The U.S.S. Cole; A "Show of Support" to Whom?

On Thursday, the U.S.S. Cole along with two other support ships were deployed off the coast of Lebanon. A senior White House official stated that the official stance behind the repositioning of the small fleet of high tech war ships, was in a "show of support" for regional stability. One wonders, if the US was actually simply showing support, as the source who made the nauseatingly benevolent statement would like to spin it, then wouldn't an official meeting between diplomats suffice, or perhaps some roses, a hug, and an all day pass to be pampered at a Swedish spa. It's quite obvious to any observer in this case that the Cole, armed to the teeth with state of the art cruise missiles, is not there to simply "support," but rather, threaten people into giving up their beliefs. Gunboat Diplomacy.

This is in no way an isolated case. The Arabian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz are currently home to the US Fifth Fleet, which oversees two strike groups and at least 40 ships. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, who is currently in the process of turning over his position as Fifth Fleet Commander stated "It is not as if we are out looking for a fight, we are not patrolling Iranian waters... We have assumed a defensive posture here to reassure our friends and provide stability in the region." The naval fleets primary stated objectives are to assist in Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for shipping. More importantly though, they are positioned at the heart of the worlds largest oil reserves, and are playing their part in controlling and protecting access to the regions resources, as well as threatening Iran.

On the other hand, while the Fifth Fleet operates in the region at the behest of a number of its countries, the deployment of ships to Lebanon is a different case. One would assume, that since the official statement behind positioning the ships there was in a show of "support," that they would have been invited at the request of the Lebanese government. Fouad Siniora, Lebanon's Prime Minister, has come out firmly on the issue stating that "We did not request any warships from any party." He then subsequently summoned the US ambassador to try to figure out what they were doing. Hezbollah certainly didn't request the warships to position themselves off their coast, nor did the Syrians, who State Department Spokesman Tom Casey referred to when he stated that "If the Syrians want to take a message from it, happy to have them do so if what that means is it gets them out of the business of subverting democracy and the will of the Lebanese people." Conveniently, Casey ignored the multitude of other democracies the US has been subverting regionally in order to prop up dictators that fit their policy objectives. Egypt for instance, conveniently being the second largest recipient of US foreign aid, has been under martial law for decades, and has an authoritarian, moving towards dynastic, regime that arrests any people presenting themselves as a viable opposition to the status quo. The entire Arabian Gulf for that matter, where the Fifth Fleet is based, is rife with regimes that make the sort of propaganda Casey stated, ironic. Israel, often referred to as the only democracy in the Middle East, and the largest single recipient of US foreign aid, has a nasty habit of not fully extending its democracy to its Arab citizens, occupying territories and committing gross violations of international law, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, and subverting democracy in both Lebanon and Palestine.

I suppose, its worth noting that Prime Minister Siniora as well as the American administration have all been clear that the ships are 60 miles off of Lebanon's coast, and are obviously not in Lebanon's 12 mile stretch of territorial water. In that line of thought, war ships, however armed, or however belligerent their countries actions have been to another, can, against the demands of countries in the region, park a fleet of top of the line cruise missiles off their coast, and claim that they have the right to do so, as they are in international waters. All this, in a "show of support" for "regional stability." By that logic, Hezbollah, could take a remodeled fishing boat, armed with a couple of Katyeusha missiles and AK-47s, pull up just outside of US territorial waters, and claim that they are there in a show of support for John McCain's presidential run. Without a doubt though, that would never happen, as Hezbollah is smart enough not to ship off some of their few assets, knowing full well that they would get vaporized the second they'd moved even slightly into the Atlantic towards North America.

The US Navy has had what some more politically correct individuals would describe as a checkered past in Lebanon. Their deployment in 1983 which resulted in the one of the first reported acts of suicide bombing in the region, was a massive foreign policy blowback when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were destroyed and 241 servicemen were killed. US Naval ships operating in the area at the time, responded by firing 338 rounds from 5 inch guns, at Sug el Gharb, a Druze village in Lebanon's Shouf Mountains.

The United States, along with Saudi Arabia and Egypt all support the governing coalition in Lebanon. The US has recently increased a round of sanctions against Syria. The 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon, which the US supported, resulted in massive civilian casualties and leveled vital infrastructure throughout all of Lebanon, though primarily in the densely populated South, a sprawling urban ghetto. Since that war came to a close, Hezbollah, a primarily civilian militia and the only organization to actually officially fight in it, has argued for a greater representation for Shi'ite's in Lebanese politics. The sect by all accounts is now one of the largest in the country, which has a confessional political structure, giving government positions and seats based on demographic size of religious sects. As the last census to judge demographic size was taken in 1932, when the Shi'a population were still a minority, the sect has been grossly unrepresented in the countries politics. Hezbollah has been trying to attain veto rights for their political wing, as well as trying to come up with a joint security agreement for the Southern border with Israel, a territory that the organization has primarily had to defend on its own since its inception in the 80's. In considering the organization to be a 'terrorist' group, and denying them political access, the US, its allies and the government coalition they are supporting, have been subverting the same democracy that they claim to be protecting from Syrian subversion. All the while, the Lebanese, people that simply want to get on with their lives and get their economy back on its two feet since the Israeli's leveled it in 2006, are paying the price for what is now nearly a century of proxy warfare that has been waged on their territory by foreign powers since the inception of modern Lebanon.

The U.S.S. Cole, stationed off the Lebanese coast, is not a "show of support," nobody officially wants it there aside from the US, its a threat. It is a statement that is meant to demonstrate the countries military capability in the region, and threaten everyone living there to capitulate to their foreign policy objectives. Objectives that are counter to what large portions of the Lebanese population want.
------------------------
Correction: The Sug el-Gharb bombing by US Naval forces referenced in this article occurred on September 1983. The Marine Barracks bombing did not occur until October of that same year. It is argued that the Sug el-Gharb incident was the turning point, in which US forces had moved from primarily stationary positions at the time, to one in which they were openly taking sides and offering military support to the Lebanese government, eventually leading opposition groups to view them as a legitimate target.

Back To Top