President Reagan faces the moment of truth in Lebanon. This is the plain implication of the massacre of at least 140 marines in Beirut on Sunday. The US defence secretary, Mr. Weinberger, has been quick to point an accusing finger towards Iran and even the Soviet Union. A hitherto unknown group styling itself as the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement has claimed “credit” for the murderous attack. A number of world leaders, including Pope John Paul II, have condemned the outrage. But in hard terms, all this does not amount to much. The condemnations do not impress anyone these days. The identity of the suicide squad is not particularly material. For, if one group has acted on Sunday another can do so on another day. However shocking the episode, only the naïve could have been surprised by it. On the contrary, in view of the conditions in Lebanon – the continued presence of Israeli and Syrian forces, the armed clashes between the Druzes on one side and the Maronites and the official Lebanese army on the other and the proven weaknesses of the Lebanese government – it was a foregone conclusion that the Western peace-keeping forces, especially the US marines, would come under attack. President Reagan has spoken of the “bestial nature of those who would assume power” if the United States was to opt out or to be driven out of Lebanon. But surely even he must have known that he was not sending the marines to a rest and recreation post. Beirut has long ceased to be that. And wars and civil wars are a beastly affair.
It is hardly necessary to say that President Reagan and his advisers must have been living in a make-believe world of their own if they believed that small contingents of Western forces could restore sovereign authority to a Maronite Christian-dominated Lebanese government which is unacceptable to Muslims and the Syrians, especially after Damascus had refused to negotiate a peace agreement with Beirut and pull out its forces. That make-believe world lies in ruins. President Reagan now faces two stark choices – to pull out and allow Lebanon to disintegrate or to reinforce US forces in a big way and, if possible, persuade other contributors to the peace-keeping force – Britain, France and Italy to follow suit. He will, of course, try to avoid such a choice. But how long? As was only to be expected, the US political establishment is divided. While some, including one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Mr. George McGovern, has called for bringing the marines back home, others have said that US must stay on in Lebanon. The former President Jimmy Carter has suggested a via media – shift the marines to naval ships offshore unless there is “some evidence of willingness by the occupying powers (Syria and Israel) or by the Lebanese themselves to follow a peaceful path towards a resolution of their differences.” But this can give little comfort to President Reagan and his cronies. Their plans for Lebanon, such as they were, have come unstuck. They cannot go on pretending that this has not happened.
The scene anywhere in West Asia can shift with the rapidity of a sand dune. So one is well advised not to regard anything as being fixed. But on the present reckoning, certain points appear reasonably clear and fixed. Syria will not cooperate in any effort to stabilize the Lebanese government at least so long as it does not get back the Golan heights. Israel will not return the Golan heights to Syria at least so long as Syria does not, like Egypt, agree to a peace treaty which seems inconceivable. So Syrian troops will not quit Lebanon. And so long as the Syrian troops are there, Israelis will hold on in the southern part of the country. The present government in Beirut headed by Mr. Amin Gemayal is unrepresentative of perhaps the majority of the people. It cannot possibly win their confidence and support. An attempt at “national reconciliation” is afoot and a conference of leaders of various communities is scheduled to meet in Geneva. But it will be nothing short of a miracle if it succeeds; miracles do not happen in West Asia, certainly not in Lebanon which has witnessed various kinds of civil wars and foreign interventions for years. For the United States, compared with the Lebanese quagmire, Central America might look like a straight, even if narrow, road. The Russians cannot be blamed either if they compare the situation for the Americans in Lebanon with the one in Vietnam in the sixties or quietly enjoy the painful dilemma the Americans face. It is a sheer coincidence that the massacre in Beirut should have followed within days of Mr. Reagan nominating himself as a presidential candidate for a second term. But it may turn out to be a significant coincidence; it might haunt his campaign.