Did We Really "Lose" Lebanon?

We got another visit from that fellow who comes into the office sometimes to clarify his thinking on the Middle East.

Q Hi!

A What can I do for you, Humphrey?

Q Well, frankly, I'm kinda worried about

A Hey, my name isn't Frank Lee! You'd think that by this time you'd know what my

Q Jeepers, can't you ever be serious about anything? Lebanon is slipping away, and you sit there and make lousy jokes.

A Where's it slipping to?

Q Well, you know, like, we just lost it, that's all

A It's not ours to lose, Humph. Lebanon never belonged to us, although we spent a lot of time acting as though it did

Q Now wait a minute! The point is, Lebanon's no longer on our side, for heaven's sake. Don't you think we shoulda done more to stop it from slipping?

A Maybe you should give the Lebanese more time to work things out among themselves, before you decide whose side they're on! Sure, they're now under strong Syrian influence. But it's very doubtful that the kind of Lebanon that emerges will be some kind of a Syrian satellite, as you seem to think. None of the opposition factions fighting the Gemayel government and accepting Syrian help want their country to become just a stooge of Syria. And there's evidence that Syria itself doesn't want this--

Q Gimme one piece of evid--

A Well, the Syrians have been working with Gemayel. They could easily have forced his resignation if they'd wanted to. But they want to preserve some sort of balance in Lebanon. A perpetually chaotic Lebanon is not in their interest.

Q But what if Lebanon did become a stooge of Syria? This would mean that the Soviets

A Would control Lebanon? Nuts. How could this be, when the Soviets don't even control Syria? Syria accepts military help from the Soviet Union because it's very much in its interest to do so, but then goes its own way. Remember how it expelled Moscow's good friend Yasser Arafat from Syria and Lebanon a while ago? Another thing: Syria isn't even a Communist country.

Q Couldn't we still influence the situation by using our warships? After all, they're still offshore we didn't cut and run, you know.

A I'll pretend you didn't say that, Humph. You really think the Administration has any intention of using its big guns in Lebanon again? It didn't help matters just made things worse. The shelling didn't kill enough Druse and Shiites to affect the military outcome, but killed just enough to implant a lot of anti American bitterness that hadn't existed in Lebanon before.

Q But didn't President Reagan say last year that the French would never have lost at, uh, Dumb Ben Foo if they'd had a U.S.S. New Jersey (didja know that's my home state?) lying offshore?

A Yep, he did. But I suspect that in the meantime he's learned a lot more about both Dienbenphu and the New Jersey. And I hope the lesson he is taking away from this is that U.S. military involvement on any scale is not the answer to a situation like the one in Lebanon.

Q So how do we prevent Lebanon from becoming another Khomeini land? After all, Syria is Iran's closest ally

A Right. But remember that Syria is helping Iran not because it believes in the same system of government, but because Iran is fighting Iraq—which is Syria's worst enemy. In fact, Syria doesn't want an Islamic form of government like Iran's. Syria is run by a party, the Baath, which believes in a secular state, and that's just what Syria has. In fact, the government has been battling for years against local partisans of Islamic fundamentalism—although these happen to be Sunnis, not Shiites as in Iran.

Q Yeah, but what about the Lebanese Shiites? They're the biggest and poorest group in Lebanon—right? Don't they want to have a system like Khomeini's?

A Most of them do not. Their principal leader, Nabih Berri, says he wants a secular, unified Lebanon in which the Shiites exercise more political and economic power but he has specifically said he doesnot want a Khomeini style Islamic state. I grant you that there are some Shiites who are fanatical followers of Khomeini, but they are a small minority so far.

Q Waddya mean so far? That's a big help

A Well, I think they can remain small with q little luck and a little help from the U.S.

Q Are you kidding? You just told me that shouldn't

A That's right, Humph, I'm definitely not suggesting that we should do it by lobbing one ton shells at the Shiites. Boy, this guy is a simpleton!

Q What did you say?

A Uh, I said the answer is really a simple one. The U.S. could help by refraining from approaching a Lebanon which is no longer Maronite dominated if this is the sort of Lebanon that emerges as though it were a dangerous enemy. In the wake of a bitter nine year war, in which no side was without sin, some of the "have nots" are going to have a chance to have something. Is there anything really very wrong with this? The Administration so often acts as though there is. But if we helped the new Lebanon economically and at least tolerated it, politically, it could end up by being a country friendly to us.

Q Wow, you're some dopey idealist. You don't think, surely, that

A Cut it out, Humph! My name's not Shirley!