L.A. Times Editorials Right On Lebanon, Not Iraq

The L.A. Times has a commendable editorial on Lebanon today, pointing out in blunt language that the Syrian regime of the thug Bashar Assad is trying to overthrow the democracy there with what appears to be a campaign of assassinations and general destabilization. If successful, this would put Iranian power on the Mediterranean, because Syria is the handmaiden of Iran.

What the Times does not recognize is that its advocacy of a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would create a devastating situation for the U.S. and the West throughout the Middle East. Not only Lebanon would be lost to the terrorists but very possibly Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. This could leave a weakened Israel, perhaps more prone to use its nuclear weapons as a last resort to protect itself.

The ugly truth is that without a continuation of the American effort in Iraq, attempts to keep the Iranian, al-Qaeda and other assorted Muslim crazies at bay throughout the region are bound to fail. That is a bitter truth the liberals in Washington are not yet accepting.

The Times editorial this morning preachs gloom as to Lebanon, but does fall a little short in not recognizing that in recent months the U.S. and the West have been having some limited successes there, despite Syria's aggression against the country.

The Lebanese regime of Fuad Siniora has, with Western and Saudi military help, proved more resilient than could have been expected from its weak position last summer in the Israeli-Hezbollah war. A stronger Lebanese army has been able to defend the Siniora government. Recently, it has had considerable success crushing an al-Qaeda ally in the north of Lebanon, Fatah al-Islam. Meanwhile, Hezbollah attempts to unseat the government on behalf of Syria and Iran have for the most part been stymied, if only narrowly.

The Times editorial, however, is quite right in pointing to the assassinations of three members of Parliament as threatening the government majority, and it is not naive when it says, "There can be no benign interpretation of the latest assassinations."

The editorial also adds, "The international community ought to have been jolted out of its passivity by the car-bombing last week that killed six U.N. peacekeepers -- three Spaniards and three Colombians -- in southern Lebanon. Syria condemned the bombing, but it was widely interpreted as yet another warning to the United Nations not to proceed with the tribunal looking into the (Rafik) Hariri assassination if it does not wish to see Lebanon further destabilized.,,Assad has signaled that keeping the tribuinal from indicting senior Syrians is a critical, perhaps even existential priority."

What does the Times mean? It means that if the tribunal goes forward, if the Siniora government with Western help survives, ultimately it will be the end of the Assad regime and a better chance for a Middle East settlement. There can be little doubt that it was Assad who gave the order for the Hariri and other assassinations in Lebanon, and any complete criminal investigation is sure to show this.

The situation in Lebanon, in addition, has bearing on the situation in the Palestinian territories, where the terrorist Hamas organization now is threatening the follow its Gaza seizure with rebellion against the weak Fatah government of Mahmound Abbas in the West Bank.

Indeed, all these situations, including the one in Iraq, are linked. A U.S. retreat in Iraq, which the Times has called for without thinking through the consequences, would doom the chances of holding off the terrorists not only there but in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and whereever there are moderate Muslims trying to defeat Iran and Al-Qaeda.

That is why we cannot and must not bug out of Iraq, no matter how discouraged many Americans are at the moment.

--

The immigration bill died in the Senate this morning with another decisive vote against cloture. There were many things wrong with the bill backed by the Bush Administration and a majority but not all Democrats. Basically, it would have encouraged further massive illegal immigration while setting up a cumbersome bureaucratic procedure for legalizing the 12 million illegals already here. It was not, in short, a workable package.

The Administration should now strengthen border protections against more aliens. As for reform, forget it until after the 2008 election.

You might refer to my June 15 blog on the immigration bill. There was no real point in Mr. Bush, increasingly a lame duck president, and the inept Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, even bringing up the bill again. It was doomed two weeks ago by the first cloture vote. Today's vote showed only one more vote for cloture, and it is clear there is no majority in the Senate or the House for the kind of package that was proposed.

The L.A. Times story this morning, by Nicole Gaouette and Noam Levey, failed to correctly guage what was going to happen. The days when the newspaper had Congressional correspondents like the late John Averill and Paul Houston, who almost invariably knew what was going to happen in advance, is unfortunately long past. By contrast, the New York Times stories by Carl Hulse and Robert Pear much more accurately presaged Thursday's outcome.

Megan Stack Distinguishes Herself With Lebanese Coverage

--Written from San Carlos, California

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm a booster of the L.A. Times foreign coverage and that I feel it is integral to the successful future of the newspaper.

Take the situation now in Lebanon, where Times coverage by the correspondent based there, Megan Stack, has been positively distinguished.

In a difficult and highly important series of developments, Stack, who is now a seasoned Middle East reporter, has vastly outshone the New York Times reporter, Michael Slackman.

Her recent report that the United Arab Emirates had financed the establishment of an 11,000-man militia to defend the pro-Western regime of Premier Fouad Siniora is something Slackman has still not matched. Yet it explains why the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah organization has not simply been able to push over Siniora and install Iranian power on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

Today, it's reported that Hezbollah has backed down and agreed to a compromise.

Lebanon is a vital locale of the struggle between the U.S. and other Western countries with Iran and Syria. It is an asset to all Times readers that the newspaper has such a skillful and enterprising reporter in Beirut.

Quite aside from all her talents, this is, quite frankly, a dangerous assignment. We are all greatly indebted to her for her outstanding work.

A Major Demonstration Of Antipathy To Syria, Iran And Hezbollah In Lebanon

They came by the hundreds of thousands today to Martyr's Square in Beirut to mourn the assassinated cabinet minister, Pierre Gemayel, and express their angry determination for a Lebanon free of the malevolent influences of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.

It was not only the Maronite Christians who came. They were joined by the Druse, by Sunni Muslims, and even visitors such as the French foreign minister to show they are committed not to give Lebanon over to the barbaric Islamic fundamentalists and aggressive outside countries.

At a time when there are many "experts" insisting that the U.S. and other Western countries negotiate with the thuggish Syrian president, Bashar Assad,and the fanatic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this was a powerful demonstration that in one of the countries they are trying to take over, there is great popular resistance to accommodating those responsible for repeated murders of popular leaders. There have been six assassinations, probably sponsored by Assad, of Lebanese political figures since the former premier, Rafik Hariri, was gunned down 21 months ago.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the running dog for Syria and Iran, is openly seeking the destruction of the regime of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, whose government is backed by the United States, France, Germany and other countries.

Even the often dovish New York Times editorializes today, "The United States and the international community must now rally to support Prime Minister Siniora -- with cash, security advisers, and anything that might help him and his government survive." But, in the lead story in the Los Angeles Times, the frequently wimpy reporter, Paul Richter, in this instance, as in so many others, is ready to throw in the towel, proclaiming that the whole situation is another instance of American impotence.

What is to be gained by talking with the Syrians and Iranians? Probably, for the moment, nothing. It is always conceivable that at some point the outflow of hundreds of thousands of refugees from beleaguered Iraq will sufficiently alarm Syria and Iran that they will become more reasonable. At present, however, they continue their efforts to destroy the moderate Lebanese government.

Also, a lengthy Time magazine report this week lists important arms deliveries by Syria and Iran to Somalia, where Islamic fundamentalists have taken over and now conspire to spread war all over the Horn of Africa, attacking such U.S. allies as Ethiopia and Kenya. Somalian troops have also gone to Syria to train.

It is reminiscent in a way of Churchill's warning, in his speech on the Munich Agreement of 1938 that led to the dismemberment of the Czechoslovak government and the absorption of the Czechs and Slovaks into Nazi Germany the following year.

On Oct. 5, 1938, Churchill stood in the House of Commons and declared, "There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi Power, that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That Power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy."

We see the same kind of aggression against Lebanon and in the Horn of Africa today, a continuation of a foul effort to turn small countries into bases of attack for extremists. It is time that we rally against them, not appease them.