No, Hezbollah was just created in no small part to be the foot soldiers in that war, but I think you can see how easy it is to regard Lebanons government as a mere extension of Syrias. Especially now that they're in charge of it despite proof they were responsible for assassinating a former PM with the aid and at the behest of Syria (sorry about changing "PM" to "President"; since America doesn't have the former I tend to think, President for "chief executive", but it looks like Lebanon has both).

It has always seemed like the Phalangists were responsible for most of the things there blamed on Israel, but it's easier to stir up Islamic militants across the Mid-East by presenting Israel as a target than by pointing them at Christians who are a decided minority in most countries other than Lebanon. Frankly, it's also always seemed to me that the Phalangists did more than anyone to incite that war; we just don't talk about it much because 1) it went very badly for them and 2) most Americans were and are very sympathetic to them. No, no ones hands are clean; that's the problem in the Middle East and why I'm reluctant to lend support to anyone. Not only is it morally dubious, but so long as all sides are led by brutal thugs supporters of WHOEVER wins will be largely blamed by the many losers for aiding a thugs victory and preserving their power.

My solution, at least as regards the West, is to get the hell out so we stop being caught in the crossfire, and if that means we have to get the fossil fuel monkey off our backs it's probably past time we did that anyway, and shouldn't be an excuse for choosing which filth to support in a civil war regardless. I don't see how that increases the danger to anyone, though it would reduce the danger to many. Regarding the Mid-East itself I'm not sure there IS a solution, but if there is they'll have to find it on their own, and as long as the West continues to intervene all it does is provide a convenient scapegoat and the firepower to ensure a high body count.

Yes, they tried popular uprisings, but not in the wake of Tunisias so called Jasmine Revolution. It's not sweeping the region like so many on the left keep insisting, or even sweeping the brutally repressed parts of it (admittedly that's a small distinction). It's sweeping the secular pro-Western parts of the region, and this conceit that installing inevitably theocratic anti-Western governments will foster democracy is inexplicable; if you want to talk about dangerous oversimplification, there it is. Syrias government is in an exception in terms of theocracy, but not in terms of repression, yet inno danger of toppling, Hezbollahs government of Lebanon has only grown stronger in the wake of the protests and despite irrefutable evidence they assassinated a former leaders of the nation, and Iran is seeing none of the resurgent protests Egypt and Tunisia have. No, the governments in the most danger now are Egypt and Jordans. Are they as free as we'd like? Of course not. Are they and the Saudis more free and less plagued by bloodshed than Syria or Iran? That seems hard to dispute. They may not be democratic by our standards, but the bar is somewhat lower in the Middle East, is it not? Forsaking the regimes that are closest to still unrealized democracy because their attempts to combat violently repressive theocratic terrorists and militias prevent them from moving to democracy as fast as we'd like seems ill advised. I'd prefer to wash my hands of the whole mess except for providing non-military primarily humanitarian aid directly to the citizens, though even that would require heavily armed guards for relief workers because even handing out food and drugs is viewed as a provocative hostile act if a Westerner is doing it.

I read them, I just frequently disagree with the analysis. I hope you're right about Egypts near future, but see little reason to expect it.

If the US restricted aid to only those who weren't repressive SOBs they'd have aided no one, which is probably what we should've done, but Cold War geopolitics gave added weight to energy concerns inseparable from the Suez, which will make Egypt a major player for the foreseeable future. That said, the US could've found other people who'd have been happy to play ball in exchange for aid; they chose Mubarak because he was the LEAST objectionable, in no small part because he was Sadats legal successor and because most of the alternatives were implicated in Sadats assassination. Again, the fact Sadat WAS assassinated and Mubarak nearly was, along with the fact there have been five attempts to kill the latter since, speaks volumes about the kind of government likely to succeed him, as well as helping explain, if not justify, the brutality he's shown toward various opposition groups and protesters. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you. If there's one less that should be taken from US involvement in the Mid-East (and Central America, and Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa) it's that if you aid and endorse one side over the other and it turns out to be a bunch of violent repressive thugs, the fact the other side was at least as bad or worse won't exonerate you in the eyes of either the natives nor the world.