Download PDF of this full issue: v14n1.pdf (8.3 MB)

US Out of Lebanon, Now

By Barry Romo

Listening to Reagan's speeches and comments on the continuing U.S. presence in Lebanon is a reminder that we have indeed entered 1984. Orwell's "Newspeak" has truly become an art performed by the ex-host of "Death Valley Days."

We are now in Lebanon he says, because the U.S. cannot allow "terrorist" to dictate "our" foreign policy. But wait a moment! What happened to our role as "peacekeepers?" That was our reason just a month or so ago. When did it change, or was it ever our goal? In fact, just what is our goal—if any—in Lebanon?

The U.S. present occupation of Lebanon began a year ago. We supposedly put Marines in to act as neutral monitors of an uneasy peace following the departure of the PLO (the first one). We were to take no sides but allow the Lebanese to settle their own problems. The Marines were to protect the international airport as part of a European "peace" forces to keep the city of Beirut open.

From our role as neutral peacekeepers we quickly became partisans for a rump government composed of a minority of a minority in Lebanon, the Christian "Phalange." The Gemayel government that we supported controlled no more than a few acres of the city, was not recognized by different factions of the Christians, and was universally scorned by the majority Muslim population.

The Christian population is divided into 3 main groups, one led by Gemayel (the Phalangist, allied with the U.S.), another led by recently deceased Major Haddad in Southern Lebanon (and backed by Israel) and another led by former President Suleiman Franjieh (allied with the Muslims).

The Phalange itself is a direct descendant of Italian and Spanish Fascist parties and still adheres to that philosophy and political ideology. One of its first acts as government was to set up a secret police and open torture dungeons in Beirut.

The Lebanese army is primarily composed of former Phalangist militia. It has no respect outside of its own particular are and is seen as representing the interest only of the Phalange Christian minority. It is trained by U.S. Special Forces, and is paid, equipped and armed by the U.S. government.

The opposition is represented by the National Resistance Front (NRF) whose leadership is made up of Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druse community; Rashidid Karami, Sunni Moslem community leader and former Prime Minister; and Suleiman Franjieh, leader of the Maronite Christian community.

The Reagan Administration makes it appear as if Gemayel represents Lebanon as a whole while Jumblatt or the others represent just their own sectarian forces. Just the opposite is true. The opposition to the Gemayel government is fairly broad and represents a cross-section of the Lebanese population, religions and classes.

Proposals at the Geneva talks on the future of Lebanon centered on a government of reconciliation based on a secular political system. These proposals contained provisions for: election of president by popular ballot, parliamentary representatives elected on a non-sectarian basis, a separate senate with equal representation for each of Lebanon's communities, and a check on the presidential power by a judiciary. This may not sound too radical. In fact it sounds like a way out of the swamp in Lebanon. Yet the U.S. and Gemayel have both rejected this so far, mainly because it would be the end of Gemayel's power and would, as a result, mean a non-aligned Lebanon (not one controlled by Israel and the U.S.)

If Reagan was truly interested in peace he would drop the Gemayel government and back the National Resistance Front, which is not controlled by Syria or the PLO or Russia or any other non-Lebanese group. But that's not the problem: Reagan isn't looking for a solution for Lebanon's problems. He's looking for a solution to the U.S. problems in the Middle East, and those center around oil and a homeland for the Palestinians. The first Reagan wants to control and profit from; the second he wants to deny.

It's hard, looking at the whole situation, to avoid a feeling of deja vu. It's a real enough feeling for those of us who lived through and fought the Vietnam war. A lot of the rhetoric is the same; one need only substitute "international terrorist" for "international communist" conspiracy. But in the end it all means another wall in Washington, DC, one whose names already number almost 300—and are most surely going to be followed by more.

Barry Romo
VVAW National Office