The Aoun Enigma

I do not understand the politics of former Prime Minister, General Michel Aoun, a current member of parliament and leader of the "Free Patriotic Movement".

Aoun has always stood for a strong central government, and against militias. His first initiative as Prime Minister was to shutdown all illegal seaports, and tried to reign in militias. In order for this Christian general to show he was non-sectarian, he started by trying to dismantle the Christian Militia, the Lebanese Forces.

Now, Michel Aoun is the main ally of Hizballa, the last armed militia in Lebanon.

Aoun has been a staunch supporter of an independent Lebanon and fought bloody battles against the Syrian occupation forces in Lebanon. His followers constituted the core of the demonstrations that led to the Syrian precipitated withdrawal from Lebanon. As a matter of fact, the General epitomized anti-Syrian movement in Lebanon.

Now Michel Aoun is allied with all of Syria's agents in Lebanon: Michel Murr (formerly Syria's enforcer in Lebanon), the Baathists, the Karami clan of Tripoli, Hizballa and puppet President Lahoud. Pick any political remnant of the Syrian influence in Lebanon, and you can count Aoun as one of its allies.

I have not heard any real justification of Aoun's alliances. Some arguments I have heard include:

-"The March 14th Alliance is led by the Sunnis and Druze, while the Christians have been relegated to second class citizenship in it". But could this be, because Aoun has divided the Christians?

-The March 14th Alliance betrayed Aoun politically after his return to Lebanon". But is this a reason for Aoun to betray Lebanon?

-"The strategic interests of the Christians lie in an alliance with the Shiites". But do the strategic interests of the Lebanese Christians lie with Syria and Iran, Hizballa's godparents?

As a former staunch Aoun supporter, I would really like to have answers, to know what happened to such a promising Lebanese leader.

The UN Troops in Lebanon, Shield or Human Shield?

Will the 15,000 or so UN troops shield Lebanon from any future wars, or will they serve as human shields for Hizballa?

If past history is an indicator, the UN troops will play the latter role, human shields. In 1978, when Israel conducted a similar operation to stop the PLO from launching cross-border raids and lobbing Katyushas into Northern Israel, a similar UN force was deployed in the exact same region. When the said UN force tried to interfere with the PLO's military activities in the area, the Palestinian terrorists targeted the UN soldiers killing and wounding many. A compromise was then struck between the UN and the PLO, where the UN would reduce its "interference" and the PLO will stop attacking the UN forces.

I fear the same will happen in 2006-2007. If the UN force decides to disarm Hizballa or to interfere with its military activities, it will be attacked either militarily or through terrorist attacks. At that point, the UN has the option of succeeding in its mission or turning into a human shield. In order to succeed, the UN will need to hit hard if it is attacked. The member states must be willing to send reinforcements and act decisively against the terrorists.

Watching news footage of the arsenal being deployed by the UN forces, I am not very optimistic that the new UNIFIL plans to be a dissuasive force. It will more likely turn into a human shield for Hizballa.