The following could only have been more annoying had it been Raghida Dergham rather than Joyce Karam:
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffery Feltman said it would be naïve for some to think that the outcome of the Lebanese parliamentary elections won’t affect U.S. policy in Lebanon.
In an joint interview with both dailies An-Nahar and al-Hayat on Saturday, Feltman said: “The election’s outcome will naturally affect world’s stance towards the new Lebanese government and the manner in which the United States and Congress deal with Lebanon.”
“I believe the Lebanese are smart enough to understand that there will be an effect. When Hizbullah claims that there won’t be any effect, when it claims that it is not interested in the matter, I tend to believe that the Lebanese with their intelligence would think otherwise,” Feltman said.
He went on to indirectly criticizing Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun saying: “one of your politicians is proposing that Christians shouldn’t depend on the United States. I hope the Lebanese had accurately listened to president’s [Barack Obama] speech that specifically pointed to the widest Christian religious minority in Lebanon, the Maronites. The president spoke about the need for respecting all peoples in the region including minorities…I hope the Lebanese would ask themselves: do we want to be on the side of the international community and close to the stances that president Obama made? I hope they would say yes.“
Feltman added that president Obama’s speech received wide regional and international support, hoping that the Lebanese would take seriously “and be part of the president’s proposed partnership that was welcomed by the world.”
The U.S. official added that the role of President Michel Suleiman is important symbolically and constitutionally “due to the fact that Suleiman was elected to office by consensus. We hold great respect to the president and the office of the Lebanese presidency as an institution, we strongly appreciate his leading role.”
Feltman said that Lebanon has benefited greatly from international support resulting from the role played by the Lebanese in 2005.
“We expect the elections to take place, the formation of a new government that would adopt a number of resolutions according to the constitution by peaceful means according to the Lebanese people wish,” he said.
He added that the United States is working for regional peace, saying his country is committed to peace in the Middle East.
“President Obama’s speech [in Cairo] rejected violence as means for achieving political goals this is a message that I hope Lebanese voters would take into consideration when they head to the polls on Sunday,” Feltman said.
I was a bit confus-ed by Obama’s reference to Maronites in his Cairo speech, but now we can know that it was Jeffrey trying to be clever.
Can you imagine the conversation between Feltman and Obama (or a White House speechwriter):
JF: Well, Mr. President, there are these Christians in Lebanon and they got what you might call a persecution complex. So if you are doing a p.r. tour for the ‘aggrieved,’ why not include them? I mean, just mention them, and they will knit you an American flag so large it will cover all of Mount Lebanon.
BHO: But I hear the Maronites are kinda divided. And that, the ones we are supporting in Lebanon rely on American groups who have been attacking me as naive Muslim apologist for a few years now.
JF: That’s true, Mr. President, but you were just a candidate then. And well, frankly, our only interest in these groups is the extent to which they help us with regard to other regional files. And like you say, it is not how we got here, but where we are going. Plus, I don’t have to tell you how quick the Republicans and some Democrats on Capitol Hill will be to say you ‘lost’ Lebanon to the axis of Evil, and its junior partners.
BHO: So you want me to take time out of my address to 1 billion Muslims to score points with a few thousand Christians on some Eastern Mediterranean hilltop?
JF: Well, Mr. President, you got some pretty good speechwriters so I am sure they can work it into some kinda broader ‘religious tolerance’ thing.
BHO: Does it cost me anything?
JF: No. Just a sentence. I will do the rest a couple of days later and you will be safely removed from the political pettiness of it all.
BHO: That’s what I like to hear, Jeffrey. Consider it done.
Feltman is not a ‘neocon’ (except in the sense that all American foreign policy professionals are, structurally-speaking) but he does seem to have gone into overdrive to protect ‘his legacy‘ (I imagine the Cedar Revolution and the increase in US aid to Lebanon was at the top of his resume when applying for Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs).
Especially delicious is the phrasing: ‘I believe the Lebanese are smart enough.’ Seriously, who on earth would put up with this kind of condescension? It is a very short walk from this statement to calling those who vote for M8 ’stupid.’
This is American diplomacy? Actually, I wonder if currrent ambassador Sisson wanted to call him and be like: “chill, dude, your patronising theatrics are actually counterproductive in the short and long term, both on Capitol Hill and in the Metn?”
Perhaps here, though, I am projecting.
Regardless, it is now official: I miss David Welch.

Some might say in Feltman’s defense that he is just reading the tea leaves on Capitol Hill rather than winking at Maarab or Bkirki or whomever (keep an eye on the Suleiman thing).
Regardless, it is foolish on both domestic fronts (the United States and Lebanon).
If anyone is serious about continuing US aid to Lebanon, they should not play defense against the likes of Rep. Cantor. Instead, they should enlist an apparently already-inclined Petraeus in a more offensive effort.
Along those lines, here is Abu Muqawama of the Center for New American Security offering a somewhat tepid defense of continued military aid and here’s Aram Nerguizian of CSIS offering the same.
As I have already suggested, this effort is also horribly dumb on the Lebanese side (calling people stupid or threatening them is almost never a happy or successful communications strategy — and here I won’t even discuss how well this feeds the counterpropaganda). As I tried to demonstrate in my little fictional recreation, Feltman thinks he is being smart by playing on Christian chauvanism, but his attempt makes clear that he does not understand it, most likely because he probably does not properly empathize with it.
I could go on with this (how this works on the Lebanese side) and maybe I will later, but I pause now because I am confident that any Lebanese voter waiting to hear what Jeffrey says on the day before they vote probably has more immediate personal problems (actually, I doubt such a person actually exists or could function in the world).