Political spin masters in Lebanon have been trying in recent days to explain the results of a pivotal special election last Sunday, which saw a relative unknown from the opposition narrowly beat a former president, Amin Gemayel.
There has been talk of the Christian vote and the Armenian vote, of history and betrayal. One explanation, however, that all agree on proved crucial in this race: Gemayel’s support by the Bush administration, and the implied agendas behind such support, seem to have helped doom him.
“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al- Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East – promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West – is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
But more important, U.S. support is often applied to one faction instead of institutions, causing further division rather than bringing about stability.
“In 1958, when the U.S. interfered militarily in Lebanon, it said it was to help Lebanon regain stability,” speaking of President Dwight Eisenhower’s decision to deploy 14,000 troops in Lebanon to help stabilize the government of Camille Chamoun and prevent the united Syrian and Egyptian governments from destabilizing the country.
“Shehab was soon after elected…and no one protested their presence here; a few months later they withdrew.”
In 1982 the Americans “interfered militarily again and it ended in a disaster,” Nicola Nassif said. “They supported Israel and Gemayel against the Palestinians, who were supported by Lebanese parties. Since then, every time the Americans interfere, it ends in a war or in their expulsion.”
We got to watch Bush do it all over, again, with the 2005 elections in Iran. The moderate and progressive factions appeared to be headed for increases all over the nation. Then, Bush ran his mouth about – striking a blow for “democracy and freedom” – how Iranians should stop Ahmadinejad from being elected.
We got the predictable result.
Sounds like a handy tool for the future manipulation of nations. Now let’s get a President that’s smart enough to use it.
From where?
John,
I love your take on technology. I follow Cranky Geeks and the other podcasts that you participate in…
…But I’m moving my bookmark for your blog from my technology folder to politics. Unfortunately, you aren’t nearly as well-informed and witty about politics as you are technology. Instead of providing analysis, your response in this article is a luke warm bitchfest. your It’s your blog, but I wish you’d play from your strengths.
James
err “Sounds like a handy tool for the future manipulation of nations”
Don’t know if your kidding or not but isn’t “manipulation of nations” or the attempt of, the cause of the backlash to begin with?
#3 – The rest of us did that years ago.
#4 – Do you really think we’re ever going to stop fucking with other nations? C’mon…
Dave
As JCD replied to me when I first started coming here.
Learn how a blog works before making rash judgment about him.
Apparently it WASN’T him being the dirty old man and posting all the girly pics. Who da thunk it.
In soccer people call this to score in your own net and not in the opponent’s.
James
No, I don’t think it will stop.
Hmmmm reminds me of the definition of insanity.
What’s wrong with manipulating other nations? What else are they for?
If George wants to be your friend just say Nope. Its safer.
A discussion on Lebanese politics, this comment section should be full of insightful comments.
“We got to watch Bush do it all over, again, with the 2005 elections in Iran. The moderate and progressive factions appeared to be headed for increases all over the nation. Then, Bush ran his mouth about – striking a blow for “democracy and freedom” – how Iranians should stop Ahmadinejad from being elected.”
Nice rhetoric, but unfortunately the theory fails to properly address the facts and opinion polls conducted in the Islamic Republic. The success of Ahmadinejad is widely accredited towards his ability to clamp down on local corruption during his stint as mayor of Tehran. The voters thought, mistakenly in retrospect, that he could translate his anti-corruption powers to the national level; however, he failed in doing so. Another point to repudiate your casual relationship theory is that President Bush continued to take a hard line stance on Iran during December of 2006 when the election for the Assembly of Experts took place. The supporters of the current Iranian President took a tremendous loss, and most analysts of the Islamic Republic predict similar trends when the next general election kicks off (http://tinyurl.com/3yqcgc).
Remember correlation does not mean causality.
#3, Dave – I appreciate your technical acumen. Too bad your ability to read doesn’t match. There are a number of contributors to DU – identified by a note just below the headline.
Though I rarely comment after Posting, your ignorance prompts a brief note: I’ve been personally involved in Iranian politics since the days of the Mossadegh government – overthrown by American-funded gangsters. In my immediate family, I’m not alone in that experience. There also are those who worked equitably and fairly on behalf of American corporations in Iran. We share the same respect for the Iranian people even when our politics differ.
We were watching the news after supper the day that Bush offered up his sage advice – and turned to each other, simply to acknowledge, “that was the end of the battle for democracy, against theocracy, for now!” Exactly what came to pass.
Iranians, like many in the Middle East, are a proud nation. As the article illustrated,, they throughly resent Ugly Americans prating support for one or another reactionary political faction. That’s what “Ugly American” means, dude.
Just as true in Lebanon [a French creation] and many other nations.
Try to read beyond the narrow rationales [see #11] of twerps who are happy with excuses instead of understanding – when our government maintains and expands policies which have failed ever since we took over Middle Eastern colonialism from the Brits and the French.
Worth noting, as well, that the article proferred – was by Hassan Fattah – well respected for more than the 16 years spent writing for the IHT. I presume Eideard chose it because he felt it worthy of discussion if not agreement.
Remember “discussion”?
Twerp? You really know how to hurt a guy.
For a more “broader” perspective I would suggest, to everyone, to head over to CSIS (http://tinyurl.com/2evql8) where a three person panel discusses the latest polling data from Iran. The panelists do a very good job of placing the results in a contextual form. The discussion is an hour and a half but the event is worth the time.
Sadly, neither the poll nor the Panel suggested by alphabet soup deals with the topic of Fattah’s article. Or should that be “predictably”?
bush has got no one but himself to blame for becoming so unpopular and ineffectual in the places that i truly believe he want to help
the problem bush created for himself is his “for us or against us” dogma which puts anyone who remotely opposes him in the enemy camp — which is actually appropriate in a lot of cases, but not all.
but bush is now a prisoner of the hard-line he drew — he left himself no flexibility, he can only play the role of bully, if he plays diplomatic, his own people will eat him alive for being soft
if he plays diplomatic, his own people will eat him alive for being soft
Plus no one will believe him or trust him. Stupid monkey.
I think this says far more about the stupidity of middle east voters than Bush. Who cares who Bush likes? Who cares who the US supports? Vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job.
When I was faced with voting for Bush or that other bozo back in 2003, did I give any consideration to what Iran, Germany, China, or any other nation thought of the candidates? No. Not one bit.
It seems to me that the Lebanese are willing to sell out their our country just cause they hate Israel. Thinking like that explains why they are such a dysfunctional country now.
And regarding the naive posters who thing that the US should take the high-road and not “interfere” in other counties. Yes, that would be nice if we lived on such a planet. We could all sit around and hold hands and sing Kumbiya. The cold hard reality is that there are other nations and political movements that wish to take over countries for their own exploitation. Sitting at home doing nothing only makes things worse. If we had done that, then the world would be Nazi or hard-core communist right now.
Do you really think that Russia, Cuba, Islamic nutters, Chavez, and others are going to follow the US “example” and not try to influence other nations? Do you really think they won’t try to destabilize things? Uh, no.
Distasteful as it is, we have to pro actively protect our interests overseas. The only question is the skill in which this is done, which in our current administration, leaves a lot to be desired.
#11, mxpwr03
When are you going to start posting your own ideas and stop posting other’s? Chicken hawks are good at that.
#16, grog,
While am one of Bushes biggest critics, the Ugly American would have reared its head even if Kerry was in office. Past interference in too many local political arenas have given America a reputation it will take years of hard work to erase. Clinton tried and was making great strides, but the little trust he garnered was pushed back by Bush.
Second to this is America’s support for Israel. The Lebanese remember Israel’s indiscriminate bombings and invasions. Any support by Israel or an Israeli supporter is not a good thing in countries surrounding Israel.
#18, Ron,
Who cares who the US supports? Vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job.
And that is the issue. They feel that anyone allied with the US is not a friend of Lebanon. Their best candidate is for Lebanon first.
… The cold hard reality is that there are other nations and political movements that wish to take over countries for their own exploitation.
Which is why this policy is called The Ugly American. It would take a long time to come up with all the leaders and government overthrown or imposed by Americans since WW II. A short list.
Afghanistan,
Argentina,
Chile,
Columbia,
Costa Rica,
Cuba,
El Salvador,
Greece,
Guatemala,
Honduras,
Haiti,
Iran,
Iraq,
Grenada, Panama,
South Korea,
Venezuela,
Viet Nam,
West Germany,
Most of these countries had governments imposed that were more friendly to US interests, not necessarily the local interests.
you forgot..
MOSt of micronesia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia
We input our OWN leaders into most of these islands AFTER WWII…
And you REALLy dont want to know each rulers history…I can Guarantee MOst of it has been BLOODY..
#18 You are the sort of ignorant American that the rest of the world mistakes average Americans for. We have people like you to thank for the rest of the worlds enduring hate.
Pro actively protecting our interests amounts to invading sovereign nations because they MIGHT be thinking about exercising said soverignty.
Extending your logic I should shoot anyone who looks at me funny while I’m checking out his girl’s boobs cuz he might stop me when I move in to cop a feel.
Do you actually believe the rhetoric you type? If so Rob Larson you are one scary man.
#18, Ron,
When I was faced with voting for Bush or that other bozo back in 2003, did I give any consideration to what Iran, Germany, China, or any other nation thought of the candidates? No. Not one bit.
I didn’t know we could vote for Bush in 2003. I remember some Presidential elections in November of 2000 and again in 2004, but not 2003. Yup, I missed that one.
#18
“Sitting at home doing nothing only makes things worse. If we had done that, then the world would be Nazi or hard-core communist right now.”
Do you mean influence like in talk, debate, convince, etc, or do you mean convince like in invade, build military bases, install friendly puppet regime?
Nations rarely (never?) “influence” other nations for altruistic reasons. It’s (almost?) always selfish.
If you perceive a problem emerging in another country, alert the UN, talk it over with other UN members, agree that something should/shouldn’t be done about it, agree on the kind of measures that need to be taken, carry out those measures. Oh, and incidentally, going through the UN will actually involve talking to the country you want to “influence” – which may be a good thing.
The way the UN is perceived by the US administration is at most as a discussion forum without any real power. This is of course true – check out how many UN resolutions the US has vetoed since WWII.
OK, this is obviously a utopia, but it’s something to strive for.
You guys are missing the obvious: There will always be groups that hate the big fish, and we’re the big fish. We can use this to our advantage if (and in a few years, when) we know what we’re doing.
#23
For those too lazy to search, here is a link of US vetoes since 1972:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
Oh yeah, during this time USSR/Russia has used its veto TWICE.
#25 – There’s a whole lot of anti-US and anti-Israel measures in that list. Who else would you like to do the vetoing, comrade?
Perhaps this was all part of the plan. Open support from the US prevents a pro-US candidate from being elected, which prevents peace with israel, and gives her an excuse to reinvade.
>>I didn’t know we could vote for Bush in 2003.
You must not have had access to the special Diebold/ Cheney electronic voting machines.
#27 Of course there were a lot of “anti-US-Israel” resolutions. I’m sorry, but a lot of the world isn’t as aggressive and right-wing as those two countries. Or should I say, the US and it’s large middle-eastern military base.
I’m seen as a moderate in most of Europe. In the US I’m seen as a left-wing nutter, in danger of sliding off the political map.
Maybe he was participating in the Ames straw poll.