Lebanon: Overlooked Centerfold of Neoconservative Wet Dreams

At the end of May, I posed this question: why would the neoconservative narcissists choose Iraq as domino-one in their design to remake the Islamic world, when Afghanistan was so much easier, available, appropriate, and economical a target?

A year before I posed the question about Afghanistan, in June of 2005, I commented on the astonishing non-response of the Bush Administration to the political assassinations that were decimating Lebanon’s fledgling democratic government. Syrian operatives had murdered both Prime Minister Rafique Hariri and influential anti-Syrian politician George Hawi, as well as a prominent anti-Syrian journalist Samir Kassir. Despite the administrations macho rhetoric toward Syria in those few heady days of the illusory “mission accomplished”, it seemed that they were missing an opportunity to control a situation that had spun well out of control. One of my points at the time was that Condoleza Rice — who must surely be the worst Secretary of State in the history of the institution — not only fucked up by pursuing policies that were wrong-headed; she also fucked up by failing to pursue the few administration policies that made good sense.

Allow me to tie these two threads together and suggest that Lebanon offered another perfect fixation for neoconservative wet dreams of secular – pluralistic, even! – democratization of the Islamic world.

By the neocon’s own game-plan, Lebanon could have — and should have — earned America’s investment in its political security. The ongoing proxy war in Lebanon serves to remind us that Lebanon’s post-Israeli, post-Syrian nascence held the promise of democratic role model for the region; but, as with Afghanistan, the Bush Administration couldn’t seem to be bothered.

Just imagine what an active, aggressive American economic intervention might have meant for Lebanon and the region. An ever-strengthening parliamentary democracy would be in charge now, rather than a decapitated government thoroughly infiltrated by Hezbollah politicians. American investment could have rebuilt an economy and a society moldering in war-shattered fragments for decades, attracting both the investment and the talent that two generations of ex-patriot Lebanese have taken with them to Africa, Europe, and North America. Iran would not be able to arm its terror-loving proxies in Israel’s back-yard, and the interference of the Syrians in Lebanon’s domestic politics would be a distant, if bitter memory. Israel would be launching trade into Lebanon, instead of air strikes. And the neoconservatives would have won a bloodless battle for the hearts and minds in neighboring Islamic states.

Sadly, the bloodless option is not one which springs naturally to the neoconservative mind.

How easy it would have been to help create something great, stable, and hopeful in Lebanon. Instead, American indifference has condemned this would-be nation to ever-new rounds of destruction and hopelessness. But as Incurious George has repeatedly confessed, he and his administration reject the idea of nation-building, leaving aside the pathetic and thoroughly failed anomaly of Iraq.