Obama: time to engage in diplomacy

Guess what time it is? It’s time for Obama’s “diplomatic efforts” to come save the day.

Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.

Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing national consensus with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been building consensus with them. Because what we did back in 1982, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2006 – all that was plain betrayal and unnecessary antagonism, a product of a corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.

We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them.

Yes, this is change we believe in. Get me a time machine.

Comments

[an american]

You really need to re-read that quote. He does not advocate negotiating with terrorists, but he advocates negotiating with anyone who has the clout with Hizbollah. Do you think Americans really want to go fight another stupid war in the middle east or would you rather we rebuild our international pressure with superpowers.

[Joe]

Saying that you'll "talk to your adversaries" invariably means having to negotiate something, and negotiating something away. For the left, this means not really realizing until its' too late, that they negotiated from a position of weakness for the sake of a little good PR.

In this case it means trading away the support the US lends the civilized in Lebanon. I, for one, don't want that. I don't want a "Somali courts" style government that takes "advice" from Teheran where people are still leaving in droves and the economy and society are mismanaged and paranoic.

If you DO want to risk bringing on that chain of events, then Obama is your man.