Wednesday, August 16, 2006

My Army Heads South

I remember when a main military checkpoint that greets you as you enter the North of Lebanon on the coastal highway was handed to the Lebanese Army from the Syrian, a couple of years back. I was in the car with my father. He stopped at the checkpoint, lowered the car window, smiled and said: "Marhaba watan!" He told me that we should be proud of our Army and I obliged.

And now I watch on TV Lebanese Army covoys heading south. They've been working since the ceasefire took effect to build and repair makeshift bridges so they could make their trip south.

They have a tough job ahead of them? Yes, no one can deny it. So little is known from the beltway here about the soldiers' morale and thoughts. Are they ready for such a move? And what mandate has the Cabinet empowered them with? Is it disarming Hizbullah or simply protecting the southern borders? We shouldn't forget that there is perhaps an extremely negative image of the Army in the eyes of many Lebanese right now because they did not get involved with Hizbullah in resisting the Israeli incursions.

In my mind I believe that the worst thing we can do to is embroil the Army in politics. Soldiers have a mission and must fulfill it, it's the job of the Cabinet and Parliament represented by the people to take swift action towards resolving the issue of Hizbullah's arms, our standing issues with Israel (end of air and sea blockade, POWs, Shebaa Farms), and Syria (especially ensuring that there is no smuggling of arms taking place). But resolving these issues should take place within a very tight deadline, lest the Army loses its grip on itself.

I am most disappointed by our President who is a former Army General and was forever touted as the "unifier", namely bringing in former militiamen into the fold of the Army after the end of the civil war and building a strong, nationalistic institution. Despite this history, he has not shied whatsoever from criticizing the Army and claiming that it's weak and possesses no substantial arms (which is true), and instead supporting Hizbullah as an alternative on the southern border, because, in his words, guerilla warfare is the way to deter Israeli aggression.

President Lahoud, who was so fervently elected to the Presidency eight years ago, carried the banner of strong state institutions. Where does that figure in his stands lately? Not that he is significant whatsoever on the political scene.

All what I want to say is that I root for our Army. I am proud of them. When I see a Lebanese soldier, I see my country. Yes, yes, of course this is a romanticized view of this institution, but this is what we've got.

I can never forget how the Army took a nationalistic stand when they were ordered to stop protesters from heading to Beirut right before the March 14 mass demonstration and they instead allowed them to go through. The Army has always served as an internal security force; perhaps today will be the day when they will resume their real role, protecting the borders of Lebanon.

"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."

12 comments:

cfw said...

i'm so proud of them, too.

Liliane said...

Kibro wledna ! :) Alla ykoun ma3oun!

Bad Vilbel said...

Today is a day to be proud and support the Army.

We'll go back to talking about Hizbullah tomorrow.

Good post!!

Mustapha said...

The Syrian 7ajez el madfoon had a provoking presence. Watching Lebanese soldiers move south is such a relief

רוני said...

I don't think you're romanticising - the army's purpose is to protect its country against external threats (e.g. Israel, Syria) as well as INTERNAL. And that, my friend, is what we're talking about here...

Lebanon's main threat is from within - Hizballa. I don't think many people remember, but we've HAD an extremist group in Israel. It was called Kach. Israel declared it an illegal group, and it was banned and dispersed.

I really enjoy reading your posts, and I hope that your views reflect a growing opinion so that soon all of us could live peacfully side by side.

CMAR II said...

HA has support of 30-40% of Lebanon.

True. Lebanon's predictament is actually more difficult than Iraq's. In Iraq, even if every Sunni Arab were hostile toward the government and a supporter of the terrorists (not nearly the case), they would represent 20% of the population.

The Lebanese population is nearly evenly divided between those who swear fealty to the elected government and those who prefer Syria's and Iran's puppets, Hezbollah.
-

CMAR II said...

Doha,

I also am rooting for the patriotic Lebanese Army. Although, I am hearing things to the contrary right now, I look forward to them exercising their authority and duty to disarm Hezbollah.

Solomon2 said...

In my mind I believe that the worst thing we can do to is embroil the Army in politics. Soldiers have a mission and must fulfill it, it's the job of the Cabinet and Parliament represented by the people...

I can never forget how the Army took a nationalistic stand when they were ordered to stop protesters from heading to Beirut right before the March 14 mass demonstration and they instead allowed them to go through.


It is confusing, isn't it? Does a Lebanese soldier feel that it is his duty to obey orders or protect the people or something else? Let's see what happens.

Aaron said...

The first is that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanese territory 6 years ago to the international border recognised by the UN. What it received for this gesture was repeated rocket attacks every time Nasrulla was in a bad mood, and occasional kidnapping of soldiers. This time, Israel, as would any other country subject to attacks across its international border, decided it had had enough. The second pertinent fact is that exactly one year ago, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, forcibly evacuating some 8000 settlers. Similarly to what happened in Lebanon, this gesture was greeted by repeated Kassam rocket attacks into nearby towns. Thus you will understand that it is difficult to turn the other cheek and believe in the good will of man, which does not seem to exist in this neighbourhood. It would seem superfluous to remark that all the rocket attacks of Hisbullah are aimed at a civilan population. The debate on the very hard problems facing all of us who live in the Middle East are not helped by inaccurate and one-sided comments like this.

Papa Ray said...

As an outsider and someone who doesn't understand much about this ongoing conflict, I have a question.

Why would a country send it's military into harms way under the control of one of the parties that is involved in this conflict?

A second question. If the Army suffers KIA and WIA because of this, who is to blame?

And why?

It is like the Mexican government sent their military to the American/Mexican border under the control of the drug and people smugglers. So then,if the American Border Patrol shoots one of the Mexican soldiers, who is to blame?

I just can't seem to understand this at all.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

CMAR II said...

WE DO WANT PEACE. WE WANT TO LIVE TOO.

As long as the Lebanese tolerate Hizb in their country, war will return. Because war is the goal and in the interest of Hizb.

So any Lebanese who wants tolerate Hizb, simply doesn't love peace enough.

Tough break. Since the Lebanese army will not disarm Hizb, and the international force probably won't either, war will return to Lebanon.

If that happens, then war is the the fare that the Lebanese have chosen, and they deserve to have their fill of it.

Akiva M said...

Omer,

Whether because of the Altalena or in spite of it, the statement made in the Altalena incident - that the state must have a monopoly on the use of force - is a powerful one, and appropos as well. You can also throw in the disarmament and disbanding of Lechi after Count Folke Bernadotte's assassination.