

Hal, you seem to be misunderstanding Consumatopia. From the link he points to:

Syria's military occupation of Lebanon is drawing such international condemnation that Bashar Assad, the Syrian dictator, has begun to pull his troops back to the Bekaa Valley.

It is being called an "Arab Spring," and Bush's critics are right to give him credit for helping to bring it about.

It's very simple: the "Arab Spring" was supposed to be thanks to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent elections there, which was going to lead to democracies across the middle east sympathetic to the U.S. But it hasn't worked out that way. Thus the statement by Consumatopia: "military intervention isn't likely to build stable democracies allied to American."

Also: if you're concerned by sneering, I respectfully suggest you examine your own behavior.

Posted by Fred1248 | December 3, 2006 12:57 AM

Fred,

Perhaps I did sneer, too, somewhat, and I apologize for it. But I happen to have a personal interest in what happens in Lebanon (my sister-in-law is Lebanese Muslim[-born]; her family have experienced Hezbollah first-hand), and the near-glee with which some elements of the left are greeting the potential collapse of the Siniora government, is utterly dismaying. A few commenters here seem eager for a Hezbollah takeover if only to take pleasure in hammering another nail in the coffin of Bush's Iraq policy. And they can go to hell!

Posted by Hal | December 3, 2006 1:51 AM

Umm...well no one here said anything about Hezbollah taking over so you are clearly hearing or seeing things.

What I will say however is that what the protesters are demanding in all probablility even that each Shia vote is counted, they are asking for a third of the seats in the government when they probably would take 40% or more (maybe much more, but the Christians are never going to allow another census while they maintain the status quo). That's much closer to Al's "freedom" nonsense, than his little pack of literal phalangist fascists and their ilk.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 2:13 AM

ack. fucked that up. What they are demanding is less than equal representation in government.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 2:14 AM

This isn't glee on this thread, it's frustration of having Busbots like Al fuck up the entire region even worse than before. Bush's only real victory in the ME was the withdrawal of Syrian troops during Cedar by leaning on Assad, and he went and fucked that up when he backed Israel's heavy-handed destruction of Lebanese infrastructure. If you tell someone that pointing a loaded gun in their face is stupid and they do it and the gun goes off, saying "You're retarded" isn't glee, it's pointing out that some people - Bushbots - are fundamentally retarded. They treat Arabs as a canvas on which to project their theories, not real people living in real societies facing real problems that have to addressed on their own terms. Busbots are incapable of that. That's nobody's fault but their own. They have abetted Bush and thus have added to Lebanon's slow implosion and the death of Cedar. As someone who knows too many people from Lebanon to be able to feel detached, this makes me furious.

Posted by Reality Man | December 3, 2006 4:24 AM

Surely it is the American failure in Iraq that has emboldened Syria/Iran/Hezbollah to try to bring down the Lebanese government by this coup.

Posted by bob h | December 3, 2006 8:06 AM

Ed,

You comment of 2.13 am (the paragraph beginning "What I will say however...") is a leftwing-received-wisdom mirror image of what Al posts. And reveals an astounding ignorance of the political situation in Lebanon in general and the purpose of the current "popular protest" in particular. If you think it involves purple fingers and electoral "reform", you are dangerously naive into the bargain. My sister-in-law (who was hounded out of her town for defending women's rights) has a comment for deluded westerners like you; it begins: "With friends like these..."

Posted by Hal | December 3, 2006 9:03 AM

And, Bob H, I do agree with your comment of 8.06 am. That point is stipulated. It's the tone of this thread, the mixture of ignorance, sneering and sheer callousness, that dismays me.

Posted by Hal | December 3, 2006 9:31 AM

Awwww, sorry, Hal. I still have no idea what you are moaning about. Anyway, you are obviously an expert on Lebanon having by having a Lebanese in-law. So what do you want to see happen in Lebanon? Bring back the phalanges? Teach those Shia a lesson? A couple Sabra and Chatilla type incidents would end all this uppity, thinking they can have a say in the manner in which their affairs are managed? What's to be done?

Posted by Ed Marsall | December 3, 2006 10:12 AM

WTF?! My sentiments are with "Chet" on this. This post verges on cheering for--certainly sneering at--the (potential) failure of some hopeful events in Lebanon (the Syrian evacuation, the election of a moderate government in Beirut) that have occurred on the current administration's watch. Has the discomfiture of Bush and his supporters become more important than the welfare of the Lebanese

Oh, flaming codpieces. It does nothing of the sort. Its mockery of Bush's idiotic triumphalist rhetoric.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 3, 2006 10:27 AM

the election of a moderate government in Beirut)

Please allow me a big ass sneer at that. I love how "moderate" has crept back out of the closet after the democracy wasn't turning out the results it was supposed to.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 10:37 AM

It's the tone of this thread, the mixture of ignorance, sneering and sheer callousness, that dismays me.

Hal, you've lost me. Who is ignorant of what? Who is sneering at whom, specifically? When you just make vague blanket accusations, it's impossible to know what you're talking about -- particularly when your specific accusations (at Consumatopia) were based on your idea of what they said rather than what they actually did say.

Posted by Fred1248 | December 3, 2006 10:43 AM

this time a comely demonstrating young woman would be a "hezbella"

Posted by David | December 3, 2006 11:58 AM

What I will say however is that what the protesters are demanding in all probablility even that each Shia vote is counted, they are asking for a third of the seats in the government when they probably would take 40% or more (maybe much more, but the Christians are never going to allow another census while they maintain the status quo).

Each Shia vote is counted? Give me a break. They're not asking for a count of the hanging chads, they're asking for more power for them and their Iranian and Syrian patrons, period. If you can't see the difference between that and asking for a free vote without Syrian domination - what the Cedar Revolution was about - I'm not sure what to say.

I'll add, though, that if they were asking for a change in the Lebanese political process such that the government be chosen in a rational manner (e.g., one person one vote), I'd be all for that (provided the resulting government controlled all of Lebanon, including the areas now controlled by Hezbollah rather than the government).

Posted by Al | December 3, 2006 12:12 PM

I don't know how to tell you this, Al, but it means the exact same goddamn thing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 12:34 PM

P.S. anyone who *hearts* Israel has a set of balls sized 18-pounder cannonshot or ideological blinders straight out of 1984 to cry for lack of Lebanese sovereignty.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 12:36 PM

...they're asking for more power for them and their Iranian and Syrian patrons, period. If you can't see the difference between that and asking for a free vote without Syrian domination - what the Cedar Revolution was about - I'm not sure what to say.

I'll add, though, that if they were asking for a change in the Lebanese political process such that the government be chosen in a rational manner (e.g., one person one vote), I'd be all for that...

Whenever I hear people like Al talking about their deep concern for the people of Lebanon, it always reminds me of this dude:

The continued presence of the Syrian regime's forces in Lebanon has turned into a factor dividing the country, spreading sedition among its people, and preventing them through force and terrorism from reaching reconciliation and accord...

The first urgent step is for the Arab states to assume through the Arab League the responsibility of enabling the Lebanese people to choose a new president for the republic in a free manner and away from the means of terrorism, pressure and extortion to impose a president on this country without the consent of its people and through a suspect agreement with a foreign state...

The way these people care about Lebanon just brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Posted by Jon | December 3, 2006 12:40 PM

Hal, your personal interrelation with the news events undermines your thinking. No one cares whether your leftist credentials are airtight: we're, like ############, looking for consistency about the rules of any given game.

M. Yglesias is demonstrating the obviously selective and biased nature of our support for "reform" in Lebanon. Given two examples of the exact same socio-political behavior - massive street protests - the example of our "friends" is glorified, and the other example is ignored or villified.

This sort of focus on friends and enemies over consistent standards is the bane of our foreign policy everywhere. As others have noted, the Cedar Revolution was one of the best things about 2005, and Bush cooperated in f***ing it up. The collapse of Siniora was an inevitable consequence of the Israeli annihilation of the South Shia infrastructure - and the Siniora government sat on its hands during that. Their credibility is terminally flawed.

Posted by glasnost | December 3, 2006 1:18 PM

I don't give a wet fart about the Sinora government. It's in no way "democracy", and it owes far more to "patrons" than Hizbollah ever dreamed of having.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 1:39 PM

Got that, Hal?

No one here gives a shit about your Lebanese sister-in-law.

This is a game, and if you're inconsistent about abiding by the rules of callous discourse, why then you have nothing of merit to say.

Posted by no one | December 3, 2006 1:43 PM

"They're not asking for a count of the hanging chads, they're asking for more power for them and their Iranian and Syrian patrons, period. If you can't see the difference between that and asking for a free vote without Syrian domination - what the Cedar Revolution was about - I'm not sure what to say."

Al, please go and learn something -- anything -- about politics in Lebanon before posting in this thread again. This post is completely pulled out of your ass and does not live up to your usual shrewd level of trollery.

Start with: the Shi'a do want a free vote, because they would win. Every side in Lebanon has foreign "patrons", and they better, so as to protect them from the foreign patrons of the other side.

Posted by MQ | December 3, 2006 4:37 PM

Oh, for fucks sake.

ack. fucked that up

A couple Sabra and Chatilla type incidents [Shia?] would end all this uppity, thinking they can have a say in the manner in which their affairs are managed?

a big ass sneer at that

the exact same goddamn thing.

anyone who *hearts* Israel has a set of balls sized 18-pounder cannonshot

I don't give a wet fart

Yes Ed, we get the point. You're tough, no two ways about it. You have no time for namby-pamby liberals who might worry about eggs and omelets. You're a working-class guy who brooks no nonsense. No beating around the bush [!], no sirree. America needs you, Ed. If that job in Wisconsin doesn't pan out (you have the right haircut, don't you?), try the marines: Matt has the details.

Posted by Favorite Son | December 3, 2006 5:55 PM

did sum1 ask for protest babe in hezbollah rally? : http://www.tayyar.org/galleries/displayimage.php?album=885&pos=168

Posted by steven b | December 5, 2006 8:45 PM