I'd really love for you to explain your "The good news is that Lebanon doesn't matter as much as many people seem to think it does".

The U.S.S. Cole was off the coast of Lebanon so as to discourage Hizballah from attacking Israel again. If you recall, the last time Israel raided Gaza in 2006, Hizballah launched a cross-border raid that jump started the summer conflict. Many in the international community anticipated something similar happening this time around, and that's why all the Arab Gulf states ordered their citizens to leave Lebanon 3 days ago. Luckily, Hizballah chose to not launch an attack. Maybe the U.S. presence had something to do with it, but I like to think that the U.N. troop presence, as well as the fact that Nasrallah admitted he wouldn't have launched the cross-border raid if he knew how Israel would've responded, had something to do with it.

As far as your claim that you have been "a pretty reliable critic of the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East," thanks for the laugh!

I didn't see this as that surprising. What I DID find surprising was the choice of ship. Sending in a US warship that has already been the target of a fatal attack by Al-Qaeda to intimidate Hizballah seems like handing them an opportunity to attack what could now be called a symbolic target.

I too would like you to explain quite how Lebanon doesn't matter. Supposing, for a hypothetical second, that it doesn't matter in the wider geopolitical context (which is a ludicrous claim) surely it matters to the 4 million or so of my compatriots who have to deal with the consequences of the actions taken by a number of rival parties locally, regionally and internationally.

My initial reaction was to wonder if the ships were there due to recent Russian naval activity in the eastern Med, around Syria and Algeria. (link, link, link).

In other words, it may appear to some that the Russians have moved some chess pieces into the area, to back Syria, and the U.S. is merely responding in kind.

I'm not suggesting war is in the offing, particularly given how recent exercises in the Med demonstrated the Russia's navy lack of readiness. More, my point is simply noting that the movement of the U.S.S. Cole might be more than simple, obvious strong-arm intimidation. It might be more of a counter-balance to a perceived (by Syria) strength in the region.

Blake, you don't think it's important geostrategically to whom?
I'd argue the opposite entirely. It is important to more or less everyone. The US cannot afford to see yet another friendly government in the region disappear. Also the complete failure of a follow through to the so-called Cedar Revolution seriously dents any aspirations for democracy in the region.
It is important to Europe, especially France, because a complete breakdown of the situation (or a continued state of paralysis) would be an embarrassment considering the intense mediation that they have been partaking in.
It is important to Iran as it tries to position itself as a regional leader, through Hezbollah (also see comments made by the Iranian president on his trip to Iraq).
It is important to Saudi Arabia and the GCC because they have invested a lot in the country both financially and politically.
It is important to Egypt and the Arab League, who have been engaging in intense diplomatic efforts to resolve the continuing tensions.
The list goes on. Despite Lebanon's miniscule size, I think its pretty safe to say that its geopolitical weight and the consequences of events there have very wide repercussions.
A civil war, regional war or a continued status quo (a country without a president or a functioning cabinet) are intrinsically dangerous for the whole region.