Michael Totten goes native
Wikipedi doesn't have a useful entry on the term "going native."  Which is unfortunate.  It refers to a tendency of oversea-stationed personel, particularly diplomatic ones, to not only understand the frame of reference of the locals, but to adopt the frame of reference of the locals, which is very much not a good thing.  The purpose of a diplomat, after all, is to represent his or her government in foreign lands, and aid in communication. 

In the US, this seems to happen often in State department staff stationed too long in "friendly" Arab countries.  It's not hard to imagine one of them coming home to his luxurious apartment in Riyadh, hanging up his jacket next to his wife's abaya and niqab, and saying, "Sheesh, honey, the Zionist dogs are really asking for more trouble from Allah, peace be upon him."

It just doesn't apply to diplomats.  Michael Totten is a freelance journalist, whose reporting on the Middle East is well worth reading, even -- perhaps particularly -- when he misses the point.  He spent much time in Beirut and, understandably, fell in love with the people and the culture in the liberal seaside areas, and thinks of it as his second home.

Which isn't a reason not to read him; on the contrary, it's a good idea, down to the "Insha Allah."  Start here.

But please do what he doesn't do -- keep the actual facts on the ground in mind.  (Picture gakked from vitalperspective.com.)  When he shows you a bombed-out building -- which is just fine -- take a look at the map, and note that the area's that Israel's attacked in Beirut are, in total, just about the size of the Beirut race track.  (You won't get it at first glance.  The bombed areas aren't the yellow or the red ones -- they're the little black circles and ellipses.) 

And then read him talk about "By bombing all of Lebanon rather than merely the concentrated Hezbollah strongholds..."

He's gone native; Israel hasn't even hit most of Beirut.  That's not the objective reality; that's the native spin. 

Totten's gone native on the Lebanese issue.  That makes him an excellent spokesman for the non-Hezbollah Lebanese position --

To paraphrase:  "There's not a darned thing we can do about Hezbollah, but we were busy, if slowly, working toward disarming Hezbollah.  Lots of us loved Israel as long as the Israelis were willing to leave Hezbollah alone, too, but by attacking Hezbollah the might actually trigger a civil war here, but we can't win a civil war against Hezbollah.  If we get a ceasefire, though, we'll promise to think about what we could do real soon."

-- and, read that way, he's still very much worth reading. 

Just remember some received knowledge built into his thinking and writing -- and think about whether or not it's wrong (you'll have to look into the comments section for much of this):

Totten:  Hezbollah is invincible; it's the strongest military force that the Arabs have ever known.  It's also about 2000 guys. 

Totten:  80% of Lebanon wants Hezbollah disarmed, but it's impossible, no matter what they do.  And the first hints that the Lebanese are not only getting tired of Hezbollah but that some are doing something about it are distressing.

Again:  he's worth reading.  Just remember that he's gone native.