Beirut in Retrospect
23 years ago today 241 Marines and others were killed in a suicide attack on the marine barracks in Beirut. A Mercedez-Benz truck, loaded with explosives, crashed through the security barriers and into the barracks, detonating with the explosive force of 12,000 pounds of TNT. Until the Iraq war, this was the deadliest single attack on US soldiers on foreign soil since WW2.
Despite the many eminent authorities that have cited the creed that "history is doomed to repeat itself", I find that the circumstances are always different and you can never easily apply past lessons to current situations. With that caveat in mind, I think it is instructive and humbling to look at how the US handled the bombings in Beirut.
The bombing took place in an environment of hostility against the West. Anti-American rhetoric coming out of many Arab nations was high, and countries such as Iran and Syria were calling for the destruction of not only Israel, but the 'Great Satan' as well. The US military presence was seen as imperialistic and oppressive, and despite US efforts to reach out and start a dialogue with these groups and countries, there was violence and tension in the area. While it has not been proven, it is suspected that Hizbollah carried out the bombings with the funding and approval of the Iranian government.
Does the above paragraph sound familiar?
After the Beirut bombings many options were discussed. President Reagan considered a military strike, sanctions, and other retaliatory measures. The military strike was planned and ready to go, but it was aborted prematurely. This was largely because the Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, was concerned that it would jepordize US relations with other Arab nations without really accomplishing anything. No retaliatory measures ever materialized. 6 months later the Marines were pulled out of Lebanon.
It is debatable whether this was the right thing to do. Clearly the radical fundamentalist groups that existed then still exist today, they still hate the US, and they still want to kill Americans. So from that perspective perhaps we should have had a stronger response that would have changed the course of events. But the other vewpoint also has validity: namely that without committing massive amounts of ground trips and engaging in a long and bloody struggle, there is a high probability that whatever retaliatory strikes we would have committed would not have curtailed the enemy's ability to commit acts of terrorism at all, and it would have had the significantly deleterious consequence of making it difficult for us to maintain good relations with oil-rich friends like Saudi Arabia.
They both seem to have foreign policy upsides and downsides. Of course, in one scenario many US servicemen lose their lives, and in the other they don't -- and that for me is the deciding factor. Also note that Weinberger was not a 'dove' by any measure; in fact he was quite hawkish. We can largely thank him for the massive defense buildup of the 80's, including the Star Wars program.
I'll close this retrospective by noting that after the Beirut bombings, Caspar Weinberger distributed internally a set of 6 guidelines for committing US troops abroad. Decades later, a man who had risen many levels since that date resuscitated that list from the mists of time in analyzing another war. That man is Colin Powell.
(l) Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.
(2) If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.
(3) Go in only with clear political and military objectives.
(4) Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.
(5) Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.
(6) Commit U.S. forces only as a last resort.
23 years ago today 241 Marines and others were killed in a suicide attack on the marine barracks in Beirut. A Mercedez-Benz truck, loaded with explosives, crashed through the security barriers and into the barracks, detonating with the explosive force of 12,000 pounds of TNT. Until the Iraq war, this was the deadliest single attack on US soldiers on foreign soil since WW2.
Despite the many eminent authorities that have cited the creed that "history is doomed to repeat itself", I find that the circumstances are always different and you can never easily apply past lessons to current situations. With that caveat in mind, I think it is instructive and humbling to look at how the US handled the bombings in Beirut.
The bombing took place in an environment of hostility against the West. Anti-American rhetoric coming out of many Arab nations was high, and countries such as Iran and Syria were calling for the destruction of not only Israel, but the 'Great Satan' as well. The US military presence was seen as imperialistic and oppressive, and despite US efforts to reach out and start a dialogue with these groups and countries, there was violence and tension in the area. While it has not been proven, it is suspected that Hizbollah carried out the bombings with the funding and approval of the Iranian government.
Does the above paragraph sound familiar?
After the Beirut bombings many options were discussed. President Reagan considered a military strike, sanctions, and other retaliatory measures. The military strike was planned and ready to go, but it was aborted prematurely. This was largely because the Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, was concerned that it would jepordize US relations with other Arab nations without really accomplishing anything. No retaliatory measures ever materialized. 6 months later the Marines were pulled out of Lebanon.
It is debatable whether this was the right thing to do. Clearly the radical fundamentalist groups that existed then still exist today, they still hate the US, and they still want to kill Americans. So from that perspective perhaps we should have had a stronger response that would have changed the course of events. But the other vewpoint also has validity: namely that without committing massive amounts of ground trips and engaging in a long and bloody struggle, there is a high probability that whatever retaliatory strikes we would have committed would not have curtailed the enemy's ability to commit acts of terrorism at all, and it would have had the significantly deleterious consequence of making it difficult for us to maintain good relations with oil-rich friends like Saudi Arabia.
They both seem to have foreign policy upsides and downsides. Of course, in one scenario many US servicemen lose their lives, and in the other they don't -- and that for me is the deciding factor. Also note that Weinberger was not a 'dove' by any measure; in fact he was quite hawkish. We can largely thank him for the massive defense buildup of the 80's, including the Star Wars program.
I'll close this retrospective by noting that after the Beirut bombings, Caspar Weinberger distributed internally a set of 6 guidelines for committing US troops abroad. Decades later, a man who had risen many levels since that date resuscitated that list from the mists of time in analyzing another war. That man is Colin Powell.
(l) Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.
(2) If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.
(3) Go in only with clear political and military objectives.
(4) Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.
(5) Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.
(6) Commit U.S. forces only as a last resort.
Labels: Politics
posted by slithytoves at 4:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home