Hezbollah is one of the world's most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon. Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on "all those who have influence with Hezbollah" to "press them to stand down." Then he declared, "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment." Barack Obama reaffirmed that Hezbollah is "not a legitimate political party." Instead, "It's a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn't happen without the support of Iran and Syria."
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he's seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
"The debate we're going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake," he said. "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder."
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: "The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough."
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that's primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that "If your opponents are looking for your destruction it's hard to sit across the table from them," but, he continued: "There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations."
Obama doesn't broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he'd be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. "This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans," he concluded. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall."
In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?ref=opinion
Loading...
1:23
Nasrallah tells Obama:"Hezbollah is not falling for it"by theCourtFool9,819 views
um hezbollah isnt a terrorist goup! they are religious but does that mean theyr terroristS? they dont go around blowing themselves up and kill innocent people nor do they plan attack on theyr government infact they do it democratically....
MegaMoodz 8 months ago
How much fun is this making video's .. When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 1 year ago
How much fun is this making video's .. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 1 year ago
Fuck the Media how they blend the people. They dont even know what Hezbollah do, exactly the opposite what the Media says, and its defending Lebanon from Israel. But keep on talking shit USA and Israel, at the end always the good will win I will promise you
FrankfurtMilad439 1 year ago
wow, finally obama has entered the age of stupidity that bush excelled in... the oval office must be cleansed from a virus that infestes the presidents' brains!
LB2AU 1 year ago
man ..if u live in lebanon u would know that there is some lebanese soldiers that have relatives or biological brothers in hezbala....hezbala and lebanese army r good friends ...its hard to getthem in fight and they did its a big problem cz am sure lebanese army will breakdown ....into 2 little armiess....
andreas009hds 2 years ago
Its beacuse the zionist media say it.
THERE IS YOUR EXPLANTION
:D
Seriously America is one fucking sad country
simonistic 2 years ago
How is hezbollah a terrorist organization?
one example please.
nystagmus 3 years ago
Oh really but what will the mohammadan's of hezbollah do without their bankroll? And how will the "lebanese govt" survive without its "Armed wing" aka Hizbollah, getting its special funds and weapons from the US and its training in Iran? They need the US to keep funding them and arming them, you are too blind to see what's really going on.
KWRBT 3 years ago
well right know hezbollah and the army are setting up defense plans for the country and working together on stratigic military goals. i think americas new middle east has failed and they need to get the hell out
watbey 3 years ago