WCCR: “Lebanon in danger of being classified a terrorist nation”
Posted by editor-at-large on 29 November 2008 at 6:28 pm UTC
No one can travel to Lebanon nor establish relationships with the Lebanese people—there and here in the states—without falling in love with that country. And no military commander, planner, or analyst in 2008 can consider Lebanon without appreciating the strategic significance of the country as a critical front – which cannot for any sound justification be sacrificed – in the overall war on terror.
But that is exactly what we – meaning the United States and Europe – are allowing to happen.
As I’ve been writing for the past several days – actually for more than a year – we are losing the Lebanese front. In fact, the front may already be lost.
Yesterday, Joseph P. Baini, president of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution (Lebanon’s largest pro-democracy movement, which continues to be a majority in that country), stated in a letter to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora that what may be considered a loss, actually represents something much darker for Lebanon.
“Lebanon is in danger of being classified as a terrorist nation,” Baini writes.
At the heart of Baini’s letter are the recent military and political gains made by the Lebanon-based, Iranian-Syrian sponsored terrorist group, Hizballah, as well as Hizballah’s increasing influence in both Lebanese and international media (I’ve been writing about Hizballah’s media influence for months and much of that analysis may be accessed here, here, and here.).
As an example, Baini points to the German government’s blocking of the reception of Hizballah’s satellite television network, “Al-Manar,” on Nov. 21, 2008.
No problem. Right? The U.S., France, and other sovereign states have also blocked terrorist TV, as they have a right to do, and I would argue an obligation from the standpoint of national security.
According to an article in Variety magazine:
“The [European Foundation for Democracy] said Al-Manar is used by Hizballah to recruit terrorists and communicate with sleeper cells around the globe, and it urged all European countries to ban the web.
“‘The German government has taken an important step in contributing to European efforts to counter the spread of radicalization and violent ideologies,’ said EFD exec director Robert Bonazzi.”
Problem is, Hizballah – hellbent on exporting its Islamist radicalism worldwide – is not content with Germany’s decision. It’s not enough that Hizballah control all of previously sovereign Lebanon. These birds – who burned property; seized major roads, villages and districts of cities; murdered innocent civilians; and generally shot Lebanon to pieces because they could not have their way in May 2008; are now demanding that Al Manar NOT be banned in a country that should have no connection to them whatsoever.
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “Lebanese Information Minister Tarek Mitri phoned Al-Manar director-general Abdallah Kassir to say that the German measure against the channel was strange and unacceptable and was not in line with the freedom of expression believed to be an evident right in democratic societies.”
Folks, have you seen the violent vitriol Al Manar spews?
According to Baini’s letter, “The free world is today hailing the German government for its courageous action in banning the telecast of Al Manar … However, there appears to be a good deal of pressure being brought to bear by Hizballah and their affiliated members of the Lebanese parliament, upon the Lebanese government to take a position pressuring the German government to withdraw the ban.”
The letter also mentions Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman’s planned visit to Germany in a few days, and adds “It is also common knowledge that the president is a strong supporter of Hizballah.”
An article published in today’s Alseyassah (Al-Siyassa), a Kuwait-based newspaper, says (translated and paraphrased):
- The Lebanese government must remain on the side of free world, not on the side of terrorists.
- The Lebanese government should not interfere in the national security of any nation.
- The Lebanese government may make itself liable if it pressures any foreign government in this manner, especially if a terrorist attack takes place in that country.
- If the Lebanese government pressures Germany in this way, might Germany pull its troops out of UNIFIL and might other western nations (France, Italy, Spain) do likewise in support of Germany?
By the way, Sleiman just signed a new Defense pact with Iran (I write about that here), Hizballah’s primary benefactor, after spending time in Iran this week. And Sleiman’s newly dubbed commander of the Lebanese Army, General Jean Kahwaji, is currently in Damascus schmoozing with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib. Syria, by the way, has long provided operational support to Hizballah and many other terrorist organizations.
If these actions alone aren’t leading Lebanon down the path of being designated a “state sponsor of terrorism,” as Baini suggests, I’m not sure what is?
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Lebanon and Iran—the Insanity Continues
Posted by editor-at-large on 28 November 2008 at 2:37 pm UTC
With the exception of the Jihadi terrorist attacks in India, the most recent heartbreakingly predictable development in our ongoing war against Islamist terror is the West’s loss of the Lebanese front: A loss we’ve seen coming for months, despite the fact that a majority of the Lebanese people want freedom in that country.
The West’s loss was capped this week by the signing of a five-year defense pact between Lebanon and Iran, which will – among other yet to be disclosed particulars – supply Lebanon with weapons.
Iran already funds the Lebanese-based Shia terrorist group, Hizballah, with an estimated one-billion dollars annually. And Hizballah – which our own Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team” – turned its illegal (according to UN mandate) weapons on the Lebanese state in May 2008.
Hizballah, which rules a radical Shia kingdom inside the sovereign state of Lebanon (similar to how the Taliban is set-up in Afghanistan), has gained tremendous power and political leverage since May.
Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman – who I warned for over a year was pro-Syrian, pro-Hizballah, now we see pro-Iranian (I know this man, spent time with him, his intelligence chief, and many of his top generals in Lebanon) – has sold his country, and completely duped America and the West.
- For Heaven’s sake, we still continue to send $ millions in military aid to Lebanon’s armed forces and national police.
- Our own government praised the insane May 2008 Qatar deal that rewarded Hizballah for its attacks against the Lebanese government and citizenry.
- Sleiman – then commander-in-chief of an army which he refused to commit against Hizballah – was dubbed president thanks to the Qatar deal (and the U.S. government oddly praised that dubbing).
- Iran and Hizballah continue to undermine our efforts and their coordinated efforts have killed untold numbers of American and British soldiers in Iraq.
- Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to salivate over the prospect of “a world minus America.”
- Now Sleiman and Ahmadinejad have signed a defense pact.
Yet we are praising and supporting Sleiman? We are sending his army cash?
Folks, this is not rocket science (pardon the cliché). Something is seriously broken in terms of our foreign policy and our ability to prosecute the war on terror.
We are in denial about our enemy and his motivations, and he is coming after us … and making gains everyday.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Lebanon’s Sleiman schmoozing with Ahmadinejad
Posted by editor-at-large on 25 November 2008 at 11:47 pm UTC
 |
||
| [Sleiman and Ahmadinejad] |
Following a recent lecture I gave to a group of extremely bright, young U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officer candidates, I was asked why the Shia terrorist group Hizballah—being the global threat it is—rarely headlines any major daily newspaper in the mainstream media.
It was an excellent question, one I am often asked, and one which I am unable to adequately answer: After all, Hizballah is perhaps the most dangerous terrorist army in the world. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff once said, Hizballah “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.”
So why isn’t wartime America being adequately informed and educated in this regard?
I won’t begin to guess beyond the insanity of political correctness or who knows what. But I will say that this lack of information has served as an enabler of Hizballah and its Iranian-Syrian overlords. It has bought time for the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis. It has seriously undermined the majority pro-democracy movement in Lebanon (including the brave resistance against Hizballah), and it has utterly failed the American taxpayer.
Case in point, the recent granting of tens-of-millions of dollars (on top of hundreds-of-millions over several years) worth of U.S. military aid to Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman’s army: an army that Sleiman has refused to commit to action against Iranian-Syrian-supported Hizballah, even when Hizballah was killing Lebanese civilians during a series of axis-engineered attacks against the Lebanese government in May 2008.
Sleiman, then-commander of the armed forces (and with some strong personal connections to terrorist-sponsoring Syria), was quickly dubbed president when a deal was cut by the Arab League to persuade Hizballah to stop killing albeit temporarily.
The most bizarre thing of it all was that Sleiman’s ascension to the presidential palace was praised by our own State Department, and the U.S. government even upped the money.
Then lo’ and behold, we learned that the money was going to an army (already Hizballah-infiltrated) that now officially considered Hizballah a legitimate arm of the Lebanese Defense apparatus.
Was the American taxpayer aware of this? Nope. But he continued to pay for it.
Now comes the latest looniness: Weeks after Sleiman – still accepting our money and during a grand American tour in which he was graciously entertained by the White House – began criticizing our defensive raid from Iraq into Syria, this man has again slapped us in the face.
This week, Sleiman is in Iran embracing and generally palling around with Mahmoud Wipe-Israel-off-the-face-of-the-Earth Ahmadinejad, the president of Hizballah’s primary benefactor.
According to Naharnet: “‘We are grateful that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always stood by the Lebanese people and government,’ IRNA [the Iranian News Agency] quoted Sleiman as saying.”
The Gulf Times reports: “A Lebanese government official said on Sunday that talks with Iranian officials will include efforts to forge a ‘national defense strategy’ for Lebanon, where Hizbullah’s arsenal remains a thorny issue.“
And the Lebanon Daily Star reports: “The London-based Arab daily Al-Hayat said in its Sunday edition that Tehran was planning on providing the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with heavy weapons, including missiles.”
Yet we’re still sending Sleiman’s army millions of dollars.
The American people are still clueless.
The future military leaders of America are still asking “why?”
And frankly I still don’t have an answer.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Hizballah Calls for Referendum on its Weapons
Posted by editor-at-large on 15 November 2008 at 3:19 am UTC
By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
[Dr. Walid Phares]
Hizballah, the Iranian-Syrian-backed Shia terrorist organization – perhaps the best-organized, most heavily-financed, most-dangerous organization on the U.S. State Department’s designated terrorist list – has called for a national referendum on whether-or-not the issue of its weapons-possession in Lebanon should be accepted or rejected by the Lebanese people.
Until May of 2008 – when Hizballah and its allies launched a series of armed attacks against the government and the Lebanese citizenry – it was widely accepted that the pro-democracy majority in Lebanon supported the United Nations’ call for Hizballah to disarm along with all other militias in Lebanon.
But the sudden, unprecedented call for a referendum this week suggests the terrorist group – emboldened by its political, military, and geostrategic gains since May – believes it has forcibly intimidated the Lebanese people to the point that the majority is no longer capable of standing up for true democracy. And a referendum in favor of Hizballah’s weapons might forever quash international demands for Hizballah to disarm.
The issuance of such a call is a clear expression of Hizballah’s confidence in its ability to advance its control of Lebanon. It’s also a huge gamble for the terrorist organization.
Why take the risk? We asked Professor Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (and a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels).
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Why would Hizballah call for a referendum when they know that the pro-democracy movement (which is a majority) in Lebanon is against Hizballah having weapons?
DR. WALID PHARES: We have to understand the geopolitics of Lebanon have dramatically changed since last May. Any analysis of Hizballah’s positions and initiatives today must be developed based on the new factor in the equation, which is that Hizballah’s control of Lebanon’s national security. Hence, when Hizballah’s leaders offer to submit their weapons-possession to a referendum it means they have insured a military-protected control mechanism over the political process in the country. They can determine the answer to the referendum, which negates the validity of the referendum.
Yes, it is true that on March 14, 2005, one-and-a-half million Lebanese from all religious and ethnic sectors marched against the Syrian occupation and terrorist militias. But that clear cut popular majority has since been undermined, intimidated, and essentially defeated over the past three years. The assassinations of representatives of the Cedars Revolution such as Parliamentarian Gibran Tueni, the attempt to kill outspoken journalists such as May Chidiac, and the militia invasion of Beirut and the Chouf districts in May are all evidence that Lebanon today lives under terror and needs significant help from the international community so that its people can exercise free popular referendums.
Ironically, I had suggested via Arab satellite TV three years ago, that the Lebanese people be allowed to decide on the weapons of Hizballah, in other words should an armed militia be permitted to exist outside the Lebanese Army. At that time and since then, no one from Hizballah or even the March 14 coalition considered the initiative. Obviously, at the time it wasn’t in Hizballah’s interest to accept a referendum knowing that an overwhelming majority of citizens would vote “no.” But after three years – and particularly since May 2008 – it appears as if they feel confident they can get a majority of Lebanese to agree to their keeping these weapons. Since they have the upper hand in the country militarily, they believe they can pull it off. As for March 14 and the Lebanese government: both have had multiple opportunities to have the UN by their side helping them implement UNSCR 1559. Unfortunately, they hesitated and lost that opportunity. In short, Hizballah’s call today for a referendum means they are close to transforming Lebanon into another Iran or Venezuela.
SMITH: Agreed. But why risk it? Hizballah already holds all the cards, so why try for a different hand?
DR. PHARES: Hizballah is taking full advantage of the post-May era in Lebanon since seizing power; first on the ground in Beirut, then when its military role was recognized at the Doha Conference. And as the United States was preoccupied with its presidential campaigns and election, the Iranian-backed Hizballah moved forward to consolidate its gains and achieve as many small victories on the ground and in the government in order to insure its influence over more than a third of the cabinet and then enjoying the fact the new president of Lebanon would not – and will not – move against the group.
Now, with the election of a new U.S. president, the impression of the Iranian leaders is that they may have some time where diplomatic engagement may occur. Hence, the mood in Hizballah’s camp is that the time is ripe to further consolidate their grip over Lebanon and thus completely bypass UN resolutions by calling for a referendum over their weapons, and win it easily. Is it a risk? Unless the other side and the international community seize the opportunity and corner Hizballah, it won’t be a risk.
SMITH: So do you believe that accepting the suggestion of Hizballah regarding a weapons referendum should be considered?
DR. PHARES: Yes, but only if there is smart, strong Lebanese leadership able to turn the initiative in the right direction. Because, after all, there is a real popular-majority in Lebanon, which is opposed to the armed militias, particularly to the pro-Iranian forces. This is a fact that has not changed.
In fact, according to the information I have, the anti-Hizballah majority has grown wider among the masses within the various communities: not the other way around. If the leaders of the Cedars Revolution are politically intelligent they would accept Hizballah’s proposal and take the challenge all the way. If they recollect themselves and think strategically, they can pull a massive victory with democratic means.
SMITH: What if a majority voted “yes” for Hizballah’s weapons? Would that not be another victory for Hizballah?
DR. PHARES: Knowing the real aspirations of the public, I would accept that risk.
First, the advantage would be that Hizballah would have moved the legitimacy of their weapons from the divine level to the citizens’ level. That alone is significant.
Second, if the Lebanese are provided with all international mechanisms to express themselves freely, they will surprise Hizballah as well as their own elected representatives. The question is to enable the Lebanese to express themselves freely.
Even in the absence of the implementation of UNSCR 1559, a mechanism is possible to organize a real referendum. I’d say, it is feasible and has high chances for success. The question again is about the ability of Lebanese politicians to focus and act strategically, and not sink or be maneuvered into the narrowness which has led to so many setbacks to democracy in that unlucky country.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
A demand that Syria deliver terror suspects to the Hague for questioning
Posted by editor-at-large on 9 November 2008 at 4:05 pm UTC
In message addressed to the office of the United Nations Secretary General for Legal Affairs, the senior official of the International Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559 called on the UN “to put its hand on the so-called affair of the terrorist group Fatah al Islam.”
In the unedited statement, Tom Harb, secretary general of “Committee 1559,” says:
“In view of the fact that the Syrian regime has made allegations that it has arrested a number of members of terrorist group Fatah al Islam and displayed them on Syrian state TV;“In view of the fact that this group is responsible for the killing of Lebanese military and civilians;
“In view of the fact that this group operates in Lebanon and in Syria and that it crosses the borders back and forth, in full violation of UNSCR 1701 and in view of the fact that it is an armed group operating on Lebanese territory against the will of the Lebanese Government and in violation of UNSCR 1559;
“Therefore we are asking the office of the Secretary General to instruct the Syrian regime to transfer the custody of the so-called suspects to the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague.
“Furthermore we ask the United Nations to summon the Syrian officers who claimed arresting the terrorists to make their depositions in front of international investigators.
“For Committee 1559, based on statements made by Lebanese officials and public figures themselves targeted by the Syrian intelligence, and based on expert reports concluding that the Syrian regime is behind these terrorist conspiracies, urges the United Nations to seize this opportunity and turn the claims of the Assad regime to be investigated by the International Tribunal. For if the Assad regime has been a suspect in the Terror assassination of Rafiq Hariri and many Lebanese politicians over the past four years at least, hence its latest move if anything is an additional suspect maneuver which deserves international scrutiny.”
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.
Legendary Marine Col. John W. Ripley passes on
Posted by editor-at-large on 2 November 2008 at 4:35 pm UTC
By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
COL. JOHN W. RIPLEY, U.S. MARINE CORPS (ret.), recipient of the Navy Cross and for years one of my personal heroes, has passed away.
Ripley, 69, was awarded the Navy Cross – the nation’s second-highest award for valor in combat – for single-handedly blowing up the Dong Ha Bridge in Vietnam, thus blunting the North Vietnamese Army’s Easter Offensive on April 2, 1972.
The enemy was attacking in great strength – huge numbers of infantry, tanks, artillery – and Ripley’s little force was ordered to “hold and die.”
Dying would be easy. But the only way to hold was to blow the bridge spanning the Dong Ha River. And, as Ripley said, he was “the Marine there to do it.”
Then a 33-year-old captain, Ripley accomplished his task by dangling from the bridge’s I-beams, climbing along the length of the bridge hand-over-hand, his body weighted down with explosives, the enemy shooting at him, desperately trying to kill the lone Marine hanging beneath the bridge.
In a June 2008 interview for Marine Corps Times, Ripley said “I had to swing like a trapeze artist in a circus and leap over the other I-beam. … I would work myself into the steel. I used my teeth to crimp the detonator and thus pinch it into place on the fuse. I crimped it with my teeth while the detonator was halfway down my throat.”
Ripley set the charges and moved back to the friendly side of the river, all the while under heavy fire.
When the timed-fuses detonated, Ripley – running for his life on the road leading away from the bridge – was literally blown through the air by the massive shockwave he had engineered. The next thing he remembered, he was lying on his back as huge pieces of the bridge were hurtling and cartwheeling across the sky above him.
In an interview for Americans at War (U.S. Naval Institute), Ripley said, “The idea that I would be able to even finish the job before the enemy got me was ludicrous. When you know you’re not gonna make it, a wonderful thing happens: You stop being cluttered by the feeling that you’re going to save your butt.”
A Virginia native, Ripley served in the Marine Corps for 35 years: He commanded three Marine infantry platoons (one rifle, one weapons, one reconnaissance), three rifle companies, a British Royal Marine Commando company (which operated alongside Gurkha infantry in Malaya), a U.S. Marine rifle battalion and a Marine infantry regiment. He also held a variety of other posts from professor to university president. He directed the Marine Corps’ History and Museums Division. He testified before Congress on the dynamics and rigors of combat. And a Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan was named for him.
In addition to being one of the Corps greatest heroes and a legend among midshipmen at Annapolis (his alma mater), this year Ripley became the first Marine inducted into the U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame.
Incidentally, a signed copy of Col. Charles H. Waterhouse’s painting depicting Ripley’s exploits at the Dong Ha Bridge hangs in my office as a reminder that – as we read in Philippians – “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” And I will forever cherish Ripley’s comments about my own work (here).
Considering the lives saved and the superhuman feat performed under intense enemy fire at Dong Ha, I believe Col. Ripley’s Navy Cross should have been – and should be – upgraded to the Medal of Honor.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.
Archives:
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. : 'Strategic Interests'
The Battle for Libya: Implications for Africa
[03 Mar 11]
Walid Phares, Ph.D.
Assad's Taqiyya Against His People
[22 Apr 11]
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
Whither Palestine?
[17 Jun 11]
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
'Beyond the DropZone'
Intelligence and Analysis