Mario Abou Zeid’s Carnegie brief on Sunni radicalism misses main issue of debate: pros+cons of LAF-Hizb-Syrian army coordination
I don’t understand how a Carnegie brief on Sunni radicalism and the security situation in Lebanon can be undertaken without examining the key debate that is critical to resolving if the main problem cited is to be dealt with better i.e. the question of whether and to what extent Hizbullah, the Lebanese army/state and the syria army should or can coordinate.
There are many arguments pro and con – and shifting positions these days here in Beirut which are very interesting.
How can a report leave out this absolutely key issue?