Lessons from Lebanon 25 years on

Yesterday, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the bombing of U.S. and French peacekeeping force barracks in Beirut - an assault which remains one of the most deadly and ugly attacks of its kind - the New York Times chose to run two opinion pieces on the subject, both offering the same lesson to be learned - and both wrong.

The articles - one written by Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's national security advisor at the time of the attacks, the other by Randy Gaddo, former Marine staff sergeant and a photographer - both slavishly follow the failed global war on terror American narrative toward the Middle East, and radical Islam.

Both connect America's immediate withdrawal of forces from Lebanon following the '83 attack with the events of September 11th. Both suggest the experience in Lebanon ought to lead America to "stay the course" in Iraq. McFarlane suggests GWOT started 18 years too late in September 2001, that the Americans should have gone on the military offensive then in Lebanon and are being "vindicated" now in Iraq "to establish an example of pluralism in a Muslim state." Oh dear.

The Shi'a adversary that killed nearly 300 troops in Beirut in 1983 was not, of course, the same foe that struck the USS Cole, American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and the World Trade Center in '93 and '01. That enemy was Al Qaeda, a takfiri salafist Sunni ideology that deems the Shi'a faith heretical.

Remaining in Lebanon and expanding operations there in the 1980s would have entailed literally standing in the middle of a civil war. During this period, Lebanon was effectively occupied by two foreign forces, both the Israelis and the Syrians. Further, Palestinian militants, having already been expelled from Jordan, presented a major destabilizing force, between attacks on Israel and inter-faction feuding. It's difficult to fathom what maintaining a U.S. troop presence would have achieved, or what lesson various terrorist factions might have learned from further massacres of U.S. servicemen.

Lebanon itself only emerged from the Israeli occupation of its south in May 2000 and from the pervasive Syrian military presence in April 2005. Just this month Syria and Lebanon finally established formal diplomatic relations. All this ought to tell us something about the corrosive effects of foreign occupations (American-led ones included), about the hard diplomatic slog of stability-building and the need to follow the difficult path of inclusivity and decisiveness in political conflict resolution.

First, the travails of occupation. It is worth recalling that it was the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1978 and then more dramatically in 1982 that facilitated and fueled the rise of the Shi'a Hezbollah; just as it was the U.S. invasion of Iraq which brought the virulent Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and elsewhere to Iraq.

Foreign occupations tend to stir resistance, violent resistance, among occupied populations - and can become self-perpetuating for the occupier. It is much easier to get in than to get out (and becomes increasingly so over time, especially if a civilian settler population from the occupying country is added to the mix - just ask the Israelis and Palestinians). Over time the political mutations that occupation breeds can become more entrenched and more deadly. For the New York Times to publish two op-eds on the same day both favoring more and longer US occupations of Arab countries is particularly appalling.

The hard political work of conflict resolution and stability-building in the Middle East is not primarily a military mission. It requires commitment, a willingness to be assertive diplomatically and a stomach for engaging (directly or indirectly) with thoroughly unpleasant parties, often bloody adversaries - but with whom one can find just enough common ground to cut acceptable deals (remember who the Sunni "Awakening Councils" were before they got that nice laundered name).

To borrow a phrase from a different policy arena - this work requires a scalpel not an axe, it's a fragile region and a fragile political reality - lumping AQ, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Taliban, etc. together and then vowing to destroy them all is not a smart plan.

And what might all this tell us about the Presidential candidates? Senator Obama favors diplomatically engaging more broadly to build stability. He, for instance, favors talking to the Syrians and Iranians. On Iraq he also displays understanding that an occupation can be a key part of the problem - he promotes US troop withdrawal as a way of incentivizing a more effective political reconciliation process. And he appreciates how central the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the narrative of radicalization in the region, and the need to resolve that conflict, urgently, and not least for Israel's sake.

Obama has not though extended this problem-solving realism to the question of how to deal with non-al Qaeda, non-state actors - whether that be, for instance, in response to senior NATO officers calling to bring Taliban elements into the Afghan political tent or to Israel's ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza.

Intriguingly, Senator McCain, in his previous incarnation was one of just 27 Republican representatives (McCain was a newly elected Congressman at the time) to oppose extending the Marine deployment in Beirut, prior to October '83 barracks attack. It is something McCain has mentioned on the campaign trail--but it also represents a McCain that barely exists today - so lost he is in the all-embracing neocon bear-hug. McCain is largely opposed to diplomatic engagement with both the state and non-state actors in the Middle East with whom the US finds itself in conflict. Military threats and bellicose rhetoric have become the standard operating procedure for candidate McCain and his GWOT-narrative.

It's a shame that Senator McCain was not challenged on this 25 years after that terrible bombing - it is even more of a shame that 25 years later most of the wrong lessons are still being learned.

Comments

[S1m0n]

"...an assault which remains one of the most deadly and ugly attacks of its kind.."

Only because the victims were american. If they'd been anything else, this event would have been forgotten within hours.

[WaftingBy]

After just recently diving in to Robert Baer's "The Devil We Know .." I'm equally appalled at the history-ignorant NY Times for suggesting more of the same will fix everything. From Baer's perspective, our obliterating the Iraqi army did what Iran was never able to do and has left Iraq's doors wide open for Iran to patiently seep in with its myriad proxies. They've already been manipulating the action .. turning the heat up or down depending upon circumstances. They're seriously sub-rosa about their activities, have no need to take credit for various actions .. but continue to pursue their ultimate goal of taking over the region's oil interests. Baer suggests Iran is poised to become a Middle East superpower .. and after only 50 or 60 pages in, it's difficult not to believe him. He also suggests that Iran was behind the activity in Lebanon .. they cut their teeth on that action. I highly recommend the book .. it makes the need for an Obama presidency ALL the more imperative.

[Durango]

While I respect Baer I do not agree with his demonizing of Iran.

The Liberalization Movement in Iran is the single most hopeful event in the Muslim world. It got hamstrung by a number of events. Particulalrly the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the labeling of Iran as one of the Axis of Evil by that fool Bush.

Iran has an election coming up this next summer. Iran TRIED to work with the USA in Afghanistan.

It is not some monolithic nation completely controlled by the Mullahs.

Left to themselves Iranians might just create a democratic revolution. they are no evil empire, no modern version of the Soviet Union. they are a country in transistion.

And that transition, if left to the Iranians themselves, might just be a Western looking modern democracy.

[chaos4700]

Unfortunately, it doesn't benefit the United States to leave oil wealth in the hands of any democracies. Or rather, it doesn't benefit US oil companies (or British ones, for that matter).

Iran tried to extend an olive branch to us to negotiate the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq; Bush brushed them aside with his whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists and dictators" B.S. To think that Iran would sit by quietly while the Bush administration sank its pincers into governments on two of its borders was hopelessly naive and blindingly ignorant. Of course Iran would interfere -- it would have been national suicide for them not to involve themselves with wars and hostile armies penning them in.

Fortunately, Bush didn't get what he really wanted -- a clear and unmistakable act of war from Iran, a pretext to declare open warfare on the entire Middle East. Let's hope they can rig neither the election nor the state of foreign relations before his term finally comes to an end. I can't wait until we get these greedy, bloodthirsty racists out of office and return to a sensible Democratic presidency. Honestly, I miss the days when the worst scandal to come out of the White House was who the president was boinking, not who he was waterboarding.

[nefertiti]

Durango : Bravo ! Excellent Post .

[MatoSka]

Lebanon is confronted with a situation where dual authority exists internally. Hezbollah presents a situation were there is no sovereign government in Lebanon. The theocratic nature of Hezbollah and the 41% Shi"a population of Lebanon has created a scenario that clearly promotes the expansion of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Syria continues to function with the ultimate objective of its own assimilation of Lebanon. Israel faces an inevitable military confrontation with Hezbollah that will provide neither a solution nor a remedy to the political situation in Lebanon. There really is no such thing as a "no occupation" scenario that is feasible. The question is simply by whom.

Is Obama willing to proceed in a way that would inflame everyone in the region? Is McCain prepared to lose a US sphere of influence? How are they prepared to address the political reconfiguration that is inevitable?

[Durango]

I don't buy your analysis for a minute.

Hezbollah is a Shia Party in Lebanon. While it may be allied with Iran it's interests are not the same as Iran. it does not control all the Shia in Lebanon.

Iran will do what they see is best for Iran. Hezbollah will do what is best for Hezbollah.

They are not the same thing nor will they agree on everything. They may be allied but that does not mean they don't have differences.

Such monolithic analysis is mistaken, at best. It is what got us to make so many mistakes about the Soviets in the Cold War.

And there is no such thing as an "inevitable military confrontation."

Certainly nothing is inevitable if wisdom replaces the stupidity that has typified US policy in the Middle East.

[chaos4700]

Durango has it on the nose, in my opinion. The only thing I would expound upon, is the only "inevitable military confrontation" I would predict is that as soon as Lebanon starts to become stable and coherent again, Israel will sweep in and cluster-bomb the living bejeesus out of them like they always do. After all, it's not in the interests of the Israeli worldview to allow any of their Arab neighbors to prosper.

[MatoSka]

"The theocratic nature of Hezbollah and the 41% Shi"a population of Lebanon has created a scenario that clearly promotes the expansion of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

In debates language is very important in defining one's position. There is a real conflict in the region between Sunni and Shi'a sects. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped Shi'a influence, as Biden has said. I admit to projecting a certain scenario that may not occur. There is no denying that Iran's influence is growing. What remains to be seen is what their intentions are.

I would agree that military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel may not be "inevitable". But, from a national security perspective, it is hardly a stretch to presume that Israel sees unfinished work in Lebanon. I disagree with Israeli military actions, but a future military invasion of Lebanon would be perfectly consistent with previous actions.

[AdamWykle]

Incredible article Mr. Levy.

People always render the occupation whether it be Syrian, Lebanese or Palestinian lands as invincible, then the reason for their frustration seems nonsensical, its as though people assume that they are inherently upset and violent. All three aforementioned peoples struggles are a just struggle, their struggling to reclaim their territory back or what remains of it.

[larry278]

That's the reason that the NYT's bonds are rated by S & P as junk bonds. Look at the web hits on the NYT's site; the # of hits for NYT articles goes up when an aggregator such as HP posts something from NYT; look at the per copy sales of NYT's print ed & who buys ads in the NYT? The war of [on] terror is no sale. The NYT is no longer America's only newspaper of record; the NYT isn't among America's newspapers of record in 2008. While SLATE's, "Today's Papers" still tacitly honors the NYT's legacy & uses some NYT stuff, TP uses LA TIMES, WA PO, WSJ as America's de facto newspapers of record. The NYT is in its death throes. Murdoch's WSJ is becoming a general interest sheet; the WSJ will be NYC's sole newspaper of record. HP may become America's 1st online newspaer of record if the self-appointed mavens who select newspapers of record get over their bias against sites which aggregate[sp] articles from other sites with their [HP's] original blogs [articles].
The line-up of America's newspapers of record isn't carved in marble. Names may be added quickly, easily & as often as needed; names can & will be deleted & removed when a paper is no longer reliable, original, accurate & a paper of record. The on-line news[papers] may soon [within 5 yrs] replace the ink on paper newspapers. We need a term to replace newspaper of record too.

[Durango]

Colonialism and Imperialism ie: the occupation of countries by foriegn troops, went out of style about 1945.

Although it took decades, many battles and many many lives (Kenya, S Africa, Viet Nam, Algeria, Iran, Rhodesia etc, etc) to finally put the concept to rest.

Here we have the Bush Administration resurrecting the old White Mans Burden in the Global War on Terror.

Has not worked since 1945 and did not work in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I hope, no matter what Obama says on the campaign trail, that he recognizes this reality and will change the direction of the USA away from stupidity.

[DavidNOE]

It didn't work all that well before 1945. People these days don't remember the Filipino Insurrection back in 1899-1904 or so. Damn near exactly what we saw in Vietnam and later in Iraq,

[Durango]

I wouldn't disagree. Imperialism began to disintegrate after WW I. Wilson's 14 Points and ideals of self determination and all that.

But WW II put the end to Colonialism.

It became obvious that colonialism/Imperialism was no longer a viable system. Nationalism became the most potent political force on the planet.

And remains so today.

[SamEllison]

The NYTimes has an agenda.

[WorkingClass]

The war on terror is a ruse, like the war on drugs. We (American workers) cant afford crap like that anymore. The United States of America is insolvent. Imperial troops and wars about nothing are no longer an option.