National Defence Strategy as proposed by GMA

[ecce homo]

Lahoud: Priority is to defend Lebanon, not disarm Hizbullah
'Israel is the enemy of all the Lebanese people' - Abu Faour
By Nicholas Kimbrell
Daily Star staff
Saturday, November 15, 2008

BEIRUT: A successful national defense strategy is not about disarming Hizbullah, but about protecting Lebanon, Minister of State Nassib Lahoud said Friday at a conference on the future of Lebanon's national defense strategy. "We do not want Lebanon to be a battlefield for Israel or a comfort gift for a loser in the region," he said.

Lahoud delivered his comments during a plenary session, entitled "The Regional Environment and its Effects on Lebanon," on the first day of a national defense conference at the Beirut International Exhibition and Leisure Center.

The conference, hosted by the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA), aims to contribute to the ongoing national defense strategy talks in Lebanon - the centerpiece of national dialogue sessions chaired by President Michel Sleiman.

Speakers and attendees at Friday's session included a collection of parliamentarians, Cabinet members, retired military brass, and academics.

The two-day conference comes at a pivotal time for Lebanon's fledgling defense strategy talks - in the wake of Sleiman's suspension of national dialogue sessions until late December and as the rival March 14 and March 8 coalitions debate competing defense proposals presented last week.

At the opening ceremony, Arab League representative Hisham Youssef, speaking on behalf of the organization's secretary general, Amr Moussa, said that the conference was in a position to provide "recommendations and proposals that will enrich the national dialogue."

The primary national duty of the Lebanese people and the citizens of the Arab world is to "put our efforts into preventing the vicious cycles of conflict and tension," Youssef said, adding that Lebanon must commit itself to civil security and restrain from violent rhetoric and actions.

Many speakers followed suit, highlighting the ongoing threats facing Lebanon and the vulnerability of its state institutions. Ali Fayyad, a professor at the Lebanese University and president of the Consultative Center for Studies and Documentation, noted Lebanon's fragility and the precariousness of its internal divisions.

"Lebanon is a very fragile state ... where institutions are incapable of absorbing political divisions," Fayyad said. He cited Iraq and Palestine as other places where populations are forced to handle domestic discord, abetted by regional sponsorship.

Fayyad was one of the few representatives of the March 8 opposition bloc, and his commentary sparked lively responses from the audience, particularly remarks concerning relations with Iran and the importance of direct democracy.

Given the politically motivated spirit behind much of the discussion on Lebanon's national defense policy, several partisan themes and disagreements were revisited Friday. Questions over Hizbullah's arms, and over relations with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and the preeminent threat posed by Israel extended seminar blocks well beyond their allotted times.

Minister of State Wael Abu Faour said Israel remained the chief enemy of all Lebanese, regardless of their confessional and political affiliations.

"We are all convinced that Israel is the enemy of all the Lebanese people," he said. "Of course, there are different enemies for different parties, but Israel is the common enemy."

This sentiment was echoed by Lahoud, who noted that "we know Israel is the enemy."

In his opening remarks Youssef saluted the success of the resistance in defending Lebanon from Israel, but said that the Arab League would like to see it operate in coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to bolster the legitimacy of the state.

Michel Nawfal, the foreign editor of the Mustaqbal daily, a newspaper owned by the March 14-aligned Future Movement, argued for the need of a new conception of national security. Hizbullah should not be allowed to make decisions of war and peace without first consulting with the government, he said.

Nawfal proposed the idea of a "critical red line" with Israel, one that when violated could authorize the use of the resistance's military capacity.

Speaking about the threat posed by Israel, professor and retired General Elias Hanna emphasized the importance of distinguishing between enemies and dangers.

"An enemy [can] bring us problems and a friend can bring us problems as well," Hanna said in a tacit reference to both Israel and Syria. Due to these divergent dangers, he added, "defense strategy is a living thing."

Mohammad Abbass, also a retired general and defense analyst, noted the many difficult choices facing the state and the Lebanese Army.

He noted that integrating Hizbullah into to the army could have negative consequences like diminishing defensive flexibility and potentially realigning the political orientation of the LAF.

Ultimately, Abbass said, the state must exercise control over the country. "Building the identity of Lebanon should go through building the army," he said. But he added that "in its current state [the army] is unable to address these threats."

Other panelists suggested that pursuing a national defense strategy before Lebanon's spring parliamentary elections and Israel's snap elections planned for early 2009 seemed a bit premature.

INEGMA, the host of the conference, which continues Saturday, will be opening an office in Beirut in the coming months.

[Soul_of_Pierre]

Originally Posted by Learned

the problem is that the very system of government itself is dysfunctional because it is a deeply sectarian system. Every last problem in the country can be traced back to the flawed system of government that is in place, including the issue of sovereignty.

Ok, yes it is a sectarian problem(much jdide), ur explaining my introduction...thank you

Originally Posted by Learned

Who ever said that sovereignty is to be equated with state-hegemony over the people?

no one

Originally Posted by Learned

Does the state work for the people or do the people work for the state?

the state works for the people, who said the opposite, what r u claiming?

Originally Posted by Learned

Sovereignty lies with the people, not with the state

la2 haboub, Sovereignty lies with the state, BY the TRUST of the people (2i3ta2 el si2a lal 7oukoume, le parlement donne sa confiance).
--------THIS is the " most basic ideal of democracy and freedom".

Originally Posted by Learned

When the state fails in its responsibility to protecting the people, it ceases to have any claim over the unalienable right of the people to defend themselves when needed. Sovereignty is a right of the people to be attained, and the failure of a state to attain it has no bearing on the options of the people to resort to that which necessity necessitates for their own interests and security.

when the state fails in its responsibilities in general, and specialy to protect people, WISE AND CIVILISED populations sanction their state in the voting boxes, THIS is democraty my dear...

Originally Posted by Learned

Let's take a step back from an unscientific characterization of the issue from a "psychological" perspective, and step back into the realms of reality and rationality.

yes, plz tell me :)

Originally Posted by Learned

Organizations with arms fall into to categories relevant for the purposes of this discussion: those whose arms exits as a reaction to national security threats, and those whose play no role in national security.
A logical and rational argument here, is to say that because the existence of these arms constitutes a reaction to specific causes that threaten our country and people, what one must do is remedy the causes. Once this is done, the reaction itself (i.e. the arms) no longer serve a function, and they will be relinquished by overwhelming will of the people.

This is a very poor scenario. Small arms exist everywhere, and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with any type of civil resistance. The weapons of a civil resistance are its military infrastructure, its communications network, its rocket and missile forces, its command and control network, its tactical and strategic weapons, etc. These existence of this coherent military infrastructure (given its structure and status) very clearly is aimed at specific national security objectives, and cannot be exploited by any random individual in order to commit crimes. Getting rid of such a military infrastructure has absolutely nothing to do with the AK's, B7's, and pistols that any 3antar can get their hands on and use to commit crimes.

if your ambition is to have a country with 95% of the population holding, keeping, and playing with their children with AK's and B7's, in addition of thousands of palestinians running in our backyards(training) with some "lebanese" friends of them helping them to launch rockets and katyoushas,and dugging infrastructures like taups, dreaming every day of freedom in the land of palestine...THIS IS NOT MY PROBLEM AND I'M NOT GONNA PAY ANY PENNY FOR IT!!!......i'm dreaming about a quite, secure, stable, egalitarian, civilised, clean, well-built, nice and NON-polluted country, this is what i want as a young lebanese who wants to live in HIS country, and this is how i want my country to be when i will raising my children.(this is why all the lebanese youth are traveling to other countries:to get stability, security and prosperity)

Originally Posted by Learned

Citizens are equal in legal status, but not equal in initiative.The choice by some portions of society to refrain active and passive forms of civil resistance does not constitute a limitations of right on anyone.It is a form of relinquishing a right or choosing not to exercise it. Conversely, the choice by other portions of society to engage in active and passive forms of civil resistance does not constitute a monopoly of over anyone. It is a form of exercising a right.

dear, did you hear about l'Etat de droit??? A state where ALL the citizens are under the law??if it's not listed between GMA tagets, it is one of our basics.
and note that the "the limits of your rights is the rights of others".

Originally Posted by Learned

Historically, the armed status of the civil resistance succeeded the armed status of the vast majority of the other armed sectors of society.

i congratulate you for your victory!

Originally Posted by Learned

In any case, those who want to retain arms based on sectarian or political calculations (not cultural ones as you incorrectly asserted) instead of national security objectives, do not fall into the category of a civil resistance. It is far more feasible, and logical in light of the security threats we face, to contain and disarm those whose arms exist for sectarian purposes.

plz let this conversation be clear, objective and let us accept fats instead of turning them into flying theories, for the only purpose of defending ur positions, let's talk honest wa 2ella, our problems won't be resolved.

Originally Posted by Learned

Ironically, those who seem to be against enforcing (as opposed to "reinforcing") the Lebanese army, are those who reject the idea of a civilian resistance, seemingly in order to legitimize the existence of their own arms. Furthermore, the civilian resistance has been one of the most active and vocal proponents of enforcing the Lebanese army, and it does not see a disparity between this idea and some "psychological" tendency on their part not to want to relinquish their arms.

i invite to know you ally as the first step, secondly it will be suitable to learn about your ennemy

Originally Posted by Learned

Yes, let us enforce the Lebanese army since we all agree this is part of the solution.

your ally didn't agree(as it seems praticly, isn't he part of the government?)

Originally Posted by Learned

But the solution is meant to remedy the real problem which is not the existence of a civil resistance, but the existence of national security threats.

i suggest you to go fight in palestine.

Originally Posted by Learned

Therefore, the solution needs to take advantage and exploit every strength we have on the national level, and minimize every weakness on national level. The best way to do this is to take advantage of the the pro's and strengths of the resistance and army

if we have to exploit every strength and minmize every weakness on national level, we should do it via the lebanese state in which we all beleive (not to forget that GMA was head of the LEBANESE army and government), not the resistance of HA.

Originally Posted by Learned

reform the political system away from its sectarian basis, and unyieldingly crack down on those whose armed status is a consequence of narrow and backwards sectarian and extremist motivations.

i totally agree with you, finally!!!! our political system needs to be changed to the same puposes ur talking about!!(7allna ntawwir el nizam!!)

[kappa273]

this is from albalad, nov 17, 2008:

ديانا سكيني - فــي الــمــحــور الــثــامــن مــن المذكرة المعنونة "حول موضوع سلاح حزب الله وخطة الدفاع عن الجنوب" المقدمة من الرئيس أمين الجميّل الى طاولة الحوار الاولى المنعقدة بعد انتخاب الرئيس ميشال سليمان، وتحت عنوان "من عمق التجربة، أمثلة ومقترحات"، تُــفــرد الفقرة "ألـــف" لتبيان الــرؤيــة الدفاعية الأمثل في مواجهة الأخطار الإسرائيلية التي تحددها المذكرة اطماعاً في الارض والثروات الجوفية، فترى أن افضل الادوار التي يمكن عرضها على المواطن اللبناني، هو أن يكون خفيراً حاميا لمصالح وطنه جميعها. بما في ذلك الشأن الدفاعي، ومسألة السلم الاهلي، بحيث يكون شريكاً فعلياً في حماية لبنان وبحيث ينهض بهذه المهمة اللبنانيون كلهم مــن كــل انــحــاﺀ الــوطــن وكــل مذاهبه وطــوائــفــه وكــل أطــيــاف سياساته، فيتم تأهيلهم من أجل هذه الغاية، تأهيلاً تربوياً عقائدياً وعسكرياً قتالياً لمقاومة اي خطر يتهدد الوطن، فلا تبقى هذه المهمة حصراً على فريق سياسي او مذهبي يستبعد سواه من الافرقاﺀ. من هنا تقدم حزب الكتائب باقتراح للاسترشاد بالمثل السويسري في التعبئة والدفاع الشامل من خلال الدولة والمؤسسات الوطنية

.

kappa

[Learned]

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

the state works for the people, who said the opposite, what r u claiming?

la2 haboub, Sovereignty lies with the state, BY the TRUST of the people (2i3ta2 el si2a lal 7oukoume, le parlement donne sa confiance).
--------THIS is the " most basic ideal of democracy and freedom".

We have a fundamental disagreement here. The principle that I hold above all others is the right of the individual to be sovereign in his own land, not the right of the state to be sovereign at the expense of the interests of the people. A state, by nature, is restrictive. Every state that exists in the world, is built upon a system of restrictions. The people, by nature, are against restriction, and therefore true freedom and sovereignty lies with the people.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

when the state fails in its responsibilities in general, and specialy to protect people, WISE AND CIVILISED populations sanction their state in the voting boxes, THIS is democraty my dear...

I am unsure of what you are trying to suggest here. Either you think that the only option of the people, when their state fails to protect them, is to reflect this at the ballot box -- or you are suggesting that societies that go farther than the ballot box are somehow unwise and uncivilized.

Either way, you are not making sense. A society facing eminent threats by an adversary cannot be expected to simply be happy with voting differently (under a deeply sectarian and dysfunctional system no less) and completely disregard their unalienable right to take to arms to defend themselves in light of the threats their state has failed to protect them from. Waiting for the next cycle of elections, if it even materializes in a country like Lebanon, will not protect anyone from bombs and sorties.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

if your ambition is to have a country with 95% of the population holding, keeping, and playing with their children with AK's and B7's, in addition of thousands of palestinians running in our backyards(training) with some "lebanese" friends of them helping them to launch rockets and katyoushas,and dugging infrastructures like taups, dreaming every day of freedom in the land of palestine...THIS IS NOT MY PROBLEM AND I'M NOT GONNA PAY ANY PENNY FOR IT!!!......i'm dreaming about a quite, secure, stable, egalitarian, civilised, clean, well-built, nice and NON-polluted country, this is what i want as a young lebanese who wants to live in HIS country, and this is how i want my country to be when i will raising my children.(this is why all the lebanese youth are traveling to other countries:to get stability, security and prosperity)

I never suggested any of the sort. The point that I made is one that you failed to reply to.

Before you can have quiet, stability, egalitarianism, civilization, cleanliness, and non-pollution, you have to be in a position to defend yourself from your adversary. If course, I don't want 95% of the population running around with weapons, or Palestinians holding weapons. But I stand by the right of the people to defend themselves with whatever means necessary, and if this includes a civil resistance forming in light of a state that fails to protect the people, then I have absolutely no problem with that. If you do have a problem with it, you can voice your opinion at the ballot box, but you cannot ask me to relinquish my right to defend my home and people.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

dear, did you hear about l'Etat de droit??? A state where ALL the citizens are under the law??if it's not listed between GMA tagets, it is one of our basics.
and note that the "the limits of your rights is the rights of others".

This does not contradict with what I wrote. All citizens are equal under law, but not in initiative. If a law recognizes the right of the people to resist, and you choose not to, that is your choice, but it has no bearing on me. My right to defend myself is unalienable.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

plz let this conversation be clear, objective and let us accept fats instead of turning them into flying theories, for the only purpose of defending ur positions, let's talk honest wa 2ella, our problems won't be resolved.

I have been searching for someone to talk honestly and frankly about the real issues we have to deal with for a while now. The problem in that this country is full of opposition to solutions -- simple for the sake of opposition, with no substance to replace those solutions. I have identified that the central problem is not the existence of resistance, because its existence is a reaction to a specific cause, which is a clear national security threat. What is your solution to deal with the national security threat? I have not heard a solution from you.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

i invite to know you ally as the first step, secondly it will be suitable to learn about your ennemy

your ally didn't agree(as it seems praticly, isn't he part of the government?)

My dear, I am not an FPMer. Just the other day SHN was rebuking the head of the central bank (who is M14) for asserting that the government can't afford to equip the army. So how then did HA not agree, when in all practicality and reality, they have been one of the foremost proponents of strengthening the army, both in principle and in action?

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

i suggest you to go fight in palestine.

I tell you we have national security threats, and you tell me to go fight in Palestine? What happened to having a clear, objective discussion, and talking honestly to resolve our problems? This is exactly what I mean by opposition to solutions simple for the sake of opposition. If this is your view point, than you are clearly not ready to assume a clear objective discussion to solve problems, because you are ignoring reality.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

if we have to exploit every strength and minmize every weakness on national level, we should do it via the lebanese state in which we all beleive (not to forget that GMA was head of the LEBANESE army and government), not the resistance of HA.

If we had a state through which this could be done, I would want HA to disarm tomorrow. The reality, however, is that we don't. HA does represent a number of strengths that could be exploited effectively for national interests. As long as there is a lack of an alternative, we should work on creating an alternative on one hand, and in the mean time exploit every strength and advantage that we have at our disposal.

Originally Posted by Soul_of_Pierre

i totally agree with you, finally!!!! our political system needs to be changed to the same puposes ur talking about!!(7allna ntawwir el nizam!!)

Glad we agree.

[kappa273]

apparently, Amine Gemayel is smoking the same thing...

now in view of hte age difference, Gemayel runs a higher risk of developing smoking-related medical issues since by numbers he has a longer time to live..

now back to the original idea...

the idea is not about number of weapons.. the idea is about the proper way of resisting Israel's aggressive behavior...

the old idea that Lebanon's strength is in his weakness doesn't seem to be accepted by everybody anymore...

the lebanese army will in no way be able to stand in front of the israeli army if and when it decides to invade lebanon....

the only reasonable alternative and of course tested has been the idea of the popular guerilla similar to what HA is doing right now...

kappa

[Bejin]

Originally Posted by kappa273

this is from albalad, nov 17, 2008:

ديانا سكيني - فــي الــمــحــور الــثــامــن مــن المذكرة المعنونة "حول موضوع سلاح حزب الله وخطة الدفاع عن الجنوب" المقدمة من الرئيس أمين الجميّل الى طاولة الحوار الاولى المنعقدة بعد انتخاب الرئيس ميشال سليمان، وتحت عنوان "من عمق التجربة، أمثلة ومقترحات"، تُــفــرد الفقرة "ألـــف" لتبيان الــرؤيــة الدفاعية الأمثل في مواجهة الأخطار الإسرائيلية التي تحددها المذكرة اطماعاً في الارض والثروات الجوفية، فترى أن افضل الادوار التي يمكن عرضها على المواطن اللبناني، هو أن يكون خفيراً حاميا لمصالح وطنه جميعها. بما في ذلك الشأن الدفاعي، ومسألة السلم الاهلي، بحيث يكون شريكاً فعلياً في حماية لبنان وبحيث ينهض بهذه المهمة اللبنانيون كلهم مــن كــل انــحــاﺀ الــوطــن وكــل مذاهبه وطــوائــفــه وكــل أطــيــاف سياساته، فيتم تأهيلهم من أجل هذه الغاية، تأهيلاً تربوياً عقائدياً وعسكرياً قتالياً لمقاومة اي خطر يتهدد الوطن، فلا تبقى هذه المهمة حصراً على فريق سياسي او مذهبي يستبعد سواه من الافرقاﺀ. من هنا تقدم حزب الكتائب باقتراح للاسترشاد بالمثل السويسري في التعبئة والدفاع الشامل من خلال الدولة والمؤسسات الوطنية

.

kappa

Swiss model was rejected by Hezbollah in June 2006.

[sanfour]

how can we have a strategic defence plan for all Lebanon when
the lebanese don't even have or read the same history book?
how can we build/plan for our future if we don't agree on our past?

[>Watani<]

المرابطون":استراتيجية عون الدفاعية بدعة وهرطقة

المستقبل
20/11/2008

وصف رئيس "حركة الناصريين المستقلين - المرابطون" محمد درغام الإستراتيجية الدفاعية التي عرضها رئيس تكتل "التغيير والاصلاح" النائب ميشال عون على طاولة الحوار بانها "بدعة وهرطقة

واوضح ان "الإستراتيجية الدفاعية تطرح اليوم ولها هدف واحد وهو الحفاظ على كمية كبيرة من السلاح بيد فريق من اللبنانيين يأتمر بأوامر إيران وسوريا

ورأى "ان تداعيات الواقع الأمني، يجب أن تبقى أمثولة نصب أعين الجميع، وخصوصا أن البلد مقبل على استحقاق الانتخابات النيابية في الربيع القادم

[>Watani<]

الحجار: استراتيجية عون صورة مصغرة عن "حزب الله

المستقبل
20/11/2008

أكّد عضو كتلة "المستقبل" النيابية النائب محمد الحجار ان "العلاقة المتبادلة بين تيار المستقبل والحركات الاسلامية في الشمال اللبناني تنحصر فقط مع التيارات الاسلامية بالمعنى الديني، بعيداً من الحركات الاصولية التي تتخذ من لبنان مسرحاً لتنفيذ مخططات خارجية،، مشيراً الى ان "المصالحات الاخيرة التي رعاها رئيس كتلة "المستقبل" النيابية النائب سعد الحريري كانت بهدف وقف النزيف ومنغ استغلال الشمال كصورة أكيدة ووحيدة عن الارهاب

ودعا الحجار خلال مقابلة تلفزيونية مع قناة "أو تي في "، الى "التشكيل السريع للجنة التقصي الدولية للوقوف على الاعترافات الاخيرة لرجال "فتح الاسلام"، مشيراً الى "ضرورة تكاتف كل القوى للاسراع في التنفيذ ولا سيما العماد ميشال عون "للانضمام الى هذه الخطوة الايجابية والانتهاء منها وبالتالي معرفة المجرمين

وعن ورقة الاستراتيجية الدفاعية للنائب ميشال عون، شدد الحجار على انها "تبقى صورة مصغرة عن مشروع "حزب الله " لانها تتحدث عن الدولة المقاومة غير البعيدة من مفاهيم الحزب الحالية

ودعا الى ان "تبقى الدولة المالك الوحيد للسلاح بعيداً من الدويلات الصغيرة لاننا وصلنا الى مرحلة يجب ان يدخل "حزب الله" ضمن الدولة اللبنانية

[Bejin]

El-Jouso approuve la généralisation du concept de la résistance contre Israël et réclame la distribution immédiate des armes

23 Novembre 2008
Cheikh Mohammad Ali El-Jouzo, mufti du Mont-Liban, approuve la vision du général Michel Aoun, chef du bloc du changement et de la réforme, concernant la stratégie de défense. Ainsi, il appuie la généralisation du concept de la résistance, au niveau de tout le peuple libanais, notamment au niveau chrétien. D'ailleurs, rappelle-t-il, ce principe était totalement rejeté et constituait en une "sorte de trahison" dans les milieux chrétiens. Il estime alors que le port d'armes pour combattre Israël, en une "guerre d'honneur" contre "l'ennemi sioniste" menée en coopération avec l'armée libanaise, serait un grand accomplissement historique.
El-Jouzo, dans un communiqué, réclame de mettre en œuvre, immédiatement, cette stratégie de défense.
Ainsi, il demande de distribuer les armes et les permis de port d'armes aux jeunes gens, et à les entraîner pour un emploi correct.
Finalement, il assure que la revendication du général Aoun, à ce niveau, est juste et légale, puisqu'elle permet aux gens de soutenir l'armée et les forces sécuritaires.
El-Jouso approuve la généralisation du concept de la résistance contre Israël et réclame la distribution immédiate des armes - Lebanon news - www.elnashra.com