SECONDARY GOVERNMENTS Why is it, I wonder that so many of today's governments seem to have second one which actually rules the nation - especially in times of crisis? In some cases, both seem to rule; one may elect to stand back and let the the other take any blame for a botched or poorly conducted campaign.
Far too often the news reports we get actually two-fold versions of what such composite governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, et al claim to be fact and also the way which secondary authority sees the situation. To which one are we attend? Which is valid? Which one is to be and considered to be the authentic government? Who's opinion and who's requests do we honor? What terrible risks we take when we support one or the other? We all need to think seriously about this complicated set-up. It is a makeshift arrangement at best - based on force, armaments, a selfish bully-ism found so often in association with abject ignorance and continued refusals to accept political and social realities.
Hezbollah, "a radical Shiite militia" stems from about 1975 - perhaps thirty or forty years ago when you may remember them as one of the groups fighting to regain Lebanon's freedom from domination by Israel. The vast majority of the Lebanese people came under control of a military dictatorship which has never expelled militant Hezbollah sub-government from power gained during that freedom war. They have simply tolerated such a malignant presence in their midst to maintain their own portion of power. The Hezbollah is a militant, radical, partly-uniformed militia and solidly Shiite - operating aggressively and successfully in a land where the people are predominantly Sunni in religious choice. Even while seeming to stand for local claims seeking unity and Lebanese claims they are allied with international terrorist by the very nature of their being what they have always been.
How much longer will the international mind permit this, and other like travesties,
to continue?
Andrew McCaskey amccsr@adelphia.net 7-16-06 [c351wds]