Pierre (grandfather) founder of Phalange
Bachir (son) assassinated President
Amin (son) succeeded his brother as President
Pierre (son of Amin, nephew of Bachir, grandson of Pierre)
Formed in 1936 as a Maronite paramilitary youth organization by Pierre Jumayyil (who modeled it on the fascist organizations he had observed while in Berlin as an Olympic athlete), the Phalange, or Phalanxes (Kataib in Arabic), was authoritarian and very centralized, and its leader was all powerful.
...
Consistent with its authoritarian beginnings, Phalangist ideology has been on the right of the political spectrum. Although it has embraced the need to "modernize," it has always favored the preservation of the sectarian status quo. The Phalange Party motto is "God, the Fatherland, and the Family," and its doctrine emphasizes a free economy and private initiative.
And I saw a photo the other day of a Phalangist youth group visiting Hariri's grave, and they were usuing the Roman salute, which sure didn't look very good.
Gemayel, a Maronite Catholic, was educated at Jesuit schools. He went on to study Pharmacology at the French Faculty of Medicine in Beirut, where he later opened a pharmacy. He also took an interest in sport, and led Lebanon's team at the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin, where he observed the organization of Germany's Nazi Party. He admired the formidable and efficient organization, and on his return to Lebanon later that year, he founded the Kataeb Party and organized it with a similar structure.
The quid pro quo for Syria joining the coalition against Iraq in 1991 was acceptance of Syria's continued hegemony over Lebanon. Beware large coalitions. The 1991 Gulf War was badly done, mainly because of our diplomats.
A nice espresso? Some simple Folgers? Either way, coffee is a blessing.
"Beware large coalitions. The 1991 Gulf War was badly done, mainly because of our diplomats."
The Iraq venture was doomed the very moment we failed to create such a coalition and went ahead without one. And the administration was warned so at the time. Another major blunder.
...and, in case you can't locate those comments, or have forgotten them, here is the text of diplomat John Brady Kiesling's resignation letter to Colin Powell at the time of the invasion of Iraq. Excerpts include:
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. ... After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
Coalitions server purposes and if they are contrary to the national interests then they are unwarranted. Coalitions also carry their own baggage that can run contrary to other needs.
The reasons for failure or success in Gulf War II have little to do with coalitions or the reasons they are needed. I has more to do with Sunni/Shite inability to get along in Iraq (and that includes the oppresion of the Shites by Sunnis under Saddam).
It is clear however that our coalitions in Gulf War I heavily influenced the goals of that war. There was heavy pressure by our "allies" not to deal with Saddam decisively. One of the results of that coalition was the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia which eventually lead to being one of the main reasons for 9/11. There were other consequences such as the Iraqi sanctions which inevitably lead to corruption and a intensified conflict.
History shows that embargos usually lead to increased hostilities even when justified. Pearl harbor was the direct result of a US oil embargo on Japan. Again an embargo justified by Japanese actions in China but none the less leading to increased hostilities.
Look for the same if we embargo Iran. It's not a step on the road to peace.
In this case the Iraqi blockaid resulting from the first coalition ended up tarnishing us unjustifiably with the blood of Iraqi children, plus supporting Saddams totalitarian grip on his nation. By controlling the trade going into and out of the country we help a dictator in precisely an activity that is in his interests. It adds to the resources he has for keeping an economic finger on his populous.
In addition it give him political capital because it becomes a visible example of us vs. them and also a blamepoint. Just divert oil money away from medicine in a back handed way and then point to the visible sanctions as the true culprit. Mind you such sanctions do have true costs to the general populous but are easily made worse.
..and, in case you can't locate those comments, or have forgotten them, here is the text of diplomat John Brady Kiesling's resignation letter to Colin Powell at the time of the invasion of Iraq.
Yes, that was very well-written but, you know, vague.
Which exact "diplomatic bridges" would have been handy in corralling Iran?
France? China? Russia?
France is in Lebanon now, and they're not doing a whole lot of good. Russia and China aren't on our side, but that bridge was burned way before Iraq. So, who are you referring to?
I believe that the intent of the sanctions was to provide incentive for regime change by the Iraqi people (or the Iraqi military, more like) rather than punishing Iraq. But your point stands.
Yes, that was very well-written but, you know, vague.
I didn't see any vague part. He predicted exactly what would happen, and it has happened. The US has lost its ability to lead in the world as no one wants to be part of a fiasco like Iraq. Bbecause the US told most of the world that it was irrelevant, the rest of the world has gone and formed its own alliances that have left the US out in the cold. You didn't want allies, and now you don't have any to help stop bad shit from happening.
So, who are you referring to?
I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in my ability to explain it to you any further.
"The reasons for failure or success in Gulf War II have little to do with coalitions or the reasons they are needed. I has more to do with Sunni/Shite inability to get along in Iraq (and that includes the oppresion of the Shites by Sunnis under Saddam)."
Nonsense. Without the moral high ground of being part of a united effort, especially under the pretext that we were acting on UN resolutions, we became an aggressor and occupier. That, in turn, severely limited our options in the post-occupation environment in dealing with everything from limiting lawlessness and weapons proliferation to being seen as an honest broker between the Sunni and the Shiites.
Without the moral high ground of being part of a united effort, especially under the pretext that we were acting on UN resolutions, we became an aggressor and occupier.
I partially disagree. I think going in without a coalition, or at least deciding no to go in if a coalition could not be built, has had some serious repercussions (well, more than serious), but the appearance of being an aggressor had little to do with the failure.
I agree that having a broader coalition would have resulted in more personnel and, possibly more important, more oversight and a greater level of expertise in regime change. Part of the cause of failure may have been a significant level of corruption and a lot of political appointments to positions that needed competence rather than connections.
The US has lost its ability to lead in the world as no one wants to be part of a fiasco like Iraq. Bbecause the US told most of the world that it was irrelevant, the rest of the world has gone and formed its own alliances that have left the US out in the cold. You didn't want allies, and now you don't have any to help stop bad shit from happening.
According to your logic, the rest of the world is now willing to let Iran develop nukes and possibly start WWIII just to spite big, bad daddy USA.
I don't have much respect for the world's politicians, but I don't think they're that irresponsible.
This is the kind of silly reasoning that occurs when people depend on a centralized parental unit (the USA, the UN) to solve all of their problems. If the USA's solutions don't make you happy, maybe Canada can come up with a few solutions. You can do it, you're grownups too.
According to your logic, the rest of the world is now willing to let Iran develop nukes and possibly start WWIII just to spite big, bad daddy USA.
That would be the voices that you're hearing in your head. Don't listen to them, they lie to you. Instead, read the words that *I* wrote. Ignore the temptation to make up silly lies about what I said. Silly lies that you make up are easier to argue with, but those arguments are less productive in the long run.
"...but the appearance of being an aggressor had little to do with the failure."
Do you think that the Iraqis would have been more receptive to an international coalition shelling Fallujah? Or that al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, or the militias would have been more accepting of occupation by Canadian, German, and French troops?
You mean these ones? According to your logic, the rest of the world is now willing to let Iran develop nukes and possibly start WWIII just to spite big, bad daddy USA.
Oh wait, that's what you wrote. Perhaps you could point me to the part where I say "just to spite big, bad daddy USA." I imagine that they would have been spoken in a petulant whine. Fortunately, I didn't say anything even close to your parody.
"Do you think that the Iraqis would have been more receptive to an international coalition shelling Fallujah? Or that al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, or the militias would have been more accepting of occupation by Canadian, German, and French troops?"
I guess I come at it from the opposite direction. Every scenario I can paint in my head – their aren’t many (I know, small canvas) – that doesn’t lead to Iraq flying apart from sectarian tensions relies on (at least the perception of) an honest broker leading the process. Considering the history, I could never see a way that the US and Great Britain, could play that role, practically alone. And I mean a coalition much bigger than one simply including Canada, France and Germany and that with such a coalition “shelling Fallujah” would have been unnecessary (assuming that you weren't being facetious).
Perhaps shelling Fallujah would not have been necessary, but I suspect that with as many competing political and ethnic forces at play, there would have been resistance no matter how broad the coalition. The coalition in Ethiopia was fairly broad, yet it too was attacked by groups opposed to their mission, whether they were there as an aggressor or not. The same would have eventually resulted in Iraq, whether at Fallujah or elsewhere.
Regarding the honest broker - that's the part that I agreed with, not the part I was objecting to. The management of this venture has been terrible. But I still doubt that this could have ever worked, there were simply too many groups that had a reason to sabotage the process, and the process was vulnerable to anyone sabotaging it.
"But I still doubt that this could have ever worked, there were simply too many groups that had a reason to sabotage the process, and the process was vulnerable to anyone sabotaging it."
Even under the best of circumstances, I sure wouldn't bet anything I cared about losing against your doubts. Like I said, coming from the other direction, the only hope we ever had was to create something apparently noble to try to reduce some of the incentive (and motive) for sabotage.
You didn't want allies, and now you don't have any to help stop bad shit from happening.
That could best be said with a petulant whine.
In any case, I asked you which nations, if we were allied with them, could effectively help us deal with Iran. If you can't think of any, feel free to admit it.
Me: You didn't want allies, and now you don't have any to help stop bad shit from happening.
Mary: That could best be said with a petulant whine.
That had nothing to do with "big, bad daddy USA" or "spite". That part you not only made up, you got it wrong.
One has allies in order to achieve one's goals. Those goals may be in common with the allies, or the allies may help achieve those goals by pursuing their own goals. The US was previously in the enviable position of being the last remaining superpower with a significant network of historical allies that largely composed of some of the most powerful wealthy industrialized nations on Earth.
When the US gave those nations the finger in 2002 and 2003, and effectively said that they were not interested in the views of those allies and would pursue US goals to maintain military and political supremacy until the end of time regardless of the costs, those alliances were severely compromised, and a significant loss of leadership and influence has resulted. As a byproduct of that loss of global influence, many nations are now seeking alliances with each other without regard to either the global community or the US.
Partly as a result of a breakdown in the unipolar model of world politics and a move to an unpredictable multipolar one, there is a great deal of uncertainty, especially among smaller nations. That is possibly why there are now at least six countries, in addition to North Korea and Iran, that are currently developing nuclear programs. Expect many, many more in the near future.
Now, I understand that this is an inconvenient view for you, and you will probably not want to either agree with it or give it much credence. I would ask, however, that you refrain from making up shit that I did not say.
In any case, I asked you which nations, if we were allied with them, could effectively help us deal with Iran. If you can't think of any, feel free to admit it.
You bet, there are several nations that, if the US enjoyed its previous leadership role, that would be in a position to help. Russia. China. Germany. France. Italy. India. Turkey. Pakistan.
All of these nations have significant economic ties with Iran, and several have close diplomatic ties. Do you think that any are about to go out on a limb to meet American foreign policy goals?
All of these nations have significant economic ties with Iran, and several have close diplomatic ties. Do you think that any are about to go out on a limb to meet American foreign policy goals?
They never did in the past, no reason why they should start now. Alliances aren't like friendships, they're useful when they're convenient for both parties.
Nations don't go out on a limb because they love us dearly. Of course you'll disagree, but you still seem to be anthropomorphizing inanimate land masses. France was never our bestest friend.
However, nations will go out on a limb to meet their own foreign policy goals. If they think Iran is a threat to them, they'll do something about it. They'll even ally with us, if they have to.
Really? I know that they kinda suck now but they gave us a hand or two in our fight for independence. Plus, they gave us that really cool statue in NY harbor.
When the US gave those nations the finger in 2002 and 2003, and effectively said that they were not interested in the views of those allies and would pursue US goals to maintain military and political supremacy until the end of time regardless of the costs, those alliances were severely compromised, and a significant loss of leadership and influence has resulted.
So, you think France and China and all are p.o.'d at us 'cause we flipped them off, and then you're appalled when I note that yours is not really a dispassionate, pragmatic analysis of foreign policy. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Really? I know that they kinda suck now but they gave us a hand or two in our fight for independence. Plus, they gave us that really cool statue in NY harbor.
The French loved us when we were beating up the British. They hate the British and the English language with a passion.
French foreign policy goals are mostly obsessed with language and culture. The French supported the violent Hutu and their massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda because the Hutu were mostly French-speakers. The Tutsis spoke mostly English.
If we wanted to turn the French against the Islamists, we wouldn't point out that the Islamists are a bunch of fascists who kill innocent civilians - we would point out that the Islamists are trying to force former French-speakers to use only Arabic.
P.S. When Pierre's brother Amin was assassinated in '82, days before his inauguration as President, the country quickly slid into chaos.
Hope this doesn't happen again.
P.P.S. How long before the Arab street blames this on Israel?
To review:
Pierre (grandfather) founder of Phalange
Bachir (son) assassinated President
Amin (son) succeeded his brother as President
Pierre (son of Amin, nephew of Bachir, grandson of Pierre)
Sorry about that.
Carry on.
Your = You're
You need more coffee!
Now where's the goddam coffee?
A nice espresso? Some simple Folgers? Either way, coffee is a blessing.
Yours,
Wince
And the small-coalition 2003 Iraq war has been a ringing success. Huzzah.
Not.
The Iraq venture was doomed the very moment we failed to create such a coalition and went ahead without one. And the administration was warned so at the time. Another major blunder.
That also burned more than a few diplomatic bridges, ones that would have been handy in corralling Iran.
Which bridges are you referring to?
The reasons for failure or success in Gulf War II have little to do with coalitions or the reasons they are needed. I has more to do with Sunni/Shite inability to get along in Iraq (and that includes the oppresion of the Shites by Sunnis under Saddam).
It is clear however that our coalitions in Gulf War I heavily influenced the goals of that war. There was heavy pressure by our "allies" not to deal with Saddam decisively. One of the results of that coalition was the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia which eventually lead to being one of the main reasons for 9/11. There were other consequences such as the Iraqi sanctions which inevitably lead to corruption and a intensified conflict.
History shows that embargos usually lead to increased hostilities even when justified. Pearl harbor was the direct result of a US oil embargo on Japan. Again an embargo justified by Japanese actions in China but none the less leading to increased hostilities.
Look for the same if we embargo Iran. It's not a step on the road to peace.
In this case the Iraqi blockaid resulting from the first coalition ended up tarnishing us unjustifiably with the blood of Iraqi children, plus supporting Saddams totalitarian grip on his nation. By controlling the trade going into and out of the country we help a dictator in precisely an activity that is in his interests. It adds to the resources he has for keeping an economic finger on his populous.
In addition it give him political capital because it becomes a visible example of us vs. them and also a blamepoint. Just divert oil money away from medicine in a back handed way and then point to the visible sanctions as the true culprit. Mind you such sanctions do have true costs to the general populous but are easily made worse.
Yes, that was very well-written but, you know, vague.
Which exact "diplomatic bridges" would have been handy in corralling Iran?
France? China? Russia?
France is in Lebanon now, and they're not doing a whole lot of good. Russia and China aren't on our side, but that bridge was burned way before Iraq. So, who are you referring to?
Sometimes you just can't get what you want.
I didn't see any vague part. He predicted exactly what would happen, and it has happened. The US has lost its ability to lead in the world as no one wants to be part of a fiasco like Iraq. Bbecause the US told most of the world that it was irrelevant, the rest of the world has gone and formed its own alliances that have left the US out in the cold. You didn't want allies, and now you don't have any to help stop bad shit from happening.
So, who are you referring to?
I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in my ability to explain it to you any further.
Nonsense. Without the moral high ground of being part of a united effort, especially under the pretext that we were acting on UN resolutions, we became an aggressor and occupier. That, in turn, severely limited our options in the post-occupation environment in dealing with everything from limiting lawlessness and weapons proliferation to being seen as an honest broker between the Sunni and the Shiites.
I partially disagree. I think going in without a coalition, or at least deciding no to go in if a coalition could not be built, has had some serious repercussions (well, more than serious), but the appearance of being an aggressor had little to do with the failure.
I agree that having a broader coalition would have resulted in more personnel and, possibly more important, more oversight and a greater level of expertise in regime change. Part of the cause of failure may have been a significant level of corruption and a lot of political appointments to positions that needed competence rather than connections.
Really. I'm speechless [*audible applause*].
According to your logic, the rest of the world is now willing to let Iran develop nukes and possibly start WWIII just to spite big, bad daddy USA.
I don't have much respect for the world's politicians, but I don't think they're that irresponsible.
This is the kind of silly reasoning that occurs when people depend on a centralized parental unit (the USA, the UN) to solve all of their problems. If the USA's solutions don't make you happy, maybe Canada can come up with a few solutions. You can do it, you're grownups too.
That would be the voices that you're hearing in your head. Don't listen to them, they lie to you. Instead, read the words that *I* wrote. Ignore the temptation to make up silly lies about what I said. Silly lies that you make up are easier to argue with, but those arguments are less productive in the long run.
Do you think that the Iraqis would have been more receptive to an international coalition shelling Fallujah? Or that al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, or the militias would have been more accepting of occupation by Canadian, German, and French troops?
Why?
Why don't you read the words that *you* wrote.
You mean these ones? According to your logic, the rest of the world is now willing to let Iran develop nukes and possibly start WWIII just to spite big, bad daddy USA.
I did.
I guess I come at it from the opposite direction. Every scenario I can paint in my head – their aren’t many (I know, small canvas) – that doesn’t lead to Iraq flying apart from sectarian tensions relies on (at least the perception of) an honest broker leading the process. Considering the history, I could never see a way that the US and Great Britain, could play that role, practically alone. And I mean a coalition much bigger than one simply including Canada, France and Germany and that with such a coalition “shelling Fallujah” would have been unnecessary (assuming that you weren't being facetious).
Regarding the honest broker - that's the part that I agreed with, not the part I was objecting to. The management of this venture has been terrible. But I still doubt that this could have ever worked, there were simply too many groups that had a reason to sabotage the process, and the process was vulnerable to anyone sabotaging it.
Even under the best of circumstances, I sure wouldn't bet anything I cared about losing against your doubts. Like I said, coming from the other direction, the only hope we ever had was to create something apparently noble to try to reduce some of the incentive (and motive) for sabotage.
That could best be said with a petulant whine.
In any case, I asked you which nations, if we were allied with them, could effectively help us deal with Iran. If you can't think of any, feel free to admit it.
Mary: That could best be said with a petulant whine.
That had nothing to do with "big, bad daddy USA" or "spite". That part you not only made up, you got it wrong.
One has allies in order to achieve one's goals. Those goals may be in common with the allies, or the allies may help achieve those goals by pursuing their own goals. The US was previously in the enviable position of being the last remaining superpower with a significant network of historical allies that largely composed of some of the most powerful wealthy industrialized nations on Earth.
When the US gave those nations the finger in 2002 and 2003, and effectively said that they were not interested in the views of those allies and would pursue US goals to maintain military and political supremacy until the end of time regardless of the costs, those alliances were severely compromised, and a significant loss of leadership and influence has resulted. As a byproduct of that loss of global influence, many nations are now seeking alliances with each other without regard to either the global community or the US.
Partly as a result of a breakdown in the unipolar model of world politics and a move to an unpredictable multipolar one, there is a great deal of uncertainty, especially among smaller nations. That is possibly why there are now at least six countries, in addition to North Korea and Iran, that are currently developing nuclear programs. Expect many, many more in the near future.
Now, I understand that this is an inconvenient view for you, and you will probably not want to either agree with it or give it much credence. I would ask, however, that you refrain from making up shit that I did not say.
You bet, there are several nations that, if the US enjoyed its previous leadership role, that would be in a position to help. Russia. China. Germany. France. Italy. India. Turkey. Pakistan.
All of these nations have significant economic ties with Iran, and several have close diplomatic ties. Do you think that any are about to go out on a limb to meet American foreign policy goals?
They never did in the past, no reason why they should start now. Alliances aren't like friendships, they're useful when they're convenient for both parties.
Nations don't go out on a limb because they love us dearly. Of course you'll disagree, but you still seem to be anthropomorphizing inanimate land masses. France was never our bestest friend.
However, nations will go out on a limb to meet their own foreign policy goals. If they think Iran is a threat to them, they'll do something about it. They'll even ally with us, if they have to.
Especially from your cynical perspective, few have ever been more so.
Wow, you don't read much history, do you?
Nations don't go out on a limb because they love us dearly. Of course you'll disagree...
Oh my God, you didn't even read what I wrote. Here:How you get "because they love us dearly" from that I have no idea. I think that I'll stop wasting my time now.
Really? I know that they kinda suck now but they gave us a hand or two in our fight for independence. Plus, they gave us that really cool statue in NY harbor.
So, you think France and China and all are p.o.'d at us 'cause we flipped them off, and then you're appalled when I note that yours is not really a dispassionate, pragmatic analysis of foreign policy. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
The French loved us when we were beating up the British. They hate the British and the English language with a passion.
French foreign policy goals are mostly obsessed with language and culture. The French supported the violent Hutu and their massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda because the Hutu were mostly French-speakers. The Tutsis spoke mostly English.
If we wanted to turn the French against the Islamists, we wouldn't point out that the Islamists are a bunch of fascists who kill innocent civilians - we would point out that the Islamists are trying to force former French-speakers to use only Arabic.
So much for "dispassionate, pragmatic analysis".