[Peace-discuss] Unfashionable sense on Lebanon

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The administration is playing the same murderous and dangerous game in Lebanon 
  that it is in Gaza -- covertly supporting attempts to counter a popular 
movement that won't follow US orders.  Such subversion makes a mockery of USG 
claims that it is in the Middle East to support democracy.  But of course no one 
in the world believes that, except US editors and columnists.  Here's one of the 
few sensible voices on this issue in the Congress. --CGE]

	May 22, 2008
	March to War in Lebanon?
	by Rep. Ron Paul

Statement on H Res 1194, "Reaffirming the support of the House of 
Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon 
under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora."

I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194 because it is dangerously interventionist 
and will likely lead to more rather than less violence in the Middle East.

I have noticed that this legislation reads eerily similar to a key clause in the 
2002 Iraq war bill, H J Res 114, which authorized the use of force.

The key resolved clause in H. Res. 1194 before us today reads:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives –

(6) urges –

(A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately 
take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government 
of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;

The Iraq war authorization language from 2002 is strikingly similar, as you can 
see here:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the 
United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to –

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing 
threat posed by Iraq;

I am concerned that this kind of similarity is intentional and will inevitably 
result in US military action in Lebanon, or against Syria or Iran.

I am also concerned over the process of bringing this resolution to the Floor 
for a vote. I find it outrageous that H. Res. 1194, which calls for more risky 
US interventionism in the Middle East, is judged sufficiently 
"non-controversial" to be placed on the suspension calendar for consideration on 
the House Floor outside of normal order. Have we reached the point where it is 
no longer controversial to urge the president to use "all appropriate actions" – 
with the unmistakable implication that force may be used – to intervene in the 
domestic affairs of a foreign country?

Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating the conflict between rival 
political factions in Lebanon and has had some success in halting the recent 
violence. Currently, negotiations are taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese 
factions and some slow but encouraging progress is being made. Regional actors – 
who do have an interest in the conflict – have stepped up in attempt to diffuse 
the crisis and reach a peaceful solution, and press reports today suggest that a 
deal between the rival factions may have been reached. Yet at this delicate 
stage of negotiations the US House is preparing to pass a very confrontational 
resolution pledging strong support for one side and condemning competing 
factions. US threats in this resolution to use "all appropriate actions" to 
support one faction are in fact a strong disincentive for factions to continue 
peaceful negotiations and could undermine the successes thus far under Arab 
League moderation.

This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one faction in 
Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the other side. Wouldn’t 
it be better to be involved on neither side and instead encourage the 
negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict?

Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in 
Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and 
more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria 
increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing 
ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do 
with the United States.

This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East. It involves 
the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict between competing 
Lebanese political factions and will increase rather than decrease the chance 
for an increase in violence. The Lebanese should work out political disputes on 
their own or with the assistance of regional organizations like the Arab League. 
I urge my colleagues to reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12882