U.S. pondering response to Beirut violence

Nir Rosen:

"The Americans thought that they could pick a proxy and get him to rule Lebanon. But Lebanon is too complicated for them, and they didn't know that no single group can rule Lebanon. The Americans along with their Saudi allies backed the creation of sectarian Sunni militias in Lebanon, some of whom were even trained in Jordan. Their ideology consisted of anti Shiite sectarianism. But these Sunni militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely put up a fight, despite their strident anti Shiite rhetoric. Now it is clear that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hizballah and nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/05/the_end_of_the/

Augustus Richard Norton:

"The U.S. has put a lot of capital into Lebanon to support the weaker side politically and militarily. The U.S. approach is based on one side can prevail, and that's not how things work. This is a country where consensual politics is the name of the game and the way things are done," said Augustus Richard Norton, who served with the United Nations in Lebanon and is the author of "Hezbollah: A Short History." "If there's going to be a solution, it will involve some compromise with the opposition, which will include Hezbollah."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902628.html?hpid=topnews