Reason’s Michael Young, also opinion editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper, point-by-point corrects a deeply confused former NSC member and Kerry advisor writing in NYT on exactly what is happening between Lebanon and Syria now. In response to the writer’s claim that Hezbollah is the largest party in Lebanon’s parliament:
It is the largest single party bloc, but overall it is much smaller than several other blocs that are just as cohesive, and its overall influence is hardly as overpowering as Leverett suggests. Second, the Lebanese government that will form after a Syrian withdrawal will be like all governments in the past–open to both the Arab world and the West.
When the writer says the West should “empower” Syria’s Assad:
And has Leverett bothered to notice that the U.S., the European Union and Syrian civil society have given Assad the benefit of the doubt on reform since 2000, even encouraging a “gradual course”, and that the result has been a shambles? Economic reform is stagnant; political liberties have been curtailed; the Baath Party remains entrenched; the Assad family and their cousins the Makhloufs operate a splendid little kleptocracy; Syrian reformers are being harassed and demoralized. Empower Assad? He’s been empowered since taking office, and Syria has regressed into abysmal, autocratic stalemate.
Maybe he’ll tolerate anything as long as he thinks it will promote “stability.” How Kissingerian, and how indicative of the foreign policy wonks in the Democratic party today. Defending the status quo of tyranny because it’s the multilateral thing to do will never be a popular political platform in 21st century America. We have seen the world, and we can’t ignore its pleas for liberty.
I’m a tech journalist who’s making a TV show about a college newspaper.