There Goes Democratic Peace Theory
Democratic Israel attacks Protest-Babeocracy Lebanon. Or, if you prefer, Protest-Babeocratic Lebanon allows a local militia to attack democratic Israel. Mitigating circumstance: so far the Lebanese cabinet – protest babes all – declares “Hey, we got nothing to do with it.”
I won’t mention the ongoing hostilities between democratic Israel and the democratic Palestinian Authority, which doesn’t count because . . . well, it just doesn’t.
Everyone’s worried about a wider war right now, though I’d place odds against it. Israel is the preeminent military power in the region; the Syrian and Lebanese governments will eat plenty of poop before they’ll reach the point where they figure honor demands a suicide charge. Despite all the blather one hears about Israel being threatened with annihilation, it far outclasses the rest of the region’s militaries.
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 12, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
”Democratic Israel attacks Protest-Babeocracy Lebanon.”
Not to get all tetchy on you, but who was it who actually attacked versus who counter-attacked, here?
Comment by Nell —
July 12, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
And because Iran hasn’t toed the line by responding to the group of six’s proposal within ”weeks, not months”, they’re going back to the Security Council. Guess they’ve checked off that ’negotiations’ box, now we’re just counting down to another war. I really do have suicidal moments these days.
Comment by Heffalump —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:15 am
Not to get all tetchy on you, but who was it who actually attacked versus who counter-attacked, here?
Contra the New Republic, Hezbollah is not in fact the same entity as Lebanon.
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:53 am
”Contra the New Republic, Hezbollah is not in fact the same entity as Lebanon.”
No, it’s just a key part of the government. Dunno what TNR has to do with that. Or with who attacked whom. It’s not as if Israel spontaneously thought, hmm, nice day to attack Lebanon for no reason.
Comment by Heffalump —
July 13, 2006 @ 4:15 am
”No, it’s just a key part of the government.”
And as such it has separate political leadership than its guerilla component, which launched the actual attack. Neither of these groups are the same as the government of the state of Lebanon, which the Olmert government has accused of waging war on Israel. Olmert has, once again, deliberately conflated a neighboring government with a militant group over which it has little to no control.
A more circumspect and, let’s face it, rational government would be doing precisely the opposite: trying to separate its attack on the militant group from any wider war on the country itself, especially given Israel’s disastrous history with invasions and occupations of Arab nations. Olmert is framing this as a war between Israel and Lebanon, which is a dangerous, irresponsible and rather deranged escalation from what should be an anti-guerilla operation.
Comment by ajay —
July 13, 2006 @ 5:36 am
Heffalump: ”it has separate political leadership than its guerilla component, which launched the actual attack.”
Really? So Hezbollah the guerrilla movement is completely separate from Hezbollah the political party, and the two of them act completely independently of each other? That must get frightfully confusing. Surely some sort of trade description litigation is called for.
Or, more briefly: what a load of rubbish.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 13, 2006 @ 6:32 am
Gary, there’s actually a second sentence to the post. Even more sentences after that, actually, but it’s the second one that’s relevant to your query.
Ajay: Yes. The political leadership of Hezbollah and its military wing are surely intertwined. I think that Heffalump has a point that neither are The Official Government of Lebanon though. Not that that settles the matter. Great Britain threatened war with the US in the 1860s over raids into Canada by Irish partisans based in the Northeastern US.
Comment by Heffalump —
July 13, 2006 @ 7:09 am
Ajay, where did I say the military wing was ”completely separate”?
Comment by Avram —
July 13, 2006 @ 11:17 am
Jim, does it matter any that neither Lebanon nor the Palestinian Authority do a good job of maintaining the state’s traditional monopoly on violence? (I think Lebanon has an oligopoly, while the Palestinains may be well on the way to a free market approach.)
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 13, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Matter for Democratic Peace Theory you mean? Maybe, though at a certain point I start to think DPT folks are satisficing – i.e. if there’s a war one ”discovers” that one of the parties is disqualified from democratic status.
In the case of Gaza front, it’s obvious to me that the Hamas guys running the government and the Hamas guys seizing prisoners in cross-”border” raids work together, making it a pretty clear case of a democratically-elected government initiating military operations against another one.
Meanwhile, the Lebanon incursion is another nail in the coffin of ”McDonald’s Peace Theory.” Mr Google assures me there’s a Mickey D’s in Beirut.
Comment by Ben —
July 13, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Heya, faithful reader checking in from the aforelinked Daily Star offices in Beirut (just a lowly intern, here for the summer).
On the topic of Israel’s relative military strength, a personal anecdote: yesterday, visiting a friend, I walked past a military post with a bunch of HMMWVs and APCs in a parking lot. I noticed that the door on one of the APCs, the big one that swings down to disgorge any troops inside, had a lot of camoflage paint chipping off and that, underneath, the door itself was wood. Yeah, wood. I did a double-take. So I think we can all safely assume that Israel isn’t going to be pushed out by the awesome might of the Lebanese Mechanized Infantry, at least.
Comment by Avram —
July 13, 2006 @ 11:50 am
It’s not democratic status I was wondering about, but nation/state status. Though I’m still bringing myself up to speed on Lebanese history and politics.
I see that in The World is Flat Friedman has shifted from McDonalds to Dell Computers. He should just pick Apple and see if Steve Jobs’s Reality Distortion Field is up to handling things.
Comment by Avram —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Oh, Wikipedia does have everything, including a list of countries with McDonalds franchises. Includes India, Pakistan, and Guantanamo Bay. And apparently there’s no McD’s in the Holy See, so don’t piss His Holiness off.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
I think that the DPT was shot to hell sometime in mid-March, 2003.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
There are a bunch of Mickey D’s in Beirut. Part of the duties of the Mighty Lebanese Army is to defend them. (No shit. There are a couple Lebanese soldiers permanently stationed on duty outside each pair of golden arches in Beirut.)
Comment by Barry —
July 13, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Comment by Avram —
”Jim, does it matter any that neither Lebanon nor the Palestinian Authority do a good job of maintaining the state’s traditional monopoly on violence? (I think Lebanon has an oligopoly, while the Palestinains may be well on the way to a free market approach.) ”
In the case of the PA, it seems that Israel doesn’t want a functioning state; a disfunctional state serves its interest much better.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 13, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
Hey Ben: Keep your head down. Here’s hoping you come through this unscarred and unmarred. Is your crazy boss going to write something for Reason? Is any opinion matter on the topic in the Daily Star his work?
Comment by IOZ —
July 13, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Of course, en Allemagne the dauphin was asked to comment on the current (new) hostilities, and he gave them the ol’ googly-eyed “Lebawhat?†before trundling over to Syria, which he roundly condemned. Meanwhile in Lebanon (I think that will be the title of my thriller, if I ever write a thriller) Israeli airstrikes have destroyed at least one bridge named after Rafik Harriri, whose much bewailed passing has passed, in this country anyway. Drudge has the item about the kidnapped soldiers being shuttled over to Iran, and thus to an underground chamber where President Ahmenijad shall force them to read Hutton Gibson’s Did Six Million Really Die, which “makes some good points.†Gallows humor I know, but I’m afraid I’ll be counted as a casualty of the WOT if I die laughing.
Comment by diana —
July 13, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
Well, it’s still true that no country with a Starbucks has ever attacked another country with a Starbucks. I think.
Israel has no Starbucks.
Comment by Ben —
July 14, 2006 @ 10:09 am
”Israel has no Starbucks.”
Really? Beirut has at least three. I’m actually living above one of those McDonald’s, and I rarely see Army guys hanging out in front of it. It’s right across from the American University of Beirut, so maybe they think it’s already covered, security-wise.
If anyone’s interested in lengthier expositions of life in Beirut these past couple days, I’m posting updates over at http://sipasa.typepad.com/switchboard/ with pics.
Jim – thanks for the good word. I’m playing it safe, certainly, though I expect to be here for the duration. As for the editorials, yeah, my boss writes them. I’ll mention the Reason idea.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
July 14, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
It’s possible they reassigned the army guys in the last year or so.
Comment by Diana —
July 14, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Nope, no Starbucks, another Israeli cultural oddity*. They tried one in a trendy section of Tel Aviv, thinking it would be a sure winner, and it was a floperoo.
This is all an evil Zionist Jewish plot to befuddle the world that Jews do not, actually, rule the world, and stick together No Matter What.
Conventional armies, I realize, are ineffective instruments with which to crush guerrilla bands, but for the record, this was an unprovoked, outrageous assault, and someone should pay. I hope the Israelis abduct and kill Nasrallah in the most brutal way possible.
There I said it, and I don’t regret my words.