More On The American Debate Over Aid To The Lebanese Army

The New York Times’ Robert F. Worth seems partial to keeping the aid flowing:

Like Lebanon itself, the army contains a mosaic of political affiliations. What American politicians often fail to understand is that even pro-Western Lebanese tend to regard Israel […] as a hostile force. Soldiers in south Lebanon are authorized to open fire if they see violations of the United Nations cease-fire that ended the 2006 war.

For many Lebanese, having their own military back on the border was a point of great national pride. To some, it was a possible first step toward disarming Hezbollah, which has justified its arsenal in part through the inability of the Lebanese military to defend the country from Israel.

What the article seems to be implying to the Americans bent on cutting off aid is: Don’t let the best (a Lebanese army hostile to Hezbollah) be the enemy of the good (a strong Lebanese Army that coexists with Hezbollah)