In response, President Bush said, "All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience."
I know he doesn't read the papers, but maybe his advisors want to clue him in that Lebanon's conscience seems to not be moving at all.
Which brings me to the following questions:
- How does Bush feel about democracy in Lebanon if a clear majority of Lebanese support the current relationship with Syria?
- How is Syria's occupation of Lebanon really that different from our occupation of Iraq? You have to admit, Beirut is looking a lot better than it did twenty years ago.
- Why is no one in the Bush administration calling for the return of parts of Lebanon occupied by Israel?
2 comments:
1. This gets into a Catch-22, since getting at what the Lebanese people truly want would require the Syrian occupation to end. So, if the Syrian troops were pulled back, and then a government was elected in Lebanon that invited them to come back, and Bush still didn't think Syria should be there, then yes, he wouldn't be respecting their democracy. Short of that improbable scenario, I don't think one can make a convincing case that Bush is trying to impose his views on the Lebanese people (other than his view that they ought to have democratic elections).
2. Syria has occupied parts of Lebanon since 1976. The U.S. has been in Iraq for less than two years, although that could conceivably be considered longer if the period of patrolling the no fly zones is included. In any event, I think it's fair to say that our stay in Iraq will be temporary. Until recently, it was unclear whether Syria would leave Lebanon.
3. Because Israel no longer occupies Lebanon, except for the Shebaa Farms area, which is not clearly a part of Lebanon anyway.
JP
Good questions! My one question is more simplistic: why is "everyone" so concerned about democracy in every country in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia?
Chris
Post a Comment