New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 16, 2005

An erstwhile apologist for Syria's Baathist regime appears to be abandoning ship; Michael Young says "come on in, the water's fine!"

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Stately, Plump Tim Cavanaugh... | Main | Europe's Next Step. →

See all 11 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.16.05 @ 3:55PM|#

Michael Young, describing Flynt Leverett's article:

"While they were demanding freedom, Leverett was whispering that it was better to allow the Syrians to remain in Lebanon so American "sticks" could be wielded against them there."

From Leverett's article:

"...it should be possible to win the redeployment of the last Syrian troops in Lebanese cities either to Syria or to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, in accordance with the 1989 Taif accord that ended Lebanon's civil war. Mr. Assad's recent statements make clear that it should also be possible to induce the Lebanese and Syrian governments to negotiate a timetable for withdrawing all Syrian forces."

First the Bekaa Valley, then off to Syria. Why does that sound familiar?

The fact that Leverett didn't buy into your little Damascus regime change fantasies doesn't make him pro-Baathist. It makes him reality-based.

So how's that pro-Western, democratic government in Lebanon coming? Is Hezbollah the declining, obsolete power you assured us they would be? How'd the "pro-Westerners" do in the last round of elections, anyway?

|6.16.05 @ 4:03PM|#

There was Levantine subtlety here, but in so many words Seale was admitting to Syrian involvement in the murder, even as he carefully stitched it all together with a conditional while putting it into France's mouth.

Wow, what kind of nonsese is this? I guess your obsession with Syria makes such leap possible. The recent success of Hezbollah in the ongoing election must be messing with your head.

|6.16.05 @ 4:42PM|#

a,

Aoun's recent success in the third round was perhaps a setback for the Jumblatt-Hariri crowd, but given that he and his FPM are Christians, how do you figure it's a victory for Hezbollah?

This isn't US politics, remember. There's a C and D to add to that A and B.

|6.16.05 @ 4:53PM|#

chthus,

If I understand this all correctly, there were regional elections a few weeks ago in the southern, Shiite districts that Hezbollah won handily. In the most recent elections, Gen. Aoun's party, which seems to be a nationalist Maronine party, handily defeated a liberal, westernizing party that featured Hariri's son.

Mike H.|6.16.05 @ 5:17PM|#

The bitterness is strong with the one known as "joe."

|6.16.05 @ 9:43PM|#

how do you figure it's a victory for Hezbollah?

hezbollah's list won all seats in southern Lebanon and in Bekaa Valley (33 seats). They control more seats than they used to. I suspect they would have one more if seats were not divided between different sects and religious groups.

Aoun wasn't competing against Hezbollah. The parliament seats (128) are divided evenly between christians and muslims. Aoun was running against other christians (the anti-syrian crowd).

You would think that Michael would aknowledge the facts on the ground instead of his obsession with Assad and Syria.

|6.17.05 @ 12:03AM|#

The Hariri-Jumblatt crew was the big winner in the first round, Hezbollah was the big winner in the second, and Aoun's FPM was the (surprising) big winner in the third. In the fourth, Aoun and H-J are leading the polls and, until we see otherwise, are likely to be on top. This would appear to indicate that while Aoun FPM is the biggest winner, Hezbollah will have to cut a deal with some one to wield a resonable amount of political power.

Couple this with Aoun's statements yesterday about disarming Hezbollah (by means of dialogue) and his apparent intent to unseat Lahoud, and I'd say Aoun's FPM is the big winner with Hezbollah pulling in third. Granted, Aoun could align with hez to offset the H-J, but given his looming ouster of the pro-Syrian Lahoud, I don't see how this adds up to a "success of Hezbollah."

|6.17.05 @ 5:45PM|#

chthus,

In a country where the politics are de jure and de facto split up along sectarian lines, Hezbollah competes with Amal for the Shiite faction of the vote.

The Maronites, Shittes, and Sunnis will always engage in an elaborate pluralist three way. Hezbollah just established itself, solidly, as the representative of the Shiite faction - sort of like the DUP just did in Northern Ireland, by winning a bunch of seats from the other party that competes for the Protestant vote, the UUP.

|6.17.05 @ 6:21PM|#

Mike H,

I admit it, it pisses me off to be lied to. It insults my intelligence. Espeically when it's done to drum up support for somebody's political cause.

|6.17.05 @ 6:32PM|#

BTW, Michael are you still holding on to your under the ground (tunnel) bomb in Hariri's assasination?

From the daily star (that you write for):

An international commission investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri insisted the explosion which killed him was "was beyond any reasonable doubt above ground." German Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, who is leading the United Nations probe into Hariri's death, said there was a "99.9 percent probability" that the bomb exploded above ground.

|6.17.05 @ 8:26PM|#

...which proves nothing, btw. Al Qaeda is perfectly capable of a complicated operation like burying a bomb in the road. Syrian intel. is perfectly capable of arranging for a car bomb.

So much sound and fury, signifying nothing. That was a bizarre episode.