Grandmasta is currently on the road, but yesterday’s bus bombing in Northern Lebanon seems too newsworthy to not mention. All summer Tripoli has seen violence, but it appeared to be good old fashioned ethnic hatred. Putting a bomb on a bus, clearly targeting soldiers, seems to be an escalation:
A roadside bomb targeting a bus carrying mostly soldiers shook the downtown of this northern city Wednesday, killing at least 12 people, 10 of them soldiers, and wounding more than 50 others, security officials said. No party claimed responsibility for the morning rush-hour attack. But analysts and military officials suggested that Islamic extremists might have carried out the bombing to avenge their losing a fierce months-long battle against the army in the region last year.
Michael Young of the Daily Star Beirut plays down the threat from Sunni Islamic fanatics:
Like the attack against a military intelligence office in Abdeh several weeks ago, the aim of those placing the bombs was to convince you and I that Sunni extremist groups are alive and well in the North, that they have an axe to grind with the army because of Nahr al-Bared, and that an insurrection has begun, one directed even against the Hariri camp.
He blames Syria:
The reality, I believe, is different. Recently, colleagues who closely follow events in Tripoli have started hearing of Syrian warnings to the Lebanese that there would be no peace in the city until the Salafists were routed. Who would conduct such an operation but the army, explaining why soldiers have been the victims of recent attacks. Syria’s implication in the bombings is highly probable, its objective being to push the army and the Salafists into a confrontation. This would create a serious rift within the Sunni community, weaken the disoriented pro-Hariri forces in Tripoli, and allow Damascus’ allies to regain the initiative in the city.
It seems a bit cavalier to dismiss the Sunni radical groups as some kind of conspiracy. There is no doubt that these Al-Qaeda types) want to come to Lebanon and create this kind of havoc. After the collapse of the Harriri rent-a-cop militias, there was a sense that the Sunnis needed someone to protect them from Shia or other non-Sunni groups, especially in the North. At the Southern end of Lebanon, it is 100% certain that Sunni radicals, from all over the Middle East, want in against Israel and/or Hezbollah (which is blocking them from getting at Israel). See this post for more as well as links to several other posts on this topic.
Young’s analysis could very well be correct. But at the same time, noone can deny that fanatical Sunni extremists want to create the kind of havoc we saw yesterday. Not being in North Lebanon, sitting at its cafes, meeting with its people etc, Grandmasta has no way of knowing one way or the other. Expect to hear more on further developments.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: bus bombing in Tripoli, Daily Star Beirut, Fatah AL-Islam, Hezbollah, Lebanese Army, Michael Young
[...] at Arabic Media Shack also has analysis on the bombing in [...]
I was really confused by Michael’s op-ed. I know he was trying to be contrarian, but he wrote what he did before a narrative had even been established. The Arabic-language media in Beirut did not cover this story well. an-Nahar and as-Safir both had stories on the bombing, but only alongside the bigger news of the day — Pres. Sleiman’s trip to Syria. Similarly, most of the TV stations here in Beirut did not cover the story extensively. This is either because of the hopelessly Beirut-centric nature of Lebanese media or that fact that it’s tourist season and the media is under pressure not to scare off tourists in what has been an excellent summer for Lebanon.
Michael Young used to be good, but that was long ago. Notice also that he writes ungrammatically: “the aim of those placing the bombs was to convince you and I”; the test here is to remove the “you”: the aim is to convince I? No, the aim is to convince me; thus: the aim is to convince you and me. Where are the editors? Oh, right, He is the editor.
As it happens, I had a lot of interaction with the crowd of interns at the Daily Star over the summer, and they say that he is regarded with some disdain by his associates there, and hardly ever puts in an appearance.
More than simply a contrarian, he is a veiled apologist for the March 14 Movement. In other words, he is a sectarian, meaning, along with other things, it seems, probably an anti-Shiite, although he styles himself as being anti-Hizbullah; but a lot of anti-Shiite bigotry masquerades itself in anti-Hizbullah rhetoric. The overarching narrative is one of Sunnis (and their Maronite allies) finally realizing that they are losing their predominant position. Sniff around Michael Young’s screeds and that is what you find.
Abu, thanks for you comments/insights on the overall coverge of the attack. I also was confused with the op-ed. I turned to Daily Star Beirut looking to see if there was any English language news coverage of the bombing and found it odd that he had already put out a long OP-ED before much of the other news agencies had even covered it all. It seemed strange- almost as if he had the op-ed written before the bombing occured.
Semi-expert, thanks for you continued insights especially the nugget about the view from inside the Daily Star newsroom. The article defintely seemed pretty sectarian, and his sources arent exactly rock-solid: “Recently, colleagues who closely follow events in Tripoli have started hearing”
M. Young went ‘permanently’ off the tracks after Samir Kassir was killed. He deserves credit for criticizing the Syrian regime when M14ers were still enjoying their business lunches in Damascus, but he is no longer readable as an ‘analyst’ in the sense that you know he will blame ‘the Syrian regime’ for every bout of Lebanese indigestion. While untrue, it is no mistake that it ’seems’ the article was written before the blast. Moreover, it ignores the most crucial question: whether or not we can even speak of a coherent Syrian ‘policy” in Lebanon. For me, you can learn more about Syrian and Lebanese politics by watching the Sopranos than you can reading M. Young’s offerings.
To describe him as sectarian, I think, is unfair. I would bet he find much revulsion in the sectarian antics of the M14 crowd, but he has argued that sectarianism in Lebanon is something that cannot be overcome — and that attempts to do so are both counterproductive and disingenuous. This is a reasonable and commonplace position in Lebanon — and not a sectarian one — as many Lebanese know that there is often nothing more sectarian than an anti-sectarian agenda. Such is life in the LB.
The I and You is hilarious. Some accuse him of not being Lebanese (he’s a halfer), but is there anything more Lebanese than saying that things happen in the world for the benefit/purpose of our own ‘understanding’ or ‘convincing.’ Not that the Americans are much better — see the ridiculous fulminations of the L&R on Russia’s excursion into Georgia.
Back in my time, every pot hole in Lebanon was the result of a zionist conspiracy to destablize the nation. If anything, M. Young’s jump off the cliff suggests he is ‘more Lebanese’ than ever. But this is not ‘analysis,” it is partisanship cloaked in conspiracy.
Also be careful with your use of ME{n}OW Lebanon. Unless of course, you often wake up at three am drenched in sweat in a panic about what exactly Ahmad Fatfat had for lunch that day. In that case, and only that case, it is safe at any speed.
As for the Tripoli bombing, AM is exactly right on the ‘tourist season’ and beiruti provincialism. But there is a third more important factor, namely the fact that accurate analysis of the emergence of Salafi militants in the North would expose the misfeasance of a great many sides in Lebanon: M14 figures, opposition leaders, Syria, Saudis, etc. In such cases, the Lebanese (and others) prefer the dark, where shadows move freely and long-bearded demons can be conjured up at will ($$$).
Nice blog.