That's not really true. The 1989 Taif Accords required all militias to disarm. Post civil war, the Lebanese government institutions remained weak. The government has at times attempted to disarm Hezbollah, with only little success. The Lebanese Civil War was horrendous, and its amazing a Lebanese state emerged. If you knew anything about the ethnic composition of Lebanon you'd understand why the reach of the Beirut government is so weak. Total strength of the Lebanese Armed Forces; 80,000 tops. They are concerned with not just South Lebanon, but also what's happening in Syria. During the civil war, Syria basically invaded Lebanon, and brutally occupied the northern part. They might do it again. Same thugs. Hezbollah, fully mobilized, can muster 60-80,000 men, and all of them concentrated in south Lebanon.This is the reality. To essentially invade the south, to take back control, the Lebanese will need to expand there military 2 fold, maybe 3 fold. Because it likely couldn't really recruit from the south for this operation against a predominantly southern militia, they would likely need the numbers from the Christian heartland, turning the army back into a sectarian grouping, or thats the fear, kicking off the civil war again. The Lebanese Civil War saw basically 3 groups; the Christian Falangists, the sunni Druze and the Shia Amal militia duke it out. Hezbollah emerged after Israel entered Lebanon, chasing Arafat's PLO, enabled by the SLA; a Christian-Shia militia who then went nuts in Sabra and Shatilla, massacring not only Palestinian women and kinds, but also Shia. 3500 at least perished. It is really hard for the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah, given historical realities. Israel has never offered to help the Beirut government enforce control in the south. The suspicion in some quarters is that it suits some Israeli politicians to keep Hezbollah around, like Hamas, because it means their other policies come under less scrutiny to the electorate, and it allows them to pursue certain expansionist agendas. The lessons from major civil wars in the modern era is that it takes some major international stewardship to support peach and normalisation. Afghanistan is an extreme example. As soon as thr Soviets left, the US lost interest, let the place fall into a brutal civil war that destroyed all state institutions, that ultimately created the conditions for a group to plot and attack America directly. In Iraq, inadequate postwar planning by invading parties lead to the Iraqi Republican Guard (who had been all sacked by the Americans) essentially rebranding itself ISIS, waging the most brutal of civil wars. Ditto Libya and Syria. Yugoslavia is an exception. Yugoslavia was an example of how Europeans can out savage, outfight anyone, a reminder of how much Europe loved killing people. In just a few years, a modern, liberal state descended into full on death camps and savagry. The emergence of Serbia, Croatia, Boznia, Macedonia, and Slovenia as peaceful nations took hard hard graft by the outside powers, staying the course, and maintaining attention that they never did elsewhere. Its a model how it should have happened in Lebanon, but instead, Lebanon was the victim of a 4-way between US/NATO, USSR, Israel, Iran. In 4 way spit roasts, someone comes out of that really torn up.
Create an account or sign in to comment