Convoluted Conflict

The current policies of the United States in Lebanon are extremely dangerous, both for the people of Lebanon and all the Middle East. Continuation of U.S. military involvement in the Lebanese civil war cannot serve the cause of peace and national reconciliation. On the contrary, direct military support for the Lebanese army exacerbates the bitter tensions and deep divisions in that tragic, war-torn land. In addition, U.S. actions threaten to draw the United States into direct confrontation with Syria and/or the Soviet Union.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that concerned people of faith seek answers to the questions surrounding the deepening U.S. involvement in Lebanon. Why are the Marines in Lebanon? What interests are being served? How does U.S. policy in Lebanon relate to the larger Middle East context? What realistic alternatives can be offered to minimize further violence and suffering in Lebanon? In order to respond to these questions, some background information is necessary.

Formerly a French colony, Lebanon was granted independence near the end of World War II after various Christian and Muslim groups reached a settlement, called the National Pact, wherein political power was divided according to the 1932 census. In 1932 Maronite Christians were the largest confessional group. The government structure constructed by the French dictated that the Lebanese president always be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister be a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the house be a Shiite Muslim. Over a period of three decades, tensions and open conflict developed as major demographic shifts occurred. The Maronite Christians, although now the third largest confessional group behind the Shiite and Sunni Muslims, have maintained their position as a minority of the population controlling a majority of the wealth and political power.

In the 1970s a new dimension was added that disrupted the already precarious political situation. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), driven from Jordan in 1970, set up autonomous political and military operations in Lebanon. Many Lebanese bitterly resented the growing Palestinian presence, but the central government was too weak to change the course of events. Some of the factions of the PLO conducted guerrilla raids into northern Israel throughout the 1970s. These developments prompted swift response from the Israelis, including massive bombing of Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon and the supply of arms to several militias within Lebanon. Thus, Lebanon became the battlefield for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1975, civil war erupted. The causes for the bitter fighting involved the interplay between the various external and internal factors mentioned above. During the course of the civil war, Syria moved in thousands of troops, ostensibly to serve as peacekeepers. In the seven years since the civil war began, the sectarian alliances within Lebanon have changed dramatically. Through it all, however, the Syrian military presence has remained a major factor in the contemporary configuration.

Lebanon, a land smaller than the state of Connecticut and already fragmented by a violent civil war, was further shattered by the Israeli invasion in June, 1982. The capital city of Beirut was under siege for two months. The human suffering and economic dislocation caused by this war is still difficult to fathom from outside. The United States became directly involved in August, 1982, when a small Marine contingent went into Beirut for 16 days to help supervise the evacuation of the PLO. In September, following the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by the Maronite Phalangist militia, the United States sent in some 1,300 Marines as part of an Italian-French-U.S. peacekeeping force. At that time President Reagan assured the nation that there was "no intention or expectation that U.S. armed forces will become involved in hostilities."

But now there are hostilities. The central issue in the fierce warfare of recent months is President Amin Gemayel's failure to carry out his promise to create a government that represents and serves all the people of Lebanon. Indeed, rather than seek national reconciliation, Amin Gemayel has sought to consolidate Maronite control over the central government and the Lebanese army and has been unwilling or unable to control the Phalangist militia. In the face of these developments, the Druze (a smaller Muslim sect supported by Syria), Shiite Muslims, and others believe they are fighting for their very survival as they are threatened by the partisan Maronite government.

The United States has, of course, become deeply embroiled in the civil war. Our government has trained, armed, and is now fighting with the army of Amin Gemayel. What political end does the Reagan administration hope to achieve by joining the fighting in Lebanon? Herein lies the mystery of U.S. involvement—and the danger. Surely President Reagan and his advisers know that the application of force cannot possibly resolve the political quagmire in Lebanon. The dreadful experience of Israel in Lebanon makes this obvious.

It is not easy to discern U.S. policy in the Middle East, in large part because competing policy interests do not add up to a coherent policy. The U.S. government responds to different situations in the Middle East depending upon the immediate relevance to U.S. vital interests, be it oil, arms sales, the perceived Soviet threat, or domestic pressure for support of Israel.

The primary motivation for Washington's policy in Lebanon surfaced during the congressional debate on the War Powers Act in late September of this year: the United States is attempting to "show resolve" and not allow the Soviets, or their Syrian proxy, or even a faction within Lebanon supported by Syria, to gain the upper hand. Indeed, the president publicly blamed the Soviet Union for being "behind much of what is presently going on in Lebanon." With this as the setting, the U.S. Congress gave Reagan the authority to keep the Marines in Lebanon for the next 18 months. Now tiny Lebanon, torn by civil strife and serving as the battleground for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, must also carry the burden of the superpower confrontation.

Without question, the civil war in Lebanon reflects the most convoluted conflict situation in the world. There are no easy answers or simple solutions. Yet, as Christians we must always work to translate our deeply held desire for peace and justice into constructive action. And as citizens of a country deeply enmeshed in all of the Middle East conflicts, we bear special responsibility to encourage our government leaders to look beyond shortsighted interpretations of U.S. interests and endeavor instead to create a climate in which change can occur.

The potential for disaster is great with U.S. Marines engaged in combat only a few kilometers from Syrian positions. It is not hard to envision a scenario that would bring the United States and the Soviet Union into direct confrontation. In the nuclear age, that confrontation must never be allowed to happen. Common sense dictates that one who is standing on the edge of a cliff define "progress" as one step backward. The first step away from the brink in Lebanon is the withdrawal of U.S. Marines in favor of peacekeeping forces from the United Nations or from neutral nations.

If the United States is to play a leadership role in Lebanon, it must be in the area of diplomacy. What is needed are diplomatic initiatives leading to national reconciliation, democratic reform, and new power sharing in Lebanon. Whether and to what extent people within Lebanon can reconstruct their society within the current borders remains to be seen. In any case these beleaguered people deserve the opportunity to attempt national reconciliation in a context free from the agendas imposed by various outside powers.

Charles Kimball was a Southern Baptist pastor and the interfaith director for the Fellowship of Reconciliation when this article appeared.