Plus and Minus in Lebanon

Oddly, Israel’s military foray into Lebanon has caused less reaction on Capitol Hill than Israel’s destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Baghdad a year ago. Perhaps not so odd, this being an election year. When faced with the political intricacies of Lebanon, most Hill members give up trying to understand them, and let a handful of knowledgeable colleagues guide them. This latter group of senators and representatives is keeping mum because the Israeli strike was not unexpected and, while lamenting the bloodshed, they generally support its objectives. It was inevitable, they believe, that the Israelis would find intolerable a major PLO presence, autonomous and taunting, in southern Lebanon, especially one that stiffened the will of the Palestinians on the West Bank who are resisting the progressive colonization of that territory by the Israelis.

Congress is also, to some extent, cued by the White House, which has taken a let-the-string-run-out attitude toward the invasion, with some opposition (muted, for public consumption, by national security advisor William Clark) from Caspar Weinberger, middle-level- ers at State, and the National Security Council itself, including Clark. It was revealing that Secretary Haig, before the TV cameras, described the number of Israeli aircraft shot down in one dogfight by saying that “we” lost one F-16. As a general, Haig is understandably pleased at the performance of U.S. technology vis-a-vis Soviet technology, notably how the Syrian SAM-6s were foiled by U.S.-supplied electronic jammers and other gear. Haig’s euphoria may be deflated, however, when he learns that the Soviets (to the credit of their intelligence) withheld sophisticated electronic components from military weaponry shipped to the Syrians, whereas we give Israel practically everything we’ve got.

JM

About the Author

John McLaughlin

Featured Tags

Oddly, Israel’s military foray into Lebanon has caused less reaction on Capitol Hill than Israel’s destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Baghdad a year ago. Perhaps not so odd, this being an election year. When faced with the political intricacies of Lebanon, most Hill members give up trying to understand them, and let a handful of knowledgeable colleagues guide them. This latter group of senators and representatives is keeping mum because the Israeli strike was not unexpected and, while lamenting the bloodshed, they generally support its objectives. It was inevitable, they believe, that the Israelis would find intolerable a major PLO presence, autonomous and taunting, in southern Lebanon, especially one that stiffened the will of the Palestinians on the West Bank who are resisting the progressive colonization of that territory by the Israelis.

Congress is also, to some extent, cued by the White House, which has taken a let-the-string-run-out attitude toward the invasion, with some opposition (muted, for public consumption, by national security advisor William Clark) from Caspar Weinberger, middle-level- ers at State, and the National Security Council itself, including Clark. It was revealing that Secretary Haig, before the TV cameras, described the number of Israeli aircraft shot down in one dogfight by saying that “we” lost one F-16. As a general, Haig is understandably pleased at the performance of U.S. technology vis-a-vis Soviet technology, notably how the Syrian SAM-6s were foiled by U.S.-supplied electronic jammers and other gear. Haig’s euphoria may be deflated, however, when he learns that the Soviets (to the credit of their intelligence) withheld sophisticated electronic components from military weaponry shipped to the Syrians, whereas we give Israel practically everything we’ve got.