CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah

[Bob's World]

Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?

Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?

Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)

Hamas won a majority in the 2006 elections, and the West pouted. We want democracy, but only when it produces the results WE want. Shame on Israel and the "Quartet on the Middle East" for their response to that populace exercising its right to popular sovereignty and self-determination.

Similarly, in addition to its militant and large social service branches, Hezbollah holds several seats in Lebanon’s Parliament. They are part of the government.

I categorize these two groups as "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.

We have no tools that are effective for deterring or motivating a Hezbollah or Hamas so long as we put them on terrorist lists and refuse to recognize them as legitimate parts of these governments.

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 in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....