• A manager takes care of where you are; a leader takes you to a new place.

• A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty.

• A manager is concerned with finding the facts; a leader makes decisions.

• A manager is concerned with doing things right; a leader is concerned with doing the right things.

• A manager’s critical concern is efficiency; a leader focuses on effectiveness.

• A manager creates policies; a leader establishes principles.

• A manager sees and hears what is going on; a leader hears when there is no sound and sees when there is no light.

• A manager finds answers and solutions; a leader formulates the questions and identifies the problems.

• A manager looks for similarities between current and previous problems; a leader looks for differences.

What? There are so many absurd statements in this list I honestly do not know where to begin. Let’s look at just one: “A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty.” Wait a minute – don’t complexity and uncertainty go hand-in-hand? Assuming “managers” actually do exist, don’t they also face uncertainty? Uncertainty crops up all the time! What does the person who wrote this list expect us to do? What if someone in your group quits and creates uncertainty about how the group will function? What if a key vendor goes out of business with no other vendor available to do the same thing? Should all “managers” immediately fall to the carpet and weep while screaming wildly for some “leader” to save them from the uncertainty? No! It is a false dichotomy, the two are the same thing.

To understand leadership, first be clear about what leadership is not. It is not about using the latest greatest tools and methodologies (e.g., ERP, CRM, ISO, TQM – name whatever acronym you would like). It is not about singular great moments in the face of crises. These things are interesting, but they are not heart and soul of leadership. What then is a leader? A leader is a person who does a good job every day of nailing the basics of effective interpersonal relationships such that his or her group performs at a high level. Most articles and books about leaders dwell far too long on the issues above, and many other issues like “vision” and “charisma.” All are overrated. Leadership is about nailing the basics, for example: communicating effectively, being open and fair, motivating others, engaging conflicts productively, and developing others. Research clearly backs this up. What is the best explanation for the morale and productivity of your group? It is not the charismatic CEO or the pay. The best answer by far is the quality of the interpersonal relationships that surround them every day: their subordinates, colleagues, and superiors.

Sure, leaders often deliver these basic skills using different styles. For example, consider communication as a core skill. A given message might be delivered quietly, succinctly and without great fanfare. A different leader might be loud, verbose and highly energetic. Is one better than the other? No. The same test applies as to whether they were effective: was the communication specific, articulate, understood, etc. Style is interesting, but do not get distracted. The same thinking applies to any of the basic leadership skills. Good news – you may not have known when you started this article whether you were a leader. Now you know. You are all leaders. Your goal: do not be a stinky leader. Nail the basics.

Five bright benefits come to mind. First is the prospect of a fatter paycheck. Job promotions go to smart people who keep up with the latest information and technology. It’s just good sense to refresh and retrain for the workplace. New careers are created all the time so those who see what’s coming and want to jump ship have got to be prepared with new certifications, diplomas and degrees.

Second is the enhanced self-esteem when you reach for new horizons, accept tough challenges and arrive at a whole new level. New learning is not a picnic but the joys of accomplishment are real. Your children are proud. Your neighbors are surprised and maybe just jealous enough to go out and do likewise.

Third is the freedom given to adult learners. The teacher is more facilitator than dictator. Adult students, unlike young kids, may be just as experienced as the person at the front of the room. Adult classmates share ideas and teach each other. Assignments may culminate in a group project or program rather than a graded exam. Memorizing facts is at a minimum; answers are not absolute.

True, there are some studies where exactness counts and tests are mandatory. But a quick Internet search turned up references to the use of adult education theories in highly regimented disciplines, such as nursing and medicine. Getting ready to pass state boards did not prevent creative teaching where students’ views are respected and acted on. It is possible to combine traditional methods with adult learning styles.

Fourth is the shift of schooling to a 24/7 model and long-distance or online methods. Trade the classroom for your computer. Stay home and study in your bathrobe. Earn a degree without ever stepping on campus. Leave an email message for the professor at 3 a.m. With time and space constraints removed anyone who truly wants to go on learning can do so. Further, some class enrollments are open with start dates at your convenience.

Number five is making scholarship a habit. Education becomes second nature; it’s who you are as much as what you do. People live longer now and their health stays robust. Folks dread the thought of 15 or 20 years after retirement with idle hands and minds. Luckily, such waste is out of fashion. Well known programs, such as Elderhostel keep people thinking, socializing and traveling. Grandmothers get their master’s degree.

Invest in yourself. Empower your life. Jump start your future with strong commitment to lifelong achievement. Knowing these five benefits can wipe out all excuses.

Structure provides movement with a framework within which to move without overreaching itself. Management grounds leadership by setting up and maintaining the systems which provide any organization with coherence, with continuity and sense, with the weight required to prevent it from drifting off into the heavens.

Management is the organization’s way of coping with the fact that leaderships head is always in the clouds. In The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Covey refers to the idea that all things are created twice (1989).

The first creation is a mental one, the second physical. He provides as example the construction of a house.

The first creation is the mental one, the design itself. The second is the putting together of the bricks and mortar, the construction itself. Leadership, in this sense, is the design, while management is the building itself.

Leadership then, is the formative force, management the physical substance. Leadership is water; management is earth. Leadership is process, management is product.

It is incumbent on leadership to ensure that the organization is effective in what it does; that its strategies, and the way in which it gives effect to these, are appropriate and have impact.

It is incumbent on management to ensure that the organization is efficient in what it does; that its internal systems function logically and smoothly. To put it simplistically, it has been said that while leadership ensures that the organization does the right thing, managements responsibility is to ensure that things are done right.

Management then, is about giving substance to organizational direction, and form to organizational needs.

It is about setting up systems and procedures, controlling these systems and procedures so that they function optimally and are adhered to, and ensuring that the various systems and structures articulate coherently.

Systems and procedures facilitate the smooth running of the organization; they ensure that the organization is controlled and disciplined. They provide a structure within which people can operate, and provide a measure of equality in the sense that-everyone is equal before the law.

The attempt of many organizations to develop a democratic organizational form is often interpreted as the need to allow each person full freedom, without accountability. But experience has shown that freedom without accountability leads to the -law of the jungle- where the most powerful dominate all others.

Democracy is a fragile entity which demands the protection of systems and procedures if it is to work and not degenerate into anarchy and chaos.

At the same time, excessive structure and rules can lead to extreme forms of bureaucratic absurdity where peoples creativity and motivation are stifled under the weight of relentless systems and procedures. Balance is vital.

One of the main areas where the quest for balance is so important is around the question of discipline and accountability.

Management control, in this area, entails:

Establishment of performance standards; measurement of performance; evaluation of performance; and correction of performance. Systems and procedures need to be designed in order to ensure accountability and compliance.

At the same time, such systems, once in place, should not be taken for granted and applied by rote. There is always a need to balance organizational needs with individual needs.

Where this is ignored, conflict and tension result. The setting up and monitoring of the systems can be regarded as pure management.

The adjustments of the system to respond to the ebb and flow of organizational and individual fluctuations demands leadership skills on the part of the manager. Note that control does not mean some people controlling others, it means the organization is in control, the parts work together responsibly to create the desired results. This condition is known as accountability.

When you read about this concept you will find a variety of definitions from the very technical to the very short. The idea is to find a definition that helps you embrace the whole concept. One of the reasons businesses are turning to Six Sigma is because it is a flexible system; it can help you improve business leadership and performance. You can use it with managers and with all employees.

Many businesses like Six Sigma because it builds on business philosophies and management ideas they already have studied, but it doesn’t’ stop at just thinking about management; it moves people into action. It helps you build new structures for your business to help you sustain success.

Although it may sound like the next trend or “miracle” in business, you will find that it is more about moving your business forward. If you are looking for better ways to serve your customers, Six Sigma can help you examine the process and design marketing and other strategies to create balance in the organization.

In a sense, Six Sigma is a new concept but it is also based on common management principles. The foundation of Six Sigma is six themes that help management move forward. These themes are broken down so that each person in an organization can collaborate and focus to constantly move toward improvement.

You may be asking yourself what this has to do with leadership and whether Six Sigma will do the job for you. Your organization will undoubtedly have many uses for Six Sigma and it is a powerful program. However, a challenge may come to you when you want to implement it because the program only works if everyone in the organization is willing to actually do what is required. So, a good idea is to get organized and develop your people to head the process.

There are several key ways that you can make sure Six Sigma gets implemented well and it starts with your top leaders. Because this is a business concept it is very important to help your organization find a reason to use the process. Your managers must take the time to pull together an idea of why your business needs Six Sigma. A business that has a clear vision of why they need this particular process will get other on board easier. This is also something that everyone, including your top manager, must be ready to do.

When you use Six Sigma the organization is going to be in the midst of change constantly and change isn’t always easy. A good idea to get everyone focused, is to use a marketing plan that encompasses the vision. Many organizations will include a slogan that is intended to move you forward that all your people can use. This can get things started and have everyone on a positive level. It can also be seen as an inspiring message.

Once you get everyone ready to embark upon the journey of Six Sigma it’s time to assign various roles. If you use the process it will tell you exactly what to do in developing these roles and who should be a part of the decision making. Once these roles and responsibilities are in place then you are ready to start the process. How you start the process will depend on how much time you want to put into the implementation.

Although many businesses are easier to change in crisis, this may not be the right time to start Six Sigma. Instead, if you want to use this program effectively, it is best to take a look at your customers and focus on their needs. When you are working in this mode, it will automatically create change.

Six Sigma can be implemented on your own or through the use of a consultant. Many businesses use consultants that are skilled in this area because it takes away the learning curve for implementation. Now, you just have to get started.

I believe change partners with chaos to alter an environment into a new level and create a platform of stability that can lead into the next change event. You may ask how that can be. Examine the possibility of how change pulls the future into the present. Example, if you are walking into your kitchen and want light, you flip the switch. Before you flipped the switch, there was darkness; unable to see what you were looking for. Once you flipped the switch, all that was ‘in front of you’ became manifested because of light. Remember my statement of creating a platform of stability? In order to ‘enlighten’ your environment, there had to be a change in the environment, flipping the switch. Walking into a dark room with no light could cause harm and delay the purpose of going into the kitchen.

Chaos creates a sense of ‘blind future’ by taking away the evidence or expectation of future plans. Your intention of going into the kitchen was to serve a particular purpose. When the light switch was flipped, the future became present. What was before you or the future of your intention was unseen, invisible to the eye because of the darkness. This may be a simple demonstration of change and chaos but the bottom line is chaos and changes are part of every day life.

Change and Chaos Process

Change and chaos are factors that are not necessarily bad, but are needed to step out into the future. Chaos and change cause discomfort. In many ways change becomes the beneficiary to the process of change. Take for example the affects of change in the lives of people. I believe people resort to elements that they believe will help them forget about the chaos that brought about change, seek other alternatives that bring comfort; avoiding the consequences as a result of change. Change is not always easy to accept. I believe there is an exchange assimilated from change that ironically unites chaos, change, and stability, which I call ‘static’. This static is similar to static electricity as when you take clothes from the clothes dryer and separate them, causing a static shock. This assimilation is similar to static shock that is brought on by the change of separating the two items, which where united in the tumbling process and then separated when taken out of the dry to be placed in its destination of purpose. When separated from bondage as a result of the drying process, change occurs that causes static; chaos. Regardless of the conflict as a result of change, the end result can be advantageous once chaos assimilates into stability.

Change creates a ‘blind future’ as a result of the chaos of change. The elements affected by change become unstable; unpredictable, somewhat unreliable. Until the elements affected by change become visible or stable, chaos will dominate and justify a ‘blind future’. Would you agree with me that change is natural? Change occurs daily with or without our permission. Times change, seasons change, change occurs physiologically, emotionally, and spiritually. If we can have a greater understanding of change and understand how to accept the chaos of change, change could be more tolerable, more acceptable in its impact.

I believe key points to remember when confronting change and chaos are:
• Chaos brings conversion.
• Chaos is the precursor to stability.
• Change pulls the future into the present.
• Chaos presents a sense of ‘blind future.’
• Change is uncomfortable and yet internally anticipated.
• Change is constant.
• Change puts us in the valley of decision-making processes.
• Change causes a different perspective of life.
• Change creates choice-driven alternatives.

In conclusion, change is like a kaleidoscope. The moment the scope turns, change occurs. The difference is the space between changes brings about a new beauty, transforming/changing a plain design from within the scope. It is the perspectives that are applied that create the beauty of change. Can lives become adaptable to change? Yes. As a butterfly experiences the metamorphosis of change in the cocoon, intended design is fulfilled. Each change experience is similar to a metamorphosis of life. The decision to accept change is entirely up to you. Gifts and talents are ingrained in your spirit according to God’s Word. Change transforms the ordinary into a beautiful kaleidoscope of change. The key is realizing that Change is not the bad guy after all. Change is the paradigm that will redefine a changed perspective. As an agent of change, you are creating history. From the beginning of time, humanity has changed; many times voluntarily and involuntarily. In spite of the decision, change still occurred. Chaos caused change and change bought order. The cycle is ongoing but in an upward spiral trend. The past 20 years has proven that businesses, global environments, and people are part of the upward spiraling change affect that is evident in the world today. Change is not just confined to business; life in general is a change agent, seeking for answers that only change can initiate, instigate, and cause to participate. So the next time you encounter change, realize you are calling the future to become your present; changing the present to fulfill tomorrow.

In many companies, a big change is discussed in meetings and memos for weeks or months by the top team. They eventually reach a decision, prepare a presentation and call all the staff to a big meeting.

Well, the change is announced, with an impressive array of PowerPoint slides, and the employees are encouraged to go away and ‘be more productive’, or ‘sell more products’ or ‘implement the new marketing strategy’ or whatever.

Admit it, it can be frustrating when the staff, looking none too impressed, file out of the room whispering ‘here we go again’ or ‘what a waste of time’. And then come the deputations of angry staff who spend a huge amount of your precious time attacking the new plan.

In some ways the obvious, angry and aggressive attacks are the easiest to handle. One manager told us: “You just have to take it on the chin, stay firm, keep the testosterone levels high and keep on like a broken record.” I’m not sure I agree, but it is a common strategy.

The less obvious, underground attacks are more difficult to deal with. What’s being said round the water cooler? Who is using the informal networks and the company corridors to build roadblocks for your strategy?

And if you think you haven’t got informal resistance – you’re wrong. You just haven’t found it yet.

If there’s a lot of resistance to change, you may feel tempted to force the change through. You may say ‘What the company needs is immediate action’, and you may believe that allowing people to debate the issue is a waste of time.

Resist that temptation. Without persuading enough people in the organization that there is a need for change, the change process will fail.

And most change efforts fail. There’s research to suggest four in every five change efforts fail.

So you’ve got to get people on-side. And a bit of political forethought on your part can avoid a failure. So let’s take a step back.

We know that people like to be given a say in big changes. Of course, you may have the responsibility to make and take the big decisions. You’re the boss after all.

But your people need time to understand the original problem. And they need time to accept the solution you’ve come up with. Debating that change and being heard is an essential part of that process.

They also need time because maybe the idea you’ve come up with can be modified or improved.

And if you’re the strong manager we think you are, maybe you’ll have the courage to accept someone else’s idea, if it’s better than yours.

So have the courage to open up even the biggest debates. You will win greater success, faster. Trust the process.

And remember that resistance is useful. It tells you that the change process has begun.

Instead of spreading wealth around, John McCain & Sarah Palin will spread opportunity.

Barack Obama will raise taxes on hardworking Americans to give a government handout to the 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have an economic plan that celebrates the American dream of opportunity, not government giveaways. In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. While Barack Obama is ready to “spread the wealth around,” John McCain has a plan to get our economy moving so everyone has access to good jobs, a quality education and the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t just talk about change … they deliver.

The next President won’t have time to get used to the office. America faces many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We need a new direction, and John McCain and Sarah Palin will fight for it.

We can trust John McCain and Sarah Palin because they are reformers with a record who stand by their words and will always put their country first.

Time and time again this team of mavericks has stood up, taken on tough issues and delivered. They’re the real deal. They have a clear record that can deliver results, not just rhetoric that delivers votes.

Take a moment and review where the candidates stand on the issues and then be sure to cast your vote now or on Election Day and tell others why they should vote for John McCain.

Leader of the radical Shiite group Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hasan Nasrallah, is a very controversial yet liked personality in the Muslim and Arab worlds. Since the withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from southern Lebanon in May 2000, he emerged as a strong and wise leader after claiming victory over the IDF. However, this image has been changing lately due to his divisive speeches and the misconduct of his party’s militia inside Lebanon. One his latest speeches took place on September 16, 08, during an Iftar held by the Islamic Resistance Support Association. While Nasrallah was supposed to announce his views and ideas regarding local, regional, and international issues, the main theme or goal of his speech was to send hints and warnings regarding the National Dialogue. He did not limit his message to the majority in the Lebanese Parliament (March 14 group), but he rather extended it to the Lebanese President Michael Suleiman who called for the said dialogue, which is going to be under his patronage.

The first blunder in his speech occurred when Nasrallah stated that Hezbollah respects “every person present in the dialogue” claiming that he was very “serious about it.”  However, he added, “We call for and we insist on increasing the number of participants in the dialogue” claiming that “ethics and national values” compel him to demand the participation of those who support the Resistance. Knowing Nasrallah, it seems that he is not only very serious about the National Dialogue, but he is rather very worried, too. Therefore, his demand to expand the participation to include other pro Syrio-Iranian puppets is a mere attempt to torpedo the Dialogue before it starts. It doesn’t take a genius to know that adding more individuals to any debate will only make it harder for participants to debate an idea, but more so to reach an agreement.  Furthermore, Nasrallah wants to include more of his allies (lackeys) in order to have a greater chance to obstruct the dialogue and to undermine its success without appearing to be the main and only complainer or individual behind its sabotage while facing the demands of the March 14 group whose leaders are adamant to end the de facto state of Hezbollah within the de jure state of Lebanon. This means that Hezbollah’s weapons and the deployment of its long range missiles all over Lebanon, north of the Litani River, will be scrutinized by the majority since the Defense Strategy is the first item on their agenda as well as on the agenda of President Suleiman.

Moreover, still on the national level, Nasrallah’s second faux pas came after claiming “victory” for the insurgency his militia conducted in West Beirut and south Mount Lebanon on May 7-8, 08. Nasrallah seems to be another individual who is obsessed with imaginary victories, which only he can feel and recognize.  After celebrating victory of the July 2006 war with Israel, which pushed Hezbollah North of the Litani River and which resulted in destroying most of southern Lebanon villages and the main bridges connecting the country, Nasrallah has new victory. He claimed in the mentioned Iftar that the operation conducted on May 7 against Beirut was another victory affirming, strangely, that it was a “necessity to save the country.” He did not elaborate, however, as to how did such barbaric act against Lebanese civilians has saved the country nor did he mention from whom. Nevertheless, following his “absurd” and vague statement, Nasrallah had the nerve to ask the people of Lebanon to support the “resistance” of Hezbollah. In other words, he simply asked the people he kidnapped, humiliated, tortured, and in some cases killed their loved ones to support the militia, which committed such atrocities. He either must think very highly of Beiruties and their ability to forgive without apologizing or even giving them an explanation for his militia’s vicious attack on them and their neighborhoods, or he may believe that they are too cowards to refuse his demand. Or maybe he thinks that all Lebanese will sacrifice their children for the “sake of his feet” as one Shiite mother referred to the death of her own son during the 2006 war. (Feeda Ijrou Sayed Hasan.)

In addition, Nasrallah called in his speech on the Lebanese people, and government, to trust and support his “resistance” movement even after breaking his earlier proclamation that the “weapons of Hezbollah will never be used inside Lebanon,” turned out to be his greatest lie. Furthermore, in his attempt to gain the sympathy of Lebanese people, Nasrallah tried to portray his pro- Iranian militia as a friendly one by referring to it as a “made in Lebanon” resistance. Notwithstanding, his “made in Lebanon” statement comes only days after his true announcement that he was a “proud soldier in the Welayet el Faqih” of Iran. The blood of the innocent Lebanese he killed on May 7-8 has not dried, yet, Nasrallah is asking for their unconditional trust and support. These conflicting statements reveal one of two things. It is either Nasrallah believes that the memory of the Lebanese people is too short or that they are mentally challenged, and therefore, they cannot comprehend what he and his militia have done to them in the name or resistance, or his underground hiding and lack of sun rays has taken its toll on his state of mind for he has been coming across as an irrational and incoherent weasel instead of a wise and truthful leader.

On the regional level, Nasrallah still insists that he has achieved a “victory” over Israel in the July war of 2006. What is more disturbing and worrying is that he truly believes that “Israel fell down, as a result of this “victory.” This is worrying since despite the daily threats issued by the Israeli officials against Lebanon, Nasrallah believes that Israel is “not able to wage war” against Lebanon or Hezbollah. What’s is more disturbing is that Nasrallah’s statement includes quotes from the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert telling his cabinet that “the balance [of power] in the region is now destabilized,” calling for a peace “settlement with the Palestinians.” Does Nasrallah truly believe that Israel is going to throw its hands up in the air and surrender because the balance of power is upset?  No; Mr. Nasrallah. During similar cases in the past, Israel did not surrender, but it rather went to war against its enemies to regain its upper hand in the region. This is by no means to be viewed as a support to Israel, but it is rather to warn against another miscalculation by Nasrallah and a call to be more rational and realist when dealing with war and peace decisions for we fear that another of his blunders may destroy Lebanon and devastate its people who have not recovered from Nasrallah’s last miscalculated war in 2006. Besides, what if Israel launches another war against Lebanon; will Nasrallah rebuild the country’s infrastructure and revive the innocent martyrs? Or will he just claim another “victory,” and excuse himself by stating, “I didn’t know” any better, again? There has to be a higher degree of rationality, responsibility, and accountability or similar deadly mistakes will reoccur. It is the responsibility of the Lebanese government to take back the decision of peace and war.

Nasrallah’s hypocrisy reaches its climax when he praises himself and his jihadists by referring to an “important” Israeli website, which posted that an “American military source,” with no name or rank, “Confirmed that the Georgian army should be rebuilt on Hezbollah’s model, because Hezbollah had demonstrated how a small army can win against huge military forces. His statement clearly reveals that Nasrallah believes that the Americans are convinced of Hezbollah’s powers, which may be true. However, Nasrallah fails to realize that suggesting a Georgian Army built on Hezbollah’s model by such official does not mean that the US admires Hezbollah, which is on the State Department list of terrorist groups. Instead, Nasrallah must know by now that the US blows out a balloon before it blows it up.

Hasan Nasrallah did not become a controversial figure overnight and without legitimate reasons. The Lebanese people in general and the March 14 audience in particular have been disappointed, disturbed, and suspicious of Nasrallah and of Hezbollah misconducts. The most significant of such misconducts started with Nasrallah’s uncalculated war with Israel in 2006, which was followed by his attempt to paralyze the government of Prime Minister Fouad Saniora when Hezbollah and AMAL’s ministers resigned from the cabinet, and which was accompany by a year-long sit-in in downtown Beirut, which in turn paralyzed the capital’s economy. Last but not least, his war on the predominately Sunni neighborhoods of West Beirut and the Southern portion of Mount Lebanon, mainly the Druze areas was the hair that broke the Mule’s back.

These transgressions, along with an already growing suspicion of Hezbollah’s role in relation to the assassinations and bombings, which targeted their leaders and their neighborhoods, left no doubts in the minds of most Lebanese that Hezbollah and its leader are playing into the hands of Syria and Iran at the expense of the Lebanese state and people.  Therefore, many spectators wonder: If Nasrallah prides himself on having the best intelligence network, which he claims have penetrated the Israeli Defense Forces and through which he knows what occurs in the halls of the White House and in other world capitals, why can’t he figure out, for once, who has been assassinating their leaders and officials within Lebanon and sometimes near Hezbollah’s strongholds?  Why this internationally recognized “power,” which the Americans want to use as a model to build other armies, couldn’t for once stop one bombing of their neighborhoods? If Nasrallah receives reliable intelligence from important source, based on which he decide who’s a “traitor” and who’s an ally in Lebanon, why can’t he at least resolve one crime or arrest one assailants? Well, only Hasan Nasrallah can answer these legitimate questions.

On the regional level, ever since the war of 2006, Nasrallah, the “Arab nationalist,” has been on the offense against most Arab leaders and states. He never fails to attack the Arab countries, which of course are at odd with Iran and Syria. When lacking a just premise, he criticizes them on internal issues, which are the concern of their own people, if any. His harsh criticism to Saudi Arabia has exceeded in terms of harshness and animosity to that of his criticism to Israel and the “greatest Satan the United states of America.In conclusion, in order to avoid more bloodshed, it will be wise for Nasrallah to merge his militia into the Lebanese state while his main supporters and lifeline Syria and Iran are still standing, for at the moment he can negotiate and maybe receive the best deal for such merger. However, he must act fast for time is of the essence due to the fact that the patience of the International Community with Iran’s nuclear program is running thin due to the lack of cooperation of the Iranian government with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Consequently, the war clock against the Khomeini’s regime in Iran is ticking fast, and in case such a war occurs, it is almost a certainty that Ahamdi Najad’s regime will face the same devastating ending, which the regimes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and that of the Taliban in Afghanistan have suffered before due to their foolish standoff with the world’s community.

What’s more, if Nasrallah fails to Lebanize Hezbollah, it will be then true that since the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000, to the invasion of Beirut and Mount Lebanon in May 2008, Hasan Nasrallah has transformed himself from a leader of a resistance admired by most to a wheeler dealer trying to sell the people he slaughtered a resistance that Lebanon needs no more. He is selling them ideas about an enemy that only exists in his mind and in the mind of the radicals for this is their only raison d’etre. Meanwhile their real objective has been since the creation of Hezbollah in 1982, has been to replace the Lebanese political system with an Iranian like Welayet el Faqih. This is not a secret for it is mentioned in Hezbollah’s Manifesto. Soon, however, Nasrallah will realize that this is mission impossible for the Lebanese people know from the blood (their own) on his hands that he is nothing but a savage Persian wolf in sheep closing waiting for the right moment to devour his prey, which in this case is the Lebanese people and their way of life.

For those who are too young to know Michael Aoun and for those whose memory suffers from amnesia, here’s what you need to know from Aoun’s biography in brief. After his infamous AWOL from the Lebanese Army on October 13, 1990, leaving his army commanders and soldiers to be slaughtered by the Syrian invaders while he ran away and hid at the basement of the French Embassy, Aoun was transported to France after he announced his humiliating surrender to the enemies. (General was a rank to which he was promoted due to Syrian’s pressure on the Lebanese President back in 1984) Later on, Aoun sought and received political asylum after he promised that he was not to play politics from France. Thereafter, he spent 15 years in a fancy neighborhood in Paris.  While AWOL is a serious crime in any given army, AWOLING during war is a deadly sin, to say the least, punished by imprisonment and dishonorable discharge. Hence, one might believe that this is Aoun’s darkest and most dishonorable legacy.  However, what Aoun have been doing since that sad and dark date will make October 13, his “good” legacy in comparison.

During his vacation in Paris, instead of reflecting on his historic mistakes and the horrifying crimes he committed against the Lebanese people during his two-year tenure (1988-1990), Aoun continued playing his favorite game of manipulating the Lebanese people and distorting truth and history. Furthermore, he knew how to cover up his defeat and blunders by playing the patriotic victim.  Unfortunately, many fell for him, for he is one of the best actors and a demagogue dictator the world has ever seen. Thus, instead of holding him accountable for his failure to respect the institutions of the country, and for his crimes against the people by
hanging him in Public Square, the good yet desperate Lebanese gathered around him and supported his phony claims and fancy slogans-Freedom, Sovereignty, and independence. To his luck, such accountability exists only in developed countries. Therefore, Aoun has gotten away with his crimes of documented theft and for his crimes against his people, both military and civilians. In fact, Aoun was not even held accountable as a military leader, and or as a politician whose unsystematic actions, to say the least, resulted in defeating the Lebanese resistance, and in the loss of everything which was established or gained since the beginning of the 1975 war, or since independence of 1943. He brought free and independent Lebanon to its knees placing it
under the occupation of the criminal Syrian Baath regime.

In other words, Aoun handed over to Syria all of the Lebanese resistance victories and achievements, for which young men and women fought for decades sacrificing their lives in the process. Such absolute defeat could have happened only if the decision maker, Aoun in this case, was and still is a traitor and a collaborator. When faced with this humiliating reality, Aoun replied” “who would’ve guaranteed that I would stay alive on that day?” (No one asked Aoun whether the soldiers he left behind fighting his senseless war have had any guarantees.)

Furthermore, when Aoun ran away from Baabda Palace to the French embassy on October 13, leaving his soldiers to die alone, he made sure that he left no one standing behind. Instead of informing his commanders to surrender, he rather left them fight to death. In fact, in his two devastating years in reign, Aoun made sure that everything in the country was destroyed from the Lebanese Army, to the Lebanese Forces, and to all government institutions, as well. There was absolutely nothing left on which others can pick up the pieces in order to rebuild a nation, or a resistance, or even a community. He destroyed everything. Such ruthless crime deserves nothing less than the noose in a public square, but to Aoun’s luck, that, too, only happens in countries, which practice accountability and sound judgment. The irony in this situation is that Aoun has the nerve to speak of victories, honor, and accountability.

Fifteen years later, the “savior” of the Lebanese people in general and the Christians in particular has returned home for a second round of destruction. He came back after striking a deal, which would guarantee his safety as long as he re-destroy whatever was built in the last 15 years in Lebanon from civil infrastructure, to government institutions, and to national community. It is the same new/old mission from the same new/old master-Syria. He returned on a white horse with the justice sword in his hand. At least that’s how he tried to portray himself when he compared himself to Napolon. Ironically, to the astonishment of, both, the sane and the insane, the lambs he slaughtered 15 years earlier welcomed him with open arms. However, it was he, the “savior,” who has the same attitude of a bothered king who came out of his long siesta to save his people from the blunders of their own making, again. This old guy had the nerve to play his old trick of intimidating the people and the media, which came to welcome him home. The moment he landed at the airport he began spiting his poisonous insults to the people and to the press shouting at them like a crazy runaway felon. It was that same press, which 15 years earlier he harassed, sued, abused, and closed down.  In any civilized society, the press would have uncovered all of his crimes and made sure that when he returns, he would land right in a prison cell where a criminal belongs. Instead, the Lebanese media welcomed him at the airport and cheered his return-the return of a dictator and an abuser of freedom of expression. What a pity!

Nevertheless, being the type that cannot survive without blood and chaos, Aoun immediately launched his erratic attacks on his new enemies-the Cedar Revolution’s leaders, whose stand up to Syria and its lackeys liberated Lebanon and made it possible for Aoun to return. Notwithstanding, Aoun was supposed to be arrested by the Lebanese authorities at the airport and he was supposed to be handcuffed and taken to jail for there was an arrest warrant issued by a Lebanese justice against him due to charges related to his theft of public funds. However, an agreement sought between Aoun and his old/new ally the Syrian regime via its appointed president, Emile Lahoud, through Karim Pakradoni and Lahoud’s son suspended the arrest warrant, on May 6, 2005, which prevented justice from being served. Accordingly, on May 7, Aoun walked free on into the land, which he has betrayed 15 years earlier to be welcomed by the people he slaughtered. Thus, the painful saga returns.

Following the political maneuvering of Aoun since his return on May 7, 2005 is similar to watching a suspense Hollywood movie. The spectator can never expect the next shot (sometimes literally.) For example, after the renowned apology of Dr. Samir Geagea during the Lebanese Forces martyrs mass in Jounieh, we heard many absurd comments and analysis from the pro Syrio-Iranian lackeys. Some, such as Suleiman Frangieh, gave a medical diagnosis of Geagea’s personality affirming that Dr. Geagea suffers from a “struggle within” due to what Frangieh diagnosed as a “split personality.” Only in Lebanese politics a high school dropout would give a
medical assessment of his rival, or patient in this case, on LIVE TV.  Never mind “doctor” Frangieh’s medical diagnosis for his formal education won’t qualify him to analyze the flavors of an ice cream cone, much less a psyche analysis. However, despite the humor and the absurdity of Frangieh’s behavior, his “play” comes second to that of Aoun’s who was astonished to the “poor” apology of Dr. Geagea. According to Aoun, Dr. Geagea has failed to follow the “proper procedure in apologizing” for he was supposed to “name the people from which he was apologizing and he was supposed to specify the crime for which he was apologizing.” In
other words, Aoun wanted Dr. Geagea to admit guilt while apologizing, but failed to do so. Therefore, he rejected his apology in shape, as well as in substance. If this is not an insult to our intelligence, then what is?

Mr. Aoun hypocrisy is unmatched. While he is in no position to give lessons in “proper apologies,” he in fact owes the nation a thousand apologies. To name a few, Aoun needs to apologize for:
a)        Turning his back on his soldiers and people on October, 13, 1990 when he launched a senseless war, and  ran away to save himself;
b)        All the kidnapped and murdered soldiers and innocent citizens due to his foolish wars;
c)        Every Lebanese Army Lieutenant he arrested, abused, and imprisoned i.e. MP Aontoine Saad, only because they opposed his destructive plans and crazy views;
d)        The families of the Lebanese Forces that were killed by Aoun’s war against them in order to “unite the resistance,” yet, he does not apply the same theory for Hezbollah;
e)        Stealing people’s donations, which were given to fund the war of liberation and not to secure a lavish life in Paris for him and his wife;
f)        Illegally transferring public funds to his wife’s name in Paris, France;
g)        His bombing of the UNESCO and the killing of innocent children, women, and elders;
h)        His coup d’état against March 14 people whose demonstrations liberated the country from the Syrian occupation;
i)        His betrayal of the activists who created the Free Patriotic Movement;
j)        Turning against the principles for which the people have fought and died for 15 years;
k)        Abandoning his 2005 campaigning program, on which he was elected;
l)        Turning the FPM into a family business to support his son-in-laws, especially Jebran Bassil;
m)        Selling out the Christians trust by abandoning the call to establish a strong Lebanese state, but instead he is supporting their arch enemy, Hezbollah and its weapons until the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict;
n)        Constantly disrespecting and  vulgarly attacking the Maronite Patriarch, physically in 1989;
o)        Scheming with the Syrians to weaken the church and the Christians in Lebanon;
p)        Cherishing and supporting Hassan Nasrallah whose main aim is to establish a Shiite state, and to take over the districts of Jbail and Keserwan as stated in one of his speeches;
q)        Killing the Christians’ morals and values in our people by destroying our sacred principles, for which our ancestors for fought centuries;
r)        Creating a hostile and chaotic atmosphere which weakened the Lebanese security agencies and which empowered terrorists to bomb and kill innocent civilians and leaders of the Cedar Revolution;
s)        Being morally responsible, to say the least, for the assassination of Sheik Pierre Gemayel;
t)        Spreading rumors to deviate people’s attention from the real killers of MP Gemayel into making them believe that a member of the March 14 group was behind the heinous crime;
u)        Using Hezbollah’s weapons to threaten and to intimidate his political rivals;
v)        Claiming victory of the May 7-8 horrendous and barbaric attack by Hezbollah/AMAL thugs against Lebanese citizens;
w)        Becoming an ally of Syria which destroyed Lebanon, stole its wealth, and killed its people for over 30 years;
x)        Being an ally of Iran which is using Lebanon as an arena to fight its own wars;
y)        Supporting Hezbollah’s arrogant and uncalculated war in 2006, which destroyed Lebanon’s villages and infrastructure;
z)        Claiming victory of the 2006 senseless war, which killed over 1200 innocent Lebanese people; Furthermore, Aoun also needs to provide explanations and to also apologize for:
aa)        Weam Wahab, Nasir Qandil and all the Syrian lackeys  since time has proved that he attacked them from France not because of their allegiance to Syria at the expense of Lebanon but because he was envious of their relationship with the Assad regime;
bb)        Not participating in any constructive plan or project for Lebanon, ever;
cc)        Destroying everything on which he was entrusted;
dd)        Making the Taef Accord of 1989, the only way for the Christians to end the blood bath in the country;
ee)        Being a poisonous mole which caused disintegration and destruction to all national political parties, including the Lebanese Army, which he turned into a militia;
ff)        Accusing Prime Minister Saniora of theft, yet failing to provide solid evidence;
gg)        Threatening and intimidating the media and journalists;
hh)         Suing media outlets and reporters who oppose his political line and views;
ii)        Betraying Bashir Gemayel by allying himself with his killers-the SSNP;
jj)        Betraying all martyrs by paying tribute to Imad Mugheneyah’s grave on the 26th anniversary of electing Bashir Gemayel a President of the republic of Lebanon;
kk)        Not paying tribute to martyr Dany chamoun who, according to his brother Dori, was killed because of Aoun’s reckless actions;
ll)        Causing the assassination of President Rene Mouawad;
mm)        Disrespecting the family of martyr Samer Hana by portraying him as responsible for his own assassination in order to protect the actual killers-Hezbollah;
nn)        Leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baabda Palace while he ran away to save his life, which is, after all, the only thing that matters to such an egoist;
oo)        Using France to live in peace and dignity for 15 years, but only to attack its leaders after he returned to Lebanon and after he became a syrio-Iranian puppet;
pp)        Betraying the good will of the United Sates and its Congress which opened its doors for him and provided a podium to attack Syria, but only to turn against it after he returned to Lebanon and became a Hezbollah lackey;
qq)        Destroying the image of Lebanon the beautiful, which Gibran Khalil, Fairuz, Charles Malik and many other great legends have worked hard to bring to light, only to find Aoun promoting the culture of hate and death by allying himself with the Iranian mullahs and Hezbollah;
rr)        God, for he cast doubts over His wisdom and the quality of His creations and by giving Him a bad name;
ss)        His own mother, for she certainly did not intend to give birth to such a harmful madman…

The list of his misconducts goes on and on, but these are only few crimes for which Aoun needs to apologize. Last but not least, Aoun must apologize for misleading the people into believing that after its withdrawal in May 2005, Syria’s intentions towards Lebanon have become “pure,” and that the Syrian regime is innocent of the crimes and assassinations of the leaders of the Cedar Revolution.

Furthermore, Aoun is misleading the people regarding terrorism by diverting their attention from the grave problem of Hezbollah as a state within the state by focusing on the few Salafis in northern Lebanon, which are planted there by the Syrian Mukhabarat and which take orders from the Syrian security officials and from Hezbollah as well. Hasan Nasrallah’s warning to the Lebanese Army, during its war on Nahr el Bared camp which hosted Fateh al-Islam and Shaker Abssi, that defeating camp was a “red line” is nothing but a clear evidence of their “cozy” relationship.  Thus, when the Army refused to back down, Hezbollah assassinated the two officials responsible for defeating the terrorists; Lieutenant General François Hage and Lieutenant Wisam Eid of the Internal Security Forces.

Notwithstanding, Naher El_Bared camp was a “Red Line” to Hezbollah for they wanted to use its terrorists to destabilize the north at the request of the Syrian regime, which wanted to portray northern Lebanon as a haven for terrorism similar to Qandahar. Consequently, such role was transferred to Hezbollah’s elements positioned in Jabal Mohsen. However, they failed to achieve the aspired results, which is a full scale war that would require the involvement of the Syrian troops to restore law and order. This plan failed due to the fact that the terrorists in Naher el Bared were destroyed and the elements related to Hezbollah did not have the manpower to execute the mission. Since Aoun announced many times that his support to Hezbollah was global and comprehensive, then it is logical to assume that he is guilty by association, not to say that he is an accomplice to Hezbollah, which committed crimes against the people of Tripoli, the Lebanese Army, and the Internal Security Services.

Having said that, it is important to note that Aoun has been a dilemma for Lebanon and its people. He is regularly creating problems and causing chaos. He is an individual that can only survive during chaos. Therefore, in order to keep himself relevant, he is constantly creating problems and launching new senseless wars. Sometimes Aoun actually creates a fight and settles it in the same press conference without any need for anyone else’s participation or interference. While this sounds unreal and humorous, it is very actual and very true. It is also very harmful to the economic and security stability of the country for since his return, Lebanon has not seen one single normal day. This is the only role that Aoun can play and it is the only way he can be relevant on the Lebanese political scene and he knows it.

Moreover, since his appearance on the Lebanese scene, Aoun has proven to be impotent in political leadership and incompetent in military resistance, as well as in striking alliances. Even though Hezbollah is in dire need for Aoun’s political and Christian cover, his leadership is agitated with Aoun. This was obvious after the Hezbollah attack on the Lebanese Army in Sujud where Hezbollah killed Army Lieutenant Pilot Samer Hana. Hezbollah’s leadership rejected Aoun’s “question[ing] to the army’s authority,” and his attempt to “cast doubt on the army’s intentions” for flying over Sujud. It was a clear indication that Aoun has crossed the authority and the mission given to him by Hezbollah. Therefore, such announcement by Hezbollah was to reprimand Aoun and to put him in his place, as a lackey, while he has been trying to portray himself to his followers as an ally to Hasan Nasrallah with equal status and importance.

In brief, despite the gravity of Aoun’s cowardice act and his dishonorable AWOL on October 13, 1990, his misconducts afterwards and the harm he has caused the Lebanese people outweigh his crime of AWOLING. In reality, he abandoned the entire country and he destroyed all the “principles” for which the Lebanese stand. While it is hard to define Aoun in one term, it is fair to say that he is the closest to being a parasite who can only survive by sucking the blood of its host, which are in this case the Lebanese people. In fact, Aoun has caused harm and destruction to the Lebanese people more than their entire enemies have in over 30 years. He is simply the Trojan Horse of Lebanon first republic, which brought its demise.

Nonetheless, despite the bleak situation, which Aoun has created, there is a potential solution. The 2009 elections will give the power and the opportunity to the people in order to decide which Lebanon they want. Do they want the Lebanon of Hezbollah, Assem Qanso, Michael Aoun, and Rustom Ghazali, or do they want the Lebanon of Bashir and Pierre Gemayel, Gebran khalil, Rafiq Hariri, Mufti Shamseldine, Mufti Hasan Khaled, and President Camile Chamoun? The Lebanese, mainly the Christians, will decide the direction of this nation when they cast their votes in the next parliamentary elections. We are hopeful as we project that the Lebanese people, mainly the Christians, who suffered the most from Aoun’s deadly blunders will have the necessary wisdom and political enlightenment to vote for the culture of life and to bring down once and forever the destructive and painful saga of the Rabieh madman, also known as Michael Aoun.

October 13, 2008