“That country can’t be held together permanently by American forces, and we should just accept that and create a workable partition agreement.”

I have no idea why you seem to consider that the easy way out.

Frankly, I don’t see the existing Arab-dominated nation states east of Suez as viable national entities in the long run. There is no ethnic or historical rationale for their existence, and now that their war with Israel is largely over (they have delegated that purpose to the Palestinians, who are now the designated cannon fodder), they will all crumble into constituent and rival parts. The Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq may or may not reconcile, but the Kurds do not want to be part of an Arab-dominated state, and nothing will change that. That country can’t be held together permanently by American forces, and we should just accept that and create a workable partition agreement. Same in Lebanon. Someday Saudi Arabia will end up in the same pit and will probably require the same solution, ditto for Syria.

Nation-building takes centuries, and the Arabs have not produced one viable nation state ever, except possibly Egypt. The replacement of secular Arab nationalism with Islamism has sealed the fate of these states, and there’s no return. There’s no new Middle East, as Shimon Peres foolishly used to state. There’s only the same recalcitrant tribes that there always were, including the Jews.

It ceased to exist as a country before, when it was first torn apart by civil war,
and then became Syria’s colony.

Compared to those times, it has revived as a country, though imperfectly. Its
continued revival depends on how much the West will do to contain Iran and Syria, and to help Lebanon itself.

“just as Iraq more or less has”

But “more or less?” is one crucial question here ; and the direction of change is another.
Under Saddam, Iraq was the despot’s property, rather than a real nation.
Now it is gradually building a national identity, on more or less constitutional lines,
though with some ad hoc improvisation; a real Sunni-Shia cooperation is emerging at last.
The direction has been up from Saddam - it is now up from civil war.
If these trends hold, then Iraq will succeed as a country; the greatest danger is
for it to be torn apart by an Iranian-Arab war in the wake of an American withdrawal.

go to page 58

Most arab opinion is siding with neither side, and between the two, hezbollah has more support.

Don’t confuse arab opinion with what arab governments think.

The army is lousy with Syrian sympathizers. It was reconstituted by the Syrians during the occupation after all.

Siniora uses a select outfit for his security but otherwise doesn’t trust them.

Of course, the fact that the Lebanese Army looks like it’s sitting this one out, just as they sat out the war between Hezbullah and Israel in 2006, tells us in a nutshell what is terminally wrong with Lebanon. The purpose of a national army is to defend the country and defends its borders. If a neighboring country invades yours (even in retaliation to a nongovernmental militia), it seems to me the duty of the army is to fight the invader. The Lebanese army proclaimed solidarity with Hezbollah in 2006, and then didn’t fire a shot.

Now, we have a situation where this same militia is challenging the Lebanese government itself, and once again, the army sits on its hands. Why does the army even exist, please tell me? Why does the Lebanese government even exist, since it doesn’t run the country.

Soon, Lebanon will cease to exist as country, just as Iraq more or less has. What Arab country will be next on the disintegration list?

Yep. Every Arab government in the world except Syria’s supports Lebanon against Hezbollah. Maybe the newspapers could point that out once in a while.

At least they don’t say “the Israeli-backed government.”

but are they willing to fight and sacrifice as much as hezballah and do they have a chance against iran and syria?

only the answer to that question will count.

oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

It’s getting worse by the hour…