Lebanon's Elections: 10 Essential Lessons

I was going to write a follow-up on some of the ridiculous US-based analysis of Monday's Lebanese elections. Thomas Friedman, for example, passed ludicrous and headed towards appalling in his Wednesday column in The New York Times, while that paper's editorial board reduced the outcome to "a solid victory over Hezbollah...[and] a major setback for the militant group’s supporters in Iran and Syria".

On second thought, however, best to be positive. I think this evaluation by Rami Khouri, written for Agence Global and Middle East Online, is outstanding, not only in its reading of the results but its attention to the near-future: "None of this really mattered much...because the balance of power in Lebanon (as in the entire Arab world) is not really anchored in parliament, but in power relations that are negotiated elsewhere."

The Lessons of Lebanon's Elections

We can draw many lessons from the Lebanese parliamentary elections Sunday, which saw the selection of a new parliament reflecting almost precisely the same distribution of seats among the country’s two main political groupings as the pervious parliament (68 seats for the Hariri-led March 14 movement, 57 seats for the Hizbullah-Michel Aoun-led March 8 group, and three independents). Here are my conclusions about what happened and what it means:

1. The elections were important, but inconsequential. Why an individual, a party, or an ethnic-religious group decides to vote for one side or the other is endlessly fascinating and constantly evolving. It is also totally meaningless in Lebanon’s case, because the whole is more important than its parts. Power, governance and decision-making in Lebanon are defined by the crushing imperative of consensus-based rule, which means that any combination of majorities and minorities will always need to achieve consensus on major national decisions; drivers change, but the engine of this bus does not.

2. After Turkey, Lebanon becomes the second Muslim-majority country in the Middle East that can boast holding elections combining logistical efficiency with political credibility, including some surprise results that could not be predicted. Three cheers for Lebanese parliamentary elections.

3. None of this really mattered much, however, because the balance of power in Lebanon (as in the entire Arab world) is not really anchored in parliament, but in power relations that are negotiated elsewhere. The most important political contest in Lebanon happened in May 2008, not June 2009. Hizbullah and its armed allies won that brief battle on the streets, and power-sharing contours in Lebanon have been defined ever since. This is ugly stuff -- young men shooting RPG’s at each other in the city and mountain villages -- but in the Middle East the modern exercise of power, like the condition of most Arab statehood, consistently has been a messy endeavor.

4. The elections generate validity and credibility, not ideological triumph. The March 14 movement affirmed that its core values reflect those of about half the population of Lebanon -- though precisely what those values are remains slightly imprecise. Much of the movement’s success reflects its opposition to the March 8 forces that include backing from Syria, Iran, Islamists and others in the region who are often critical of the United States, Israel and conservative Arabs. We always knew that March 14 represented many Lebanese; now we also have proof that it is resilient and strong. But we do not know what it represents in ideological terms other than opposing the Hizbullah-Aoun alliance.

5. We have seen again that tribe triumphs policy. The massive turnout of Sunni voters seems to have been one of the decisive reasons for the March 14 victory. This is perfectly normal and legitimate; but it tells us more about the anthropology of blood ties among the human species than it does about the contestation of power in a modern society. Faced with a do-or-die scenario, March 14 and its Sunni core rose to the electoral and tribal challenge.

6. Swift-boating is universal. Just as George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004 by tarnishing him as a coward in the Swift boat incident in Vietnam decades ago, March 14 successfully frightened many voters with its theme that a Hizbullah-Aoun victory would dry up Saudi and American financial support for Lebanon and bring the economy to a grinding halt.

7. All politics in Lebanon is local, regional, global and cosmic. March 14 won and March 8 did not do as well as the pre-vote polls predicted because of a neat convergence of: a) local identities (Sunni, Shiite, assorted Christians, Druze, Armenian) battling to claim their share of the national pie in parliament, b) regional Arab players (mainly Saudi Arabia and Syria, and Egypt slightly) exerting their influence through their respective Lebanese partners and proxies, c) non-Arab regional and foreign forces (Iran, the United States, France, Israel) also backing their favorites, and, d) cosmic forces in the form of the Maronite church hierarchy constantly advocating for righteousness among voting Lebanese that would accurately mirror God’s will on Earth.

8. Key regional and global players started speaking and negotiating with each other in the past year, rather than using threats and subversion as their main form of engagement, which lowered regional tensions and thus prompted some Lebanese to see their future as one of calm, security and prosperity. It is a mistake to see the election results as mainly an American triumph or Iranian defeat, though elements of those views are relevant. Unraveling the distinct local, regional, global and cosmic strands of this election offers a better conclusion than a simplistic United States vs. Iran approach.

9. Fatigue matters. Some independent or undecided Lebanese voters clearly remembered the 2006 war, the 2007 Gaza war, and the May 2008 fighting in Lebanon, and did not want to put the country on a permanent diet of confrontation, bickering, resistance, warfare and destruction. March 14 successfully presented itself as the antidote to perpetual war.

10. The relative decline of Michael Aoun’s movement, while the Hariri-led, Sunni-based Future Movement and Shiite-anchored Hizbullah both held their ground or improved, suggests that tribes and triumphant armed movements will always out-perform one-man shows. Aoun is a historic phenomenon that may or may not persist. Shiites and Sunnis competing to preserve their communal power will be forces in Lebanon for a long time.

Transcript: Holbrooke Press Briefing on Pakistan (10 June)

It is stunning how Pakistan, which only a month was the subject of speculation on Government collapse and the Taliban taking over nuclear weapons, has receded from the headlines. Part of the explanation is the screen of the Pakistani military's "success" in clearing insurgents out of cities like Mingora. The bigger story remains, however: the manoeuvring between Islamabad and the insurgency in and beyond the Swat Valley has left more than two million Pakistanis "internally displaced".

A briefing by President Obama's envoy Richard Holbrooke on Wednesday captured (inadvertently, possibly) the tension as he says in different places: "The military is still in the process of cleaning out Swat and Buner and other areas" vs. "It’s not a good sight, but it has not yet reached the level of a situation where people are dying of cholera."

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: This trip was the idea of President Obama. It was not one of the regularly scheduled trips to Afghanistan, Pakistan that I have been making. I’ve made two already, both of which included stops in India. This was, at President Obama’s personal direction, a trip to go only to Pakistan in the region – I also went to the Gulf – and to show American concern and support for the humanitarian crisis enveloping western Pakistan and to offer more support.

That support was embodied in a presidential commitment, which we announced the evening I arrived, of an additional $200 million for refugee relief in the western part of Pakistan, as an additional request to the Congress in the supplemental now being debated. So the $200 million we don’t have yet, it’s very important, and we announced it subject to congressional approval.

Just a personal footnote, I’m not going to use the phrase, IDP, in this briefing, internally displaced people. I dislike that word. These are human beings. They’re farmers, they’re pharmacists, they’re jewelers, they’re school teachers. And already just calling them “refugees” takes away their individuality. But giving them an initial like IDP is, to my mind, just – it’s a bureaucratic euphemism. I’ve spent a lot of time in the tents, in two of the 19 camps, and I just can’t call them IDPs; it’s just a personal thing.

I’d love to change the phrase, IDPs, to internal refugees, because that’s what they are. What’s the difference between a person who crosses a border because he or she has lost their home in fighting, to a person who doesn’t cross the border? Until 10 years ago, the UNHCR didn’t even think the IDPs were part of their responsibility. And when I was ambassador to the UN under President Clinton, I took that on as a mission, and I’m glad UNHCR now accepts them. And now we ought to start calling them what they are. There’s no difference between a refugee who crossed a border and doesn’t, except their international status.

So we announced the $200 million as a request to Congress, and we went out there and we went to the refugee camps, and we saw the conditions out there.

I think the first thing to say is that it’s not a good sight, but it has not yet reached the level of a situation where people are dying of cholera. There’s no cholera epidemic yet. But the rainy season hasn’t begun. Eighty to ninety percent of the people are staying in private houses or in schools. That relieves the burden on the international community to put up tent cities. I visited two of the tent cities. But the schools, the houses are overburdened. There’s – the longer this goes on, the more critical it’s going to be.

Now, the refugees I talked to clearly understood why they had been displaced. They didn’t like the Taliban. They – one of them, one man sitting in a unventilated tent with one of his wives and about seven of his 15 children said to me that – quite memorably, he said, “I used to live in heaven and now I live in hell.” These are people from the highlands and it’s much cooler up there. And he went on to describe this beautiful house he had which is now being used temporarily by the army, and he said, “I’ve just got to get back.” He was a mechanic.

And the highest priority is for these people to be able to return to their homes as quickly as possible, but – and I cannot stress this too highly – to get back, they need security. And the military is still in the process of cleaning out Swat and Buner and other areas. And that job is not yet complete.

In addition, the amount of money that the United States and the international community are contributing is only for the relief phase. The UN request was somewhere around $560 million. Don’t hold me to the exact amount. The United States support so far is between $310 and $330 million. Normally, the U.S. gives about a quarter to a third of international support. In this case, we are currently well over 50 percent. And this Administration has requested our friends and allies in the Gulf states and in Europe and in other parts of the world to help with this effort. The U.S. cannot bear this burden at this level.

And besides which, the reconstruction phase is going to cost just as much as the relief phase. So this is a major, major crisis. It’s been often stated that this is the big migration – biggest migration flow since partition in 1947. So a word of clarification: That is not true. There were 10 to 12 million refugees during the Bangladesh war in 1971. But it is the largest flow of refugees or displaced people in Pakistan and India since partition, so just to clarify that point.

We are – now let me step up to the political issues. Pakistan is absolutely critical to our most vital national security interests. You’ve heard everyone say that in different forms. We all understand the complexities of Pakistan and the issues that you’ve all reported on so many times. But in the end, success in Afghanistan requires success and stability in Pakistan. The two issues are integrally related. And hence, sometimes people use the shorthand Af-Pak, but that’s not a popular phrase in Pakistan or Afghanistan for obvious reasons. And we would prefer not to use it in public. But the reason for it was to stress the interrelatedness of the two, something which had been neglected in the last eight years.

And in that sense, the trilateral summit hosted by President Obama and Secretary Clinton on May 6th and 7th was a very big step forward. The amount of attention we’re giving Pakistan is a big step forward. And I deliberately did not go to Afghanistan on this trip to emphasize that our focus on this trip, at presidential instructions, was Pakistan.

I went on to four Gulf states – Oman, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar – to talk to them about our parallel strategic interests. I did not go to Saudi Arabia because the President had been there three days earlier and because I had been there three weeks ago. But I can say with confidence that all of the states in the Gulf have a similar point of view on the strategic importance of Pakistan – and their long, historic ties. Oman – for example, until 1958, the Oman national borders included a large chunk of what’s now Baluchistan. And there’s a tremendous connection between Oman and the area of Pakistan that’s now Baluchistan.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar also have very close ties – historic, economic and strategic. So we share a common point of view. But there’s not a coordination of policies at this point. That is something we’re just talking about. But I’m very gratified at the strategic symmetry between us. Everyone recognizes that instability in Pakistan poses a threat to everywhere else, and we are very gratified by the movements of the Pakistani Government.

What I saw in Pakistan on this trip was the slow emergence of a consensus behind the government’s actions. I spent time with Nawaz Sharif, a good deal of time, leader of the opposition, just after he had his political rights restored. A lot of time with President Zardari, time with General Kiyani and his top team, including General Pasha, the head of ISI, and with members of civic society. And everywhere, there was a dramatic change in attitudes from my previous trips because of the outrages of the Taliban and their supporters, and this was widely recognized.

You all know that the Pearl Hotel was attacked yesterday by some terrorists, another major hotel in Peshawar. My impression is that this is enraging the population. It’s not going to work, provided the government gives the security necessary. And this is a daunting task for Pakistan, which is under so much economic pressure. It has so many other problems, a short supply of energy, all the other issues which you’re familiar with. But the government is addressing it. And I found a new determination in Islamabad. And I carried the support of President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and the U.S. Government with me.

P.J., I think, if I didn’t leave anything out, I’ll – we’ll just open it to questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador –

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Can you just identify yourselves? I know some of you but not all.

QUESTION: I’m Bob Burns --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Oh, I know Bob, yeah.

QUESTION: -- from AP. Mr. Ambassador, U.S. officials have generally spoken approvingly of what the Pakistani military has been doing in the areas you visited, but I’m wondering if you think that they are carrying that out with strategic purpose to include the capacity to deal with the internally displaced people and to deal with the issue of pushing Taliban back across the border into Afghanistan and the consequences of that.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: There is a strategic purpose, obviously, Bob. We do not know enough about what’s going on on the ground to reach definitive judgments. But we have talk – I talked to General Kiyani and General Pasha and General Mustafa about this, and they – their strategic purpose was clear, and they feel that they now have popular support for what they’re doing.

But I want to stress that the refugees must be able to return. Those camps and those temporary facilities cannot harden into a permanent refugee settlement as has happened in so many other parts of the world. So the test is not simply the military phase, but the ability of the government to get those people back into their homes as quickly as possible and provide them security.

I think what you have quoted American officials as saying is my view, too. All of us are impressed by the military’s initiatives in recent weeks. But the military themselves will say that they fully understand that the test is still to come, the second test. But I want to underline, because so much of what we say here bounces out in Islamabad in a different context, that we are very supportive of what has been – of what the government is doing, and we look for every way we can to support them. And while we’re all focused on the relief effort now, it is the reconstruct – it is the return and reconstruction phase and security to be provided them that will be the basic test.

QUESTION: Farah Stockman with The Boston Globe. Thanks for coming to talk to us. First question is: Can the Pakistani military hold Swat? They’ve gone in before and the Taliban have just come back. What will be different this time?

And my second question is that this Administration has spent a lot of work trying to get Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States all on the same page militarily and to coordinate, but it doesn’t seem to have filtered down on the ground. There still seems to be a lot of animosity between Afghan army and Pakistan army among the officers, and how do you change that?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Your first question was why will it be different this time?

QUESTION: How can – can they hold Swat?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Let’s see. Let’s see why it will be different. I think the previous experiences you describe were quite different in scope. The Pakistan army has moved a great deal of troops to the west this time, a very large number, and it’s made a difference.

On your second question, the history of Afghan-Pakistan relations is complicated, and very few people in this country have studied it, although everybody in Pakistan knows the story. And I’ve been learning about it by reading books as I go along and it’s – and so what you’re talking about there is a historic problem that has – that predates 9/11, that predates the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but which was exacerbated enormously by what happened in the ‘70s and the ‘80s and after 9/11. And I’m – none of us are trying to change the DNA of a historic relationship that’s rooted in deep, deep national feelings on both sides of a disputed border. What we are trying to do is encourage cooperation.

So Secretary of State Clinton invited the foreign ministers, intelligence chiefs, and other senior officials here in February to participate in our strategic review and start the trilateral dialogue. That was so successful that the President decided to invite Presidents Zardari and Karzai here on May 6th and 7th. With them came the ministers of interior, agriculture, the intelligence chiefs, the finance chiefs, and several other pairs of people.

And one of the things we discovered was that some of these ministers have never met before. The two interior ministers didn’t know each other. The two agriculture ministers didn’t know each other. The two finance ministers didn’t know each other. In our breakout sessions, chaired in the intelligence community by Leon Panetta, in the interior department by FBI Director Mueller, finance by Deputy Secretary Jack Lew, and agriculture by Tom Vilsack, we found that once they come together, they have a lot to talk about. Subcommittees were set up on every issue. In agriculture, for example, we set up three task forces: one on food security; one on water resources; and I can’t remember the third one now, but there’s a third one. These are ongoing. We can’t have another trilateral summit till after the Afghan elections, but at the operational level these (inaudible) in every field.

So I want to be clear on this question, because we’ve spent a lot of time trying to answer your question. We’re not trying to change history. We’re trying to deal with the historical realities that are there and get people to cooperate. There is no way that success is possible if there isn’t cooperation across this disputed demarcation line. We all understand that. And in the last eight years, no attention was paid – none – to getting the governments together. Once in a while there was a theatrical event, but this is a sustained effort. Part of my staff is focused entirely on this issue on a full-time basis.

Two weeks ago, President Obama asked for an update on what had happened since the trilateral summit and how we were doing. And we handed to him 19 action plans on everything from detainee policy to agriculture to border crossing checkpoints. We have one to go, women’s affairs. We were waiting for Melanne Verveer and Judith McHale and others to come into the building, and we’re working on that one now. And the Secretary of State and I have suggested to Melanne, who is – I don’t even know what her official title is, the Secretary’s Assistant for Women’s Affairs.

MR KELLY: Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, Melanne is a – Ambassador, sorry.

MR KELLY: Ambassador-at-Large.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Ambassador-at-Large for Women’s Affairs. Well, Melanne is going to go out there, and we’re going to work on an action plan.

So that is the way we’re addressing your problem. We’re not trying to change history. And I really hope that’s clear, because we’re living – we’re not trying to change anything except to get them to cooperate.

Somebody in the back here. Okay. Well, yes – yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. I’m Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. Mr. Ambassador, you have taken a very critical job in a critical area, which is, as you already said, very important. First of all, do you see, sir, light at the end of the dark tunnel and if this no-man’s land will be now forever no-man’s land anymore?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Lights at the end of the tunnel is a metaphor I don’t ever wish to return to – (laughter) – because I began my career in another war, in another planet, in another century, and that was the most famous phrase.

All I can tell you is that this Administration believes that what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is of vital interest to our national security. And --

QUESTION: But –

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: And that India is a country that we must keep in the closest consultations with. At midnight last night, I spoke to Under Secretary of State Bill Burns immediately after he had landed in New Delhi. He is carrying a presidential letter to the Indian Government. He is carrying the messages that I would have carried if I had had time to go to New Delhi on this trip, but I couldn't do it. On my first two trips to the region, I went to New Delhi. I’ll be seeing your new ambassador here next week. I’ve already met with her twice. And we consider India an absolutely critical country in the region. They’re not part of the problem, but they are vitally affected, and we want to work closely with them.

QUESTION: A follow-up to this question? What’s the message the President is sending to India in this presidential letter?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: It’s a private letter. But the important thing is that the number three person in the Department of State has gone to India to reaffirm immediately after the election – the Indians were very frank with us. They wanted to keep in touch with us during the election period, but they had to wait through the election, just like we do. It’s the world’s two greatest democracies.

But Bill Burns is now beginning the dialogue with the newly elected government in an atmosphere of great positive feelings. And without getting into Indian politics, all I can say is that all of us – Secretary Clinton, Bill Burns, myself, President Obama – everyone looks forward to working with the newly elected Indian Government.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, Elise Labott with CNN. Thank you. To get back to the humanitarian situation, I mean, some of these villages seem to have been completely ravaged, as you mentioned. And I’m wondering if you think that this is a necessary casualty of the war with the Taliban, or do you think that the Pakistani tactics are not necessarily suited to a counterinsurgency operation and they could benefit from more training or more assistance from the United States and more targeted operations that might not necessarily create these conditions?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: No useful purpose would be served by my second-guessing military tactics on the ground in a combat zone that I was unable to visit on this trip. I did fly over it on a previous trip further north in Bajaur, and I saw some of the villages you’re describing. And – but not knowing exactly what’s happened in that area at the level you’re talking about – I understand your question. It’s a question I’m very interested in, having seen this in a lot of other combat zones. But I’m not going to speculate on it till we get in there.

And it’s – but when you talk to the villagers in the tents – and I recognize that if I go in there, I may not get straight answers from people because there’s a lot of officials and a lot of cameras around, although we tried to keep the press out. But when you talk to them – and I need to stress this – they really understand why the military came in. They want the Taliban out. They hate them, and they think they have destroyed this piece of heaven which was Swat. And so I’m not – there’s no question that a lot of destruction has taken place. That’s why I emphasized the reconstruction phase. But this is something we’ll find out more about as time goes on.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, do you yet see evidence --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Wait a minute. Let me call on my old buddy here.

QUESTION: Charlie Wolfson with CBS.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I think you’re the – I think Charlie’s the only one in the room who actually was here when I started in the government, so we got to give him a shot, right?

QUESTION: I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know if I’ve been here that long, but –

Long enough. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Okay, all right, I – you win that one.

QUESTION: Dayton, ok, but not back to the light at the end of the tunnel.

In your discussions with the political leadership in Pakistan, can you give us an idea of your assessment of whether they’re strong enough to carry the fight through and win and – both politically and on the military side?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I think they are.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke? Ambassador Holbrooke, Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you yet see evidence that the Pakistani Government has a broad counterinsurgency strategy, one that goes beyond simply the military aspects to the kinds of political, economic, educational and other aspects that may be needed to prevail over the long term?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: They outlined to us a strategy – for a comprehensive strategy with particular attention to their economic needs. And I would draw your attention to the fact that they have some IMF/World Bank repayment deadlines coming up as early as July 1st, which put additional burden on this country. And again, we want to help them. I’ll leave it to each one of you to decide whether it fulfills your definition of a comprehensive strategy. I read in the papers they have one, I read in the papers they don’t have one. That’s not my job to make an assessment. My job is to encourage them and support them and not infringe on their sovereignty.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, let me just go to – just a minute, Indira. Let me go to the back.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, I am from Interfax, Russia. How do you view the role of Russia in resolution of the crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: On every trip I’ve made to Afghanistan as a private citizen and as a government official, I’ve called on your remarkable ambassador in Kabul, Ambassador Kabulov – I’m not making his name up, he’s Ambassador Kabulov in Kabul – who has been serving almost continuously in one capacity or another in Afghanistan for over 30 years. We have had this discussion.

He states, as does Sergey Lavrov, the former – my former counterpart at the UN, that the Russians share the same objectives. In our international dialogue, which is an important part of what we’re doing in this Administration, reaching out to other countries like the Gulf states, which I already mentioned – I’ve been in China, Japan and South Korea, Turkey, the EU, and I’ll be going to other countries – in that dialogue, we consider Russia a very important component. They have a major role to play, and I believe we have the same objectives.

QUESTION: But in practical terms?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: To be determined.

QUESTION: Paul Richter with LA Times. I wonder if you have any concern that the money that’s being appropriated by the U.S. for civilian purposes in Pakistan – I’m not talking about the new refugee aid, but the $1.5 billion, that there are --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Kerry-Lugar.

QUESTION: Yeah, that there are enough specific purposes for that money. I mean, I understand there are some people who are concerned that there is – that the process is so new that some of this money may not have a good purpose immediately.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: If you ask me whether every penny that goes into foreign assistance programs is equally valuable, I think we all know the answer. It’s a very – it’s very difficult to be sure that every penny is spent perfectly. But that’s equally true of domestic programs; that’s the nature of the beast. What I can say is that Pakistan needs our help and that help is in our own national security interests. And that’s why the President has endorsed the bill by Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar. In fact, remember that it was originally called the Biden-Lugar-Obama bill when it came up last year and didn’t pass. It’s a very important piece of legislation. And Chairman Berman has got a similar bill in the House.

But if you’re asking how every penny of that is going to be allocated, it is laid out in broad terms in the bill, you can read it for yourself. And the specifics of allocations have to be worked out when it passes, as we hope it will quite soon.

QUESTION: Kirit Radia with ABC News. Much has been said and written about the Pakistani reluctance to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy and to accept U.S. help in training their forces in doing so. Can you tell if in your meetings recently with Pakistan officials, if you believe that they have now agreed to do that? And then, on one other point on the bombing yesterday, if you can clarify a point in some reports that the U.S. was preparing to either purchase or lease that building for use as a consulate, if you could tell us about that?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: The latter point, we were looking at it – the Pearl Hotel in Peshawar, you mean?

QUESTION: Yes.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yeah, we were looking at it.

QUESTION: But it had not been done already, was it?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: No, it hadn’t been done, but it was the one – it was sort of an obvious place to look at. And I had stayed there. And on your first question on training, the Pakistanis are very proud and zealous in emphasizing their sovereignty. They have always said that it is a red line to have no boots – no foreign boots on the ground, in their own phrase. And we respect that. And what we – and how we can help them in regard to maintenance or equipment training issues and so on, is up to them to determine. But our presence in Pakistan on the military side will always be extremely limited.

Jill?

QUESTION: Sir, thank you. Jill Dougherty from CNN. Ambassador, do you believe that the U.S. right now has sufficient supply routes into Afghanistan to supply U.S. troops?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: You know, honestly, Jill, you’ve got to ask David Petraeus that. I follow it vaguely, and I’ll be seeing him tonight, and I’ll get updated. But he’s the one who’s been doing the northern route issue. He’s – I think he will say yes, but let the military talk for themselves on that.

MR. CROWLEY: We have time for one or two more questions.

QUESTION: Mina Al-Oraibi, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: From where?

QUESTION: Asharq Al-Awsat, Arabic language paper.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Based where?

QUESTION: In the UK, distributing internationally.

I wanted to ask you about what you mentioned regarding the Gulf states. You said that, you know, there’s symmetry in how you strategically view Pakistan, but what about the coordination? You said there’s not enough coordination. What sort of coordination are you looking for, and did you have specific requests from the Gulf countries when you went there as – with financial aid?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: No. I do not go to the Gulf to ask for money, like everyone else has so often and, by the way, that I often did in private business. They don’t want to – they don’t want us to come in and say, “Where the check?” I want to establish in a dialogue of mutual respect with these countries whether we have a strategic symmetry. If we do, then policies and coordination will logically proceed in accordance with the individual views of each country. And it’s going to be completely different for the United Arab Emirates than it will be for Oman, for obvious reasons. And each country will deal with it as they wish.

The important thing is that for the first time, the United States is having an extended, serious strategic dialogue. So I didn’t go out there and say – on a fundraising mission. That is for each country to decide. And I’m glad you asked this question, because it’s always assumed – and I want to point something else out. I was the third special envoy to visit these countries in the last six weeks. George Mitchell was there on the Mideast issues, and Dennis Ross was there on the Iran issue. So we are putting a great deal of attention – and then the President went to Riyadh for a historically important meeting with King Abdullah. So there’s a – this is – we’re only in the fifth month of this Administration, and we’re trying to establish an intellectual strategic base.

QUESTION: Ambassador --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Oh, Indira, yes, sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you. Indira Lakshmanan from Bloomberg. I wanted to follow up on something you made reference to earlier about Pakistan having moved a lot of its troops to the western Afghan front. Please give us some details on exactly how many they have, because we also understand that India says that, actually, the number of troops that have been moved there is simply back to the pre-Mumbai bombing levels. And so it seems that it’s a status quo, as opposed to significant change.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m not going to give you figures for the simplest of reasons: It’s for the Pakistan Government to announce their own force deployments, not for me to make a headline here. But I will say that the number of troops that have been moved west is clearly larger than the number that were moved east after the Mumbai bombing. And I don’t believe there’d be any question on that.

QUESTION: And the ROZs and the Berman bill, can you tell us anything about that?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yes, thank you for that. The Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, which were proposed in the House and Senate by a coalition of people led in the House by Chris Van Hollen from Maryland and in the Senate by Maria Cantwell, is a high-priority item for the United States Government. President Obama has twice referred to it in speeches, calling on the Congress to pass it. We have been in extensive communications with the leadership in the House and Senate, particularly the House, because it has to originate in the House.

The legislative process is complicated, and I don’t want to drag you through every detail of it. And in any case, since I haven’t talked to anyone since last night about it, it may have changed. These things are run by the Speaker. But I did have an opportunity to talk to Speaker Pelosi and to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, to Chairman Berman, and to many other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle in the last three days, as have General Jones at the White House has also spoken to the Congress and other people in the legislative affairs areas of both State and the White House, and perhaps higher-level people who I’m unaware of.

And this legislation is vitally important to our national interests in Pakistan. And if you want more details on it, I would refer you to P.J., and he can give you the outlines of what it does. It’s complicated, but it is tremendously important. And I want to make a point: The area on the Pakistan side of the border, the area covered by these ROZs, Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, is where the refugees are. And when they go back to houses which have been destroyed and shops which have been destroyed and try to rebuild their lives, an opportunity for them to have this kind of chance through this bill is all the more important. This bill has been around for three or four years, but it never got to this stage before. We have a real possibility of getting it passed in the next few days and weeks. And it’s never been more important, because it is exactly where the refugees are.

Thank you very much.

Israel Exclusive: Netanyahu Staff Launch Attack on Obama White House

Related Post: US Envoy Mitchell Talks, Netanyahu Tries to Seize Control

In our analysis of the first US-Israeli talks after President Obama's Cairo speech, posted separately, we claim that Israeli Prime Minister is trying to take control of the Palestine issue from Washington.

How can we dare to be so bold? Because of Netanyahu's own officials.

Just after Netanyahu met Obama in mid-May, stories started circulating that the US President wanted an Israel-Palestine settlement by the end of July. Just like the claim that Obama had set a limit of the end of 2009 for an outcome from US-Iran talks, the rumours rang strangely: the President's notion of "engagement" is not one that has rested on deadlines but on opening up possibilities for results.

On Monday, the source and reason for the claim emerged: Benjamin Netanyahu's office wants to put the White House in a corner. So they are attacking the President and his staff through leaks to the Israeli media.

Their summary emerged in Ha'aretz on Monday: "Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel....an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world....the president will present positions that will not be easy for Israel to accept."

That on its own should be sufficient to raise eyebrows in Washington about the Israeli Prime Minister's readiness to deal with the US President. However, Netanyahu's aides went further, launching a personal attack on Obama's advisors. "Under Obama, the White House has become the main problem in relations....White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant David Axelrod are behind the clash between the administration and Israel."

This is far from the first occasion that the Netanyahu camp has followed diplomatic talks by turning, in far from diplomatic terms, against the Obama Administration. Within 72 hours of the Netanyahu-Obama discussions in May, they were briefing the press that US policies were "childish" and "juvenile".

Still, it is striking that as Obama envoy George Mitchell tries to keep the diplomatic temperature low, avoiding any challenge in public statements or leaks of discussions, Netanyahu's staff are raising the heat by doing exactly the opposite. In preparation for the Prime Minister's own major speech next week, they''ve said:

Bring it on.

Lebanon's Election: Text of Hezbollah's Concession Speech (8 June)

The text of the speech delivered by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Al Manar Television after the Lebanese elections on 8 June 2009:

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the world. Peace be on our Master and Prophet – The Seal of Prophets – Abi Al Qassem Mohamad Bin Abdullah and on his chaste and kind Household, chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers. Peace be upon you all and Allah's blessing and mercy.

Tonight I will move from the general to the private then I will end up with two general topics. Indeed I'll address you all in my speech which tackles the event we passed through together which is the parliamentary elections and its outcome.

First: I would like to congratulate all the Lebanese people with all their political parties, movements and groups on this great important national achievement.

I would like also to praise the popular showing at voting stations in all regions and from all sects what reflects a great political responsibility towards national causes and the present and future of this nation and people. This is indeed a very great positive point which must be lauded and which must be likewise stressed and strengthened because after all it sets a clear track that shows that we as a Lebanese people deserve to own this chance and to resort to this means in face of essential causes.

Second: I would like to thank all ministries and political, judiciary and security administrations especially the Lebanese Army and the security forces on their running of this process and on preserving security, stability and peace what gave a great chance for the Lebanese to vote and express their views. This is noticeable especially because these political, security and judiciary administrations were before a great challenge which is holding elections in one day. So despite the defects and flaws which took place and which indeed will be evaluated so as to be addressed later, we believe it was a major challenge and we believe that it was faced with great responsibility.

Third: I like to congratulate all the winners in parliamentary elections whether from the Loyalists or from the Opposition and in all parliamentary districts. They all must know that now they have assumed the responsibility of the people and the future of this country. So Inshallah they will live up to this assumed responsibility.

Fourth: We accept the results announced by the Interior Minister indeed while preserving the right of candidates in the various districts. If any of them has any information that enables him to appeal before the Constitutional Council, this would be a particular issue. As for the official results which were announced, we accept them with sportsmanship and democratic spirits. We also accept that the other contesting group – i.e. the Loyalists – has won the majority of seats in the parliament though the Opposition preserved its previous parliamentary position in sum (as it lost some districts and won others).
Indeed we accept the parliamentary majority. Well in previous ceremonies, I used to say that there is a difference between parliamentary majority and popular majority. The parliamentary majority might or might not be the popular majority. Anyway, we accept the parliamentary majority. As for the popular majority, it seems that needs centers for studies and statistics to review figures closely so as to know who gains the popular majority. I believe that we all can resort to the ballot boxes to help us in deciding the popular majority (as we resorted to ballot boxes to decide the parliamentary elections) and if most of the votes in sum were for the interest of the other party, I will accept that they are also the popular majority.
Now we accept the results regardless of our evaluation of the election process and the means used in this regard whether the huge expenditure which will be clearly illustrated within days, the sectarian, factional –and at times racial- incitement which was illustrated during the election campaigns days, the accusations and lies which aimed at intimidating the public opinion especially within some sects and some districts, (It is more precise to say that lying mills were used in this perspective) and the open and overt foreign interference. Anyway, I will not interfere in such an evaluation. I just wanted to point even if with hints to that. We will have our evaluation of the election process from A to Z as the other forces will make such evaluations but that will not influence our acceptance of the results.

In this framework and as we are talking about results and accepting results, I would like to point out two big lies (which have been prompted through the election campaign) that have been thwarted. As these points are directly related to us especially the Opposition and more precisely to Hezbollah, I feel that I am concerned in singling them out and clarifying these two points.
First the lie number one is the political rhetoric that has been exploited for months regarding the Opposition as seeking to cripple elections and ruining the political and security status so as to prevent elections from taking place. Then if the Opposition found out that it is losing the elections and not moving towards parliamentary majority while voting is taking place it will destroy the ballots and blur up the situation. Also if after counting votes or when results are announced, the Opposition will not accept the results and will challenge the parliamentary elections and consider them illegitimate and consequently push the country towards political, popular and security crises. This has been said if not from all Loyalist leaderships (to be on the safe side) from most of them.

Well today (Monday) here I am at your service. The results were announced and we are dealing with them normally. This is the first proof on the big lie invested in the elections campaign. The election day was normal, natural and excellent. The security status was excellent and stable. The turnout was huge. The vote counting was quiet. Results were announced and no problem took place. It was clear that all were fearful. I was following up with the Interior Minister – whom we address with a special salutation – while he was saying now we are over with the elections and the great event is issuing the results via vote counting. We have to accept the outcome because there was anxiety. This is the first point. We may say that this is one of the big lies which were invested in the election campaign. Now it fell.

No comes the second lie which is even bigger than the first and which was invested more in the election campaign. Well when I handle such points I don't mean to record lies to highlight the upcoming stage. We want to benefit from the past to highlight the future. In recent months, speeches, statements and interviews focused on how elections would be held while the resistance arms are still there. That means that elections are not fair; people are under pressure; they can't express themselves as this arm is imposing choices on the people; the people are not convinced in their choices. This also and to be on the safe side was said by most of the other party leaderships. They wrote articles and made lengthy interviews on this issue. Indeed if the opposition won the parliamentary elections, that issue was to be raised again. They would've said the fairness of the elections is challenged because it was held in the presence of the resistance arms. Now and because the Loyalists had the parliamentary elections no one is tackling that issue. I am reminding of that because after the elections were announced and we accepted that, this great lie has been exposed. The elections were held in Lebanon in all districts in the presence of the arms weapons. In the presence of the resistance arsenal which has never been present since 1982, people voted; there was no pressure; no one imposed anything on them, results were issue today and nothing took place.
So one of the most important conclusions is that this arm is not used to impose political realities. One of the most important political events at most is parliamentary elections because the role played by the parliament in the Lebanese regime is well known whether electing the president (We as well are through also with the lie of shortening the presidential tenure), forming the government, lawmaking, public budget, agreements… So if we wanted to say which is the most important internal political event at all? It is the parliamentary elections. Well people voted with utmost ease and freedom. Neither the arms nor their deed was noticed. This proves what we have always been saying that these arms are not to impose political realities and not to put or take off people from power. It has a clear employment which is that of resistance and defending the country. Here I stress that the election process as a whole had proved before all accusers and misleaders the soundness of the direction to which this arm is pointed. I wrap up this point saying that the Lebanese have proved their ability as a state, people and political and security forces to preserve security, stability, civil peace, political and media election competition – even sharp competition – without touching on the pillars of security and stability. Now we must guard and preserve this. We have always been saying that we have to resort to the ballot boxes. The whole story of the Opposition since July War until now was resorting to the polls. We would have spared our country all these troubles.

Fifth, I like to greet with high estimation all the Lebanese National Opposition leaderships, cadres, movements, parties and masses. I tell them: Dear ones, we have together put before our eyes a noble national goal which is working to achieve a great reform on all perspectives whether legal, political, economic, social, living, financial… Thus we – the Lebanese National Opposition – sought to gain the parliamentary majority to serve the reform project and not to seize power and have hegemony over the authority. We all in the Lebanese National Opposition exerted utmost legitimate efforts in the election battle. We have all faced what was properly called by General Michael Aoun a global war because no one in the whole world hasn't but tried to interfere in the elections. The Opposition masses got involved in this great national battle with utmost faithfulness and zeal.

Now if we couldn't serve this reform project which we believed in from the parliamentary majority post, that does not mean that we have no obligation as national forces to serve this reform project from another position whether as parliamentary, popular and political Opposition from outside or inside the government. These options are open for debate. But this responsibility towards the reform project which we believed in and sought to achieve remains valid. Today I renew the pledge and call on all the Opposition leaderships to renew the pledge and commitment along with all the popular groups who have voted for the Opposition tickets in many and all the districts to renew their pledges to serve the reform project which the masses have believed in and worked for and bore and stood with the opposition forces all through the past period all these sufferings. This responsibility never ends or stops. Indeed the parliamentary elections despite their importance are not more than a station in the long way of the national political struggle to achieve these noble goals.

We in the Opposition are supposed to make consultations very soon Inshallah to decide our steps, course and the way to deal with the upcoming events. Indeed we are before naming the speaker and the premier and forming the government, and we have to decide on how to deal with these events as an Opposition. Now I do not want to have the final word in any matter because that needs studying, consultations and an agreement among the National Opposition. That will take place in the next few days Inshallah.

I whole-heartedly and on behalf of all my brethrens in Hezbollah leadership thank and highly esteem specially the masses of the resistance and the masses of Hezbollah. Here I would like to mention the categorization resorted to in the electoral districts. In some districts there wasn't election competition. We considered them as present on the fire line such as South, Baalbek-Hermel, Beirut Southern Suburbs which gathered the two issues (being on the fire line and a competition district). In the districts where there was no competition but still we called on people to come massively to ballots stations to express the political choices especially regarding the resistance (as it is they who paid the tax of blood, displacement, house demolition during July War and others) we found out that despite in the fact that South and Baalbeck-Hermel districts did not witness election competition, the percentage of voters was very high and in some cases exceeded the districts which witnessed sharp and tough competition. This huge popular turnout in the various regions is highly esteemed. Indeed it wasn't surprising because it is the conviction, wish and will of the people. I also want to thank the masses who participated in the districts where there were election competitions: Western Bekaa, Rashaya, Mid Bekaa, Mount Lebanon districts, the North and Beirut in general where we have popular masses, brethrens and activists who exerted great efforts. Also I like to thank the campaign staffs in all regions who worked for months with great and clear efforts which yielded this great popular presence. This was their right whether in the districts where there are Shiite seats or not and whether in the districts where there were Hezbollah voters or not because we worked on the bases that the Opposition as a whole is involved in the battle and it is our normal right that we be present. We have electors in northern Matn who want to vote also in Kisirwan, Jbeil and Koura and all the other districts. Here I want to condemn again some sectarian, factional racist rhetoric which does not agree that if the majority in a definite district is of a definite sect and others came to say the final word in the district. In fact, this is what took place in most of the districts. In some districts the final word was for sects and in others for factional minorities. So why here the speech is sectarian and there it is national? Every Lebanese person whatever his religious sect or faction be has the right and it is even his duty to vote in the region where he is registered in the striking rolls. That's his national obligation and if he failed to fulfill this obligation he would be abandoning his national responsibility. I greatly salute all the campaign staffs. I also congratulate all my brethrens in the Loyalty to Resistance Bloc in all the districts because all the Bloc's candidates won in all the districts with very high votes and they have gained unprecedented public support.

I conclude with two general points. The first has to do with the people and the great embrace in these districts which was much more like a referendum. The people have addressed the whole world with a message: the choice of the resistance is not that of an armed party or gang. It's not a choice imposed on people by force and pressure. No one could oblige the people especially in districts where there was no competition to leave their regions and go to ballot boxes in such huge turnout especially with the existence of new obstacles as a result of the new administration followed in elections. Those people who showed up in ballots sent a message to the whole world: the choice of resistance is a popular choice especially in areas which face the threat of aggression. Consequently the choice of resistance is an expression of the will of these people, their inclination, culture, awareness and life. This must be respected. The second message is that resistance is not a piece of arms to be debated but rather a popular will. This point is to be discussed on the dialogue table. It must be discussed regarding the people's will and choices, especially those people who live in the arena under threat.

In this point in particular, I heard some statements or discussions which express fear over this point in the upcoming stage. I say there is no need for fear in all cases. As long as the resistance is a popular choice embraced by the people there is no need for fear because no one can do anything with the popular will. I stressed this point before the elections and after the elections regardless of who might have won. This is left for a quiet dialogue and objective discussion. I believe this is the right path which all parties are supposed to have announced their commitment to. Consequently, there is no need to have fear or polarize over this topic whether now or in the upcoming stage.

The last point which I like to end with is that after this great national achievement in elections, the chance of establishing a strong capable fair state is still possible regardless of the election results. We agree that there are great challenges before us as Lebanese whether on the economic level (financial crisis) or on the social, living, political, administrative and other levels. So I believe we all must have reached the conviction of saving this country, developing it, solving its troubles, raising its status and guarding its independence, freedom and dignity. That needs the cooperation of all Lebanese regardless of the nature of this cooperation. The chance is still there. This is linked to the will of all political forces which have proved in ballot boxes their popular political parliamentary presence. Ballot boxes have proved that even those who did not win in parliamentary seats have great popular support in their regions which must not be neglected. So this has to do to a great extent with the will of the political forces and parties. But I believe that this is essentially and primarily linked to the party which gained the parliamentary majority in these elections. How will its conduct be? What's its true program? Let's put aside what was said before the elections. Tell us after the elections: what's the true program? What is the program which it wants? This program must be known to the Lebanese because this is the future of their country. What are the priorities of this party? In which mentality they will behave? With what spirit they will deal with the public affairs? Will they benefit from the previous years experiences especially the last four years? Will they blunder in classifying priorities or will they classify them in the right way?

After the parliamentary elections, the party which have become the parliamentary majority is more concerned with how to deal with the upcoming stage while the National Opposition which have preserved its parliamentary position will work from its popular parliamentary and political position which might be more on the popular level that will be illustrated in figures in the coming few days. So the majority is concerned with the fate of the country. It can't quit the square by any means. It is concerned in the upcoming stage to be clear with the Lebanese. Nothing must be hidden at all. That's because transparency and clarity and truthfulness are very important elements in our country to overcome troubles and disputes and to open doors wide before dialogue and agreement. So let's try to build a republic based on truthfulness. Enough with fabricating events that have to do with the authority or with deciding priorities based on lies, accusations, fears and worries. Tonight I like to answer all what was said in the election campaign. Let go with that. The days ahead will prove as this day that there were two lies which were exploited for the elections concerning the position of the Opposition from the elections and holding elections while there are arms. Let's put what have been said behind. Let's depend on faithfulness, transparency and clarity. Let's be open with each other whether Loyalists or Opposition so as to build together a country and to defend and develop it. Let's together help this country out of the crises which it has been suffering from for long.

We are before a new stage and status. May Allah bless all those who have exerted great efforts in the previous stage. This was a station. Let's deal with it with all its results. Let's benefit from the lessons of the past. Let's see where the gaps were? What are the good and bad points? What are the points of strength and points of weakness? Let's develop our presence. But what must not be touched ever is our responsibility towards our people and country especially those who had offered blood and great efforts to liberate this nation and defend its existence. This station must furnish us with more determination and will to continue working and struggling with hope and confidence in the future so that we be able to see our country for which our brethrens, sons and dear ones have offered their chaste souls and blood. We must preserve it, defend it and move it forward Inshallah. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessing.

Afghanistan Magic: How to Turn Mass Killing Into Public-Relations Victory

Thomas Barnett, a Pentagon consultant who contributed to post-2001 fiascos with his creation of an "arc of instability", blogs with an apparently straight face about the Washington Post story, which we covered last Friday, that the US military had finally admitted "operational mistakes" in the killing of up to 150 civilians in western Afghanistan:

It is both amazing and a credit to our military that we can so swiftly (just a month) and so readily admit serious operational mistakes in the field.

Some people--most actually--read this story and see only the screw-up. But the correction is impressive, despite the mistake.