Is it a slip of the tongue from Bush saying this in his interview with BBC: [The U.S. is prepared to strengthen the Lebanese army so it could disarm Hezbollah], a hint that he rejects the Lebanese army presentation?, or maybe disapproves the Lebanese army commander Michel Suleiman as the next president?
Worst than this, Aljazeera published this report few minutes ago under the title “The Lebanese army position, satisfies the opposition, raises doubts among the supporters”. The title says it all, uses quotes from the government show its non-satisfaction with the army presentation and didn’t stand in the way of the opposition defending the citizens.
Al-Manar newspaper says that there are secret American — Italian — French — Saudi negations to dissolve the Lebanese army [the former Iraqi army way] and encircle the officers who are uncooperative with the government, preparing to form stronger militias armed with modern weapons.
Bush said that he would strengthen the army to defeat Hezbollah because he only understands western propaganda — in this case, that the “good guys” are the majority government. Bush assumes the army has to be on the government side. A lot of his mistakes are like this. From here it looks like the army has been acting responsibly and if they change some of the basic terms of the Taif (sp?) accord so that the Shia are more fully represented, then things will go forward.