CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah

[Tukhachevskii]

I categorize these two groups as (#1) "quasi-state" actors. They are much like Army Warrant Officers. They are part of the government when it suits them, and they are outside the government and the law when it suits them. The West, like Army Commissioned Officers, allows them to play this silly game because we're not quite sure what to do with them.

We need to quit giving them the out, the sanctuary, of pretending they are not responsible for what their "outside the law" components do. Similarly, we need to hold the entire States and their populace accountable as well.



(2#)We do the same nonsense when we say "The ISI is sponsoring the Taliban." Why give Pakistan this out? Because we don't want to provoke a nuclear state?

We are better served, I think, by recognizing reality, and holding the majority responsible for the actions of their legitimate components.

Or we need to play the same game, as (#3)in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....

#1 Ok Hizballah and HAMAS are quasi-state organisations. Which means what? They are proto-statelike authority structures that control a territory and exert defacto soveriegnty? (as oppsoed to de jure?). Or are they non-state actors that inhabit a piece of territory and claim jurisdiction over it but haven't decaklred that outright? Or are they a semi-autonomous part of the governance system of a state?

#2 The ISI is a Pakistani government agency. But I agree that we shoudln't elide the government's role. The buck stops with the Prime Minister.

#3 Disengenuous (sp?) The US Army is not a quasi-state (AFAIK). It is an agency of the US government and the President is it's C-in-C. Is Saad Hariri Hizballah's C-In-C? Is the Cheif of staff of the Lebanese Army, Shawki Al Masri the chief of staff of the armed wing of Hizballah? I think not. And until it is I think it patently ridiculous to punish a country for a terrorist organisation operating in its borders and which holds it hostage. (Should we [Britain] have, by your logic, attacked or held accountable Eire for the actions of the IRA?

Moreover, holding Lebanon to account for the actions of Hizballah (which is a quasi-state within a fragile/weak state) has actually driven large sectors of the Lebanese community into the arms of Hizballah (in terms of political support for its existence/toleration). It allows Hizbuaalh to legitimate its claim to be defending Lebanon (which is hardly its raison d'etre) even though large sectors of Lebanese society vilify its existence (but if you're Lebanese, who do you support; Hizballah that occupies your land and claims to represent you or Israel which punishes you for Hizballah's crimes?). IFF (if and only if) Hizballah merges its military wing with the LAF can we begin treating it as part and parcel of the Lebanese state. Until then, let's to the Lebanese a favour and acknowledge that aren't as simple as we'd like them to be nor are they as easy to ammeliorate as we think with a semantic slieght of hand (I say again...anyone remember the Axis of Evil?).