by Elliot Abrams
cooperation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese army may be increasing. In this context, should U.S. aid to the LAF continue?
Should
the United States be giving military assistance to the Lebanese Armed
Forces (LAF)? According to the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon (speaking
last summer), "In this year alone we provided over $221 million in
equipment and training to the Lebanese security forces." That number
presumably includes aid to Lebanon's police and Internal Security
Forces, but given the small size of the country, it is a hefty sum.
Lebanon is a friendly
country, an American ally against jihadi groups like al-Qaida and ISIS,
and a sort of democracy. But it is also the home of the terrorist group
Hezbollah, which largely dominates its politics and makes its
democracy a sometime thing. It's fair to say that nothing happens in
Lebanon without Hezbollah's approval, no matter how elections turn
out.
Lebanon's new president
is legitimizing Hezbollah's military role -- which is independent from
control by the Lebanese state (despite repeated U.N. Security Council
resolutions demanding that there be no militias in Lebanon outside
state control). The collaboration between Hezbollah and the LAF may be
growing: A Times of Israel article on February 12 about the
Lebanon/Israel border area said, "On the Israeli side, officials are
following, almost in astonishment, the deepening cooperation between
the Lebanese army and Hezbollah." Lebanese President Michel Aoun
responded by saying of Hezbollah, "As long as the Lebanese army is not
strong enough to battle Israel ... we feel the need for its existence."
When Israel's U.N. envoy wrote to the U.N. Security Council about
Hezbollah violations of resolutions concerning Lebanon, the response
from Aoun's office was, "Any attempt to hurt Lebanese sovereignty or
expose the Lebanese to danger will find the appropriate response."
So, Aoun appears to be
defining Hezbollah's interests as Lebanon's interests, and defining
Hezbollah not as a militia whose existence clearly violates U.N.
Security Council resolutions but rather as a necessary defense against
Israel. In fact, he said more: that Hezbollah is needed to "battle"
Israel.
Such rhetoric may be
dismissed as a price the Christian president must pay, if it is only
rhetoric. More dangerous is the news that cooperation between Hezbollah
and the Lebanese army may be increasing. In this context, should U.S.
aid to the LAF continue? I find it a difficult question. Stopping the
aid might only further weaken the LAF, which is not under Hezbollah
command -- though it certainly refuses to confront the terrorist group.
The commander of the LAF is always a Christian and the chief of staff
is always a Druze, and the Global Security website suggests that Shia
Lebanese "comprise 25% of the enlisted ranks. At the same time, the
army was able to bring the Christians to 25% and the Sunni/Druze
component to 50% of the enlisted ranks." It can be argued that weakening
the LAF could further weaken non-Hezbollah influence in Lebanon.
If it is true that
LAF-Hezbollah cooperation is increasing, the United States should demand
that this trend be halted and reversed. It is one thing for the LAF to
refuse to confront Hezbollah, and quite another to assist it in any
way. Our aid should give us the leverage to achieve that much. My own
bottom line for now is that we should not end aid to the LAF, but
should make it very clear that this aid is in danger. Lebanese officials
must come to realize that even if the withholding of aid weakens the
LAF, that's the inevitable outcome unless they keep further away from
Hezbollah than current trends appear to suggest.
Elliot Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams' blog "Pressure Points."
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=18483
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment