The news report by ABC News on US plans to build an embassy in a Hezbollah area of Beirut comes as part of growing US involvement in the internal affairs of Lebanon.
Here however, interesting questions arise when one puts into context this move in light of what has unfolded in Lebanon within the last year. It is evidently non-sensical for the US to build an embassy on the proposed site and these plans began way before 2006; what thus were the US strategic motives of the War on Lebanon waged by Israel in 2006? More accurately, what were the motives and interests of the US in the war on Lebanon? In what way did they use the UN Security council to achieve these goals seeing that they had detailed plans and wished to spread their tentacles to the strongholds of Hezbollah? Even more importantly, has the US foregone these motives with the defeat of the Israelis in the War?
It is clear that the proposed US Embassy was part of the overall strategy of Israel's war on Lebanon and Olmert's declarations on the 'wiping out' of Hezbollah.
Extracts from ABC Report:
The Blotter has learned that plans for a controversial new U.S. Embassy in Beirut have been put on hold indefinitely, and effectively killed, according to a U.S. State Department spokesperson.
The news came just hours after we reported the State Department had been pushing ahead with plans to build the new embassy in a part of Beirut controlled by the militant anti-American group Hezbollah, despite strong protests from the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon.
A U.S. official tells the Blotter on ABCNews.com that Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, in a May 31, 2007 classified cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, registered his strong objections, saying his staff "unanimously opposes construction" of the embassy on the proposed site.
Feltman also said in the cable that his local staff would be "an easy target" for Hezbollah and that U.S. diplomats would "be under siege" during any conflict.
"It boggles the mind," says former State Department security official Tony Diebler. "Any reasonable person that looks at that site, does their homework and sees who controls the area would determine that it's a foolish, dangerous idea to build the embassy there," Diebler said in an interview to be broadcast on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson."
But officials say the State Department official in charge of embassy construction, Maj. Gen. Charles Williams (RET) is insisting the embassy be built on the site, which was purchased by the U.S. two years ago for more than $22 million.
In his cable to Secretary Rice, Ambassador Feltman said Gen. Williams maintained it was important to proceed with the proposed site in Baabda area of Beirut because of "the Department's relations with Congress and our global building objectives."
Gen. Williams declined requests from ABCNews.com to comment.
U.S. officials say Williams has ignored how conditions have changed in Beirut since the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war.
The officials say Hezbollah, not the government of Lebanon, controls the Baabda area and could sever access to the area at will.
State Department officials say they have been advised by the U.S. military that had the embassy been located at the Baabda site during the summer war, the U.S. military would have only come in once to evacuate the staff.
"Anytime Hezbollah wants to shut the place down," said former State Department security official Diebler, "they're capable of doing it and the loss of life would be tremendous."
The dispute between the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the State Department in Washington has been simmering since late last year.
At one point, the U.S. Embassy refused to allow a State Department official from Washington, James Golden, managing director of the Emergency Projects Coordinating Office, permission to enter the country for the embassy project by denying normally standard "country clearance."
you know, americans never went into lebanon to fight you idiots! they went into lebanon in order to put your lives back together and keep the peace. but what did you do? you fought us. you didnt need to! you could have just let America,Britain,France,and Italy put your country back together! but you didnt...and your war continued until everybody lost! and now lebanon is a complete shithole! all thanks to your militias and the other imbeciles with guns.
PadawanOsswe 3 years ago
Ohh really. Is that true?! Can you please do yourself a favour and look at the intervention of the US in Lebanon on the pretext of the Eisenhower Doctrine. After reading your post, I almost felt like the US military was part of the humanitarian military wing of the UN.
As for the civil war, the US allied itself with one party at the expense of the other, hence losing any standing as a non-biased peace broker. Go and return to the historical record, before giving us lessons dear.
mingoi313 3 years ago