LEBANON: Neocon stopover

Lebanese bloggers and commentators are all abuzz about the Bush administration's curious choice to help defuse Lebanon's ongoing political crisis: Elliott Abrams, the aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who is known as one of Washington's top neoconservative insiders.

After a long absence by U.S. officials in the country, Abrams, along with assistant secretary of State David Welch, were dispatched twice to Lebanon, on Dec. 14 and 18, from "the heart of the neoconservative stronghold," as an op-ed in Lebanon's English-language newspaper the Daily Star put it this week.

Insiders say the U.S. is fed up with the impotency of French envoys after they repeatedly failed to broker a deal between the Western-backed majority and the Syrian- and Iranian-supported opposition, led by the Shiite militia Hezbollah. So U.S. diplomats came themselves, to remind Lebanon's politicians that it was about time they selected "compromise candidate" Michel Suleiman, a popular army general, as head of state.

Abrams, the deputy national security advisor, was greeted with derision by some. One left-leaning blogger, Jamal Ghosn, wrote sarcastically, "We ought to embrace Elliott Abrams gracing us with his visit, for everything he touches turns into a glowing picturesque ball of light and warmth."

In fact, Abrams is regularly attacked by Lebanese and Arab media as unfriendly to Lebanese interests. In 2002, he was described by the Arab nationalist newspaper As Safir as "the worst man in the worst place" after he was put in charge of the Middle East by the White House. 

A recent op-ed in the Arab world's leading newspaper, Al Hayat, slammed Abrams' role in Lebanon.

In January 2006, Abrams visited Beirut.... He came to witness the realization of his dream with the transformation of Lebanon from a country that supported Palestinian rights, united around the resistance, to a country where anarchy reigned.... He justifies the Israeli aggression and emphasizes that the Hebrew State was not defeated in the July 2006 War.... After one year exactly, Abrams returns, with Welch, taking on themselves the same mission.

Abrams' visits of course sparked uproar among Lebanon's Hezbollah-led opposition, which says it will not approve of Suleiman or any other compromise president unless it is given more power in the next government. The March 14 ruling coalition accuses Syria of impeding efforts to end Lebanon's weeks-long political limbo.

Still, neither Abrams and Welch's relatively discreet diplomacy nor a blunt Dec. 20 speech by President Bush decrying Damascus' alleged meddling in Lebanese affairs succeeded. A parliamentary session set to elect a new president was postponed for the 10th time, until Saturday.

One blogger, Joshua Landis, a Syria expert often critical of Washington, says U.S. actions are doing very little to help put an end to Lebanon's political quagmire. "The U.S. has no Lebanon policy. At least not one that can deliver a solution to the present standoff over the president and composition of the Cabinet," he writes. "U.S. policy as it now stands seems designed purely to keep Hezbollah from getting into the government."

Still, other Lebanese commentators held out hope that U.S. efforts would bear fruit. The pro-government website From Beirut to the Beltway opines:

David Welch's surprise visit to Beirut sent a strong signal that the U.S. will strongly support any decision by the parliament's majority. Welch said his country will stand by those who represent the legitimate institutions and urged Lebanese MPs to do their job and elect a president as soon as possible.

— Raed Rafei in Beirut