On the surface, it all makes sense.

This is the first sentence in another rant by incomparable Robert Fisk (here he is in all his glory, lest you forget).

The headline of the rant is "Can the Lebanese army fight America's war against terror?" What does a legitimate attempt of the legitimate Lebanese government to eliminate a gang of mostly foreign Islamist moonbats of Fatah al-Islam (definitely a nice bunch if you read what Wiki has to say about them). After a bank robbery, followed by killing almost thirty Lebanese soldiers, this goal of Lebanese could be hardly called a whim. Especially in the light of quite a lenient view the Lebanese authorities have been taking on the use of Palestinian refugee camps by scum of all kinds up till now. This according to Al Jazeera:

Fatah al-Islam has been accused of involvement in the bombing of a bus in a Christian area northeast of Beirut in February, in which three people were killed. It denies carrying out the bombing. The organisation has accused the Lebanese government of threatening the country's Palestinian refugee camps, which hold more than 200,000 people. Lebanon's armed forces have long agreed not to enter the refugee camps. However, this agreement is at odds with a UN Security Council resolution passed in October 2004, which calls implicitly for action to be taken against armed Palestinian groups.

Resolution 1559 seeks the "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias", referring not only to the Shia movement Hezbollah, but also to groups such as Fatah al-Islam inside the refugee camps.

But not according to Fisk. "Another chapter in the war on terror" is the sentence he uses, in a transparent attempt to present the fighting as another chapter in American-led WOT. And this is only for starters. Here comes another culprit:

In reality, it is another tragedy in that same conflict (though let's delete the word "terror"). The Gazelles have no rockets - courtesy of the United States, because Israel fears they will be used against its own forces.

The first sentence in the above quote is too cryptic for me, especially after reading the second one. What is it that looks as tragedy to Fisk - the Lebanese army bombarding the camp or the lack of rockets for the army helicopters? In any case, this is another Fisk, since the same Al Jazeera reports:

On Sunday, Lebanese military helicopters fired rockets and machinegun barrages at targets on the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp's coastal side.

The next one is also quite amazing:

The Belgians even offered Leopard tanks - again vetoed by the United States - in case the Lebanese used them against the Israelis. So the Lebanese are armed sufficiently to fight Palestinians, but not enough to fight their enemies on their southern frontier.

So, the Lebanese government trying to clean up its house, and here comes Mr Fisk fingering another "enemy", the one on the southern border. Interesting, why is it so important to Fisk that Lebanese people see Israel as an enemy (which it is not, unless that malignant growth called Hezbollah is concerned)?

According to the author, it all makes sense. Does it make sense to you?

***