« "I do believe in spooks!" | Main | GOP prepares to screw consumers »

March 05, 2005

The Cedar Revolution: Who caused it and where will it lead?

Much has been said lately about Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution." Pro-Bush partisans have been quick to give credit to Bush's Middle East policy. But, is that justified?

Timothy Garton Ash wrote a though-provoking piece in The Guardian where he argues that the Cedar Revolution is a case of unintended consequences on the part of Osama bin Laden rather than the overt result of Bush's Iraq War.

To say this does not mean that George Bush has been right all along. It doesn't mean the Iraq war was right. There's a crowing triumphalist narrative out of Washington which is to be resisted - not because it comes from Washington, but because it's wrong and counter-productive. Here, for example, is what the undersecretary of state for global affairs, Paula Dobriansky, said on Monday: "As the president noted in Bratislava just last week, there was a rose revolution in Georgia, an orange revolution in Ukraine, and most recently, a purple revolution in Iraq. In Lebanon, we see growing momentum for a 'cedar revolution' that is unifying the citizens of that nation to the cause of true democracy and freedom from foreign influence."

Spot the odd one out. "Purple revolution" in Iraq? Purple, as in the colour of blood? There's a vital difference between a democratic revolution which is peaceful, authentic and generated by people inside a country and one that is imposed, or kick-started, by a military invasion and occupation.

Ash appears to misinterprete the "purple" reference as one of the color of blood rather than one referring to the purple dye used to mark the finger of those who had voted. But, he gets to the heart of my own hesitance to jump on the post-Iraq War bandwagon of self-congratulations. There is a huge, absolutely fundamental difference between a democratic revolution whose genesis came from the people involved and one imposed by outsiders at gun-point. To obfuscate that crucial difference is to demagogue the issue, in my view.

Fellow Oregonian Michael Totten offers an interesting and plausible explanation: Catastrophe Theory and War. He argues that there is indeed an indirect connection between the Iraq War and the Cedar Revolution, but that it's not one of linear cause and effect.

Totten offers a profoundly honest and realistic insight when he says:

I’m not saying we don’t deserve some of the credit. We do. The demolition of Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime and the free election that followed sent a powerful shock wave through the region that changed the emotions, the politics, and the psychology of its people. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking we control the chaos that we have unleashed. (Remember that the Sunni Baathist insurgency is also something that wasn’t caused, but was made possible, by our actions.) [emphasis supplied]

One troubling aspect which both Iraq and Lebanon have in common is that both are highly factionalized societies, much more so than most of their Arab neighbors. It is this factionalism which should caution us not to prematurely judge these events as successes which will prove a boon to American foreign policy goals.

Juan Cole points out that the former darling of the Bush administration, Ahmed Chalabi, is apparently seeking to exploit anti-American sentiments in Iraq while at the same time doggedly pursuing democratic reforms in Iraq. Which is a phenominon which I have previously warned about. Just because many Iraqis are greatful to be free of Saddam's tyranny and may even be fervently in favor of democracy doesn't mean that the ultimate result will be something which history will judge a net benefit to American foreign policy objectives.

And then there is Lebanon. In another Guardian piece David Hirst points out the obvious: "Lebanon's strength - and weakness - was always the multiplicity of religious sects on which its whole political system is based. When the system worked, it did so far better than any of its neighbours'; when it broke down, it did so disastrously."

Citing another Juan Cole post, I commented previously about how the various factions in Lebanon have their own agendas. There are 17 recognized religious sects in Lebanon according to the CIA World Fact Book. Although the CIA make the same flawed assumption that many others do and lump the Druze in with the other Muslim sects.

Noteworthy is the historically rocky relationship between the Druze and Christianity. They fought the Catholic Crusaders centuries ago. More recently they have fought on and off with Lebanese Maronite Christians, and in fact the Druze and the Maronites formed core constituents of the 15-year civil war in Lebanon. Equally noteworthy is the cooperative attitude which Israeli Druze have taken towards the Israeli government. Although it has been rocky at times too.

Those who have followed the creation and resulting history of the modern state of Israel will recall that Lebanon flatly refused to join the Arab armies who fought the Israelis. Undoubtedly the then dominant Maronites played a key role in that decision. But, it seems clear that the Druze did too.

The more I learn about the Druze, the more I'm convinced that they hold the key to the future of the region. Their chief survival tactic of going out of their way to blend in with whatever religious group dominates any given area also serves to mask their own agenda. What that agenda might be and whether it's uniform among the various Druze communities is an open question. But, the power of their Lebanese community is undeniable. Add to that their favored status in Israel, particularly within the IDF, which gives them a clear insider position of no small consequence. And reportedly the Syrian Druze play a similar role in the Syrian military and political establishment.

The recent statement by Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese Druze powerbroker and former warlord, saying, "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen," has been lauded by many as evidence demonstrating that Bush deserves the credit for the Cedar Revolution. But, it should be surprising to nobody that a Druze would do or say whatever it takes to fit in with whomever is perceived to be the powers that be. Druze have done this kind of thing for centuries. That doesn't mean Jumblatt didn't mean every word of it. Rather it's a caution to consider the source.

The Druze are clearly a very ambitious, very capable people who exert an influence disproportionate to their relatively small numbers! What do they want? I don't know. But, whatever it might be I have a feeling that it'll have a far greater influence on the course of the so-called Cedar Revolution than anything the Bush administration might do or say.

Posted by Kevin at March 5, 2005 11:40 AM