"Nothing but Quicksand"

By Ed Magnuson

If it is hard to keep the Marines in Lebanon, it is harder to pull them out

"Are we to let the terroristswin? Are we to say that, well, if terrorists are going to be active, we'll give in to them, we'll back away?" Ronald Reagan was resolute as he answered a barrage of questions about the perilous role of the U.S. Marines in Lebanon at his final press conference of 1983. One of his advisers explained that the President gets more determined to keep the Marines on their mission with each new terrorist atrocity. Said the aide: "People who don't understand that, don't understand Ronald Reagan."

But pressure on the President to withdraw the Marines from Lebanon is building. Confusion about their role and doubts about their ability to carry it out are evident across the political spectrum. A Harris poll shows that 64% of Americans now want to "pull all the Marines out of Lebanon within a few weeks or months." The figure stood at 54% in a similar Harris survey in October.

Two highly critical reports added fuel to the intensifying national debate on the Marine deployment. Both spoke of the lax security around the Marine compound at the Beirut airport before it was blown up by a suicidal truck driver on Oct. 23, killing 241 U.S. servicemen (see following story). Republican Congressman Larry Hopkins, one of the authors of a report by a House subcommittee, went beyond the security question to criticize the "peacekeeping" role of the Marines. Said he: "The people in the Mideast have been fighting since the days of Abraham. Asking our Marines to stop the fighting there is like trying to change the course of Niagara Falls with a bucket." Hopkins said that General John Vessey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had testified before his committee that all five chiefs oppose the current use of the Marines.

Many press commentators, even Reagan supporters like conservative Columnist William F. Buckley Jr., faulted the Administration policy. Buckley agreed with Reagan that terrorists should not decide where U.S. Marines should go. But he argued that the acts of terrorists should not determine "where and when the U.S. Marines must remain." Buckley urged the President to set a date for withdrawing the Marines, thus unlinking their departure from any attacks by the factions fighting in Lebanon.

After meeting with their constituents during the current congressional recess, Senators and Representatives reported a rising chorus of complaints about the Marines' presence in Lebanon. A common concern was that the roughly 1,800 Marines cannot have much impact in the warring nation, except to draw fire from one or more of the religious groups that see the U.S. as an enemy. "The President has overstated the objective," contended Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, a conservative Democrat and a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "We're not going to achieve it: a solid, united Lebanon from border to border. We're not willing to commit the military assets to achieve that objective."

At a town meeting in a conservative county in Oklahoma, Democratic Senator David Boren reported that a Marine veteran drew loud applause when he said that sending Marines to Lebanon was akin to sending them to Northern Ireland. "I'm speaking as a hawk," the veteran said to Boren. "I want you to get those boys home as quickly as possible." Florida Congressman Claude Pepper said his Miami-area constituents "see nothing but quicksand over there."

Republican opposition on Capitol Hill is also growing, from Senator Barry Goldwater on the right to moderate Maryland Senator Charles Mathias. Mathias worries about the possibility of more American casualties. "I used to serve on the New Jersey, and I know that ship," he said of the battleship stationed off the Lebanon coast. "I've been concerned with what would happen if an SS-21 was targeted on her." He referred to a Soviet-built surface-to-surface missile known to be deployed by Syrian forces in Lebanon. Navy officers contend that the ships are well defended against such attacks. Still, any missile hit could cause heavy damage.

There will almost certainly be a move to withdraw the Marines when Congress reconvenes in late January, unless Reagan takes some action in the interim, like redeploying the Marines to more defensible positions. The legislators are in an awkward position. Last September they approved a resolution giving Reagan authority under the War Powers Act to keep the Marines in Lebanon for a maximum of 18 months. Many Congressmen now contend that the U.S. role in Lebanon has been changed by the Administration from neutral peace keeper to active military supporter of the central government headed by Amin Gemayel.

The lawmakers may try to pass a "sense of Congress" resolution, which would not be binding on the President and thus not subject to his veto. Contends New York Democrat Sam Stratton, whose House Armed Services Committee will consider such a resolution: "If a large majority said we should get the hell out of there, I think the President would abide by that."

But White House aides argued last week that an abrupt Marine pull-out would have serious consequences. "The impact on the Gemayel government would be devastating," said one official. "His government would probably fall." At the same time, the aide said, the other nations contributing to the Multi-National Force in Lebanon--France, Italy and Britain--"would dash for the exit as well." Israel, feeling abandoned, would become "an unpredictable factor" in Lebanon, possibly even partitioning the southern sector of Lebanon to protect its northern border. Syria would emerge stronger, being seen as having faced down the U.S. superpower singlehanded. The more moderate Arab states would find it even more difficult to cooperate with the U.S., which would be perceived as unreliable. "When you look at these elements coldly," said the Reagan aide, "you realize that you have to ponder long and hard before you cut and run."

Italy, which has the largest contingent ashore in Lebanon (about 2,050 men), has set a withdrawal policy of its own. If there is an agreement in the peace talks in Geneva between the Gemayel government and the various factions vying for power, Rome will pull out its troops as no longer needed. If those talks fail, the Italians will withdraw anyway, since there will be no peace to keep. No matter what happens, the Italian force is gradually being cut in half. Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has dispatched only 110 troops, largely as a gesture of loyalty to Reagan, has said that she will not "lead a retreat" by the four-nation force. France, which has about 2,000 men in Lebanon and has suffered heavy casualties, including 82 dead, remains steadfast in its role, probably because of its past colonial ties to the long-divided nation.

For the U.S. there appears to be no graceful way out of its Lebanon dilemma. "The best achievable outcome," former Defense Secretary Harold Brown argued last week, would come if the Administration negotiated a partitioning of the country. Israel would control southern Lebanon; Syria would remain in the Bekaa Valley and northern Lebanon; the central government would control whatever it could around Beirut. If the parties will not agree to this, Brown contended, "we should leave anyway and let them find their own solutions."

White House officials countered that partitioning would only worsen the bloodletting in Lebanon and would not provide a lasting solution. There is strong sentiment at the Pentagon for pressuring the torn country's factions to get together by setting a withdrawal deadline. Said Admiral Thomas Moorer, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reflecting this view: "Our only hope lies with persuading Gemayel that time is running out and convincing the Druze and Shi'ites that their best future lies with some sort of cooperation. Failing that, they face a horrible civil war."

The Administration hopes to buy time for more diplomatic efforts to get Gemayel and the opposing factions to join in a broadened central government. The Administration apparently will try to ease the pull-out pressure at home by redeploying the Marines to less vulnerable positions. One of the main options now under review at the White House is a proposal to station the Marines along the coastal highway between the Beirut airport and Sidon. That would disperse them over a wider area, distancing them from the high ground from which they were so effectively shelled. In the meantime, the Marines are reinforcing their underground bunkers and building earthworks around their perimeter.

The more optimistic U.S. planners see the present gloom as overdone, pointing out that Syria might ease the situation by acting less intractably; these planners also maintain that the Soviets are trying even harder to rein in Syria. In a best-case scenario, the Lebanese Army would take over from the Marines the task of keeping the Beirut airport open. The Israelis would gradually withdraw from some territory they now hold in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese Army followed, step by step, to retain control of the vacated areas. Finally, the U.S. Marines would come in behind the Lebanese as a back-up security force. That seems to have been what Reagan had in mind in a puzzling reference at his press conference. Said he: "We have helped train the Lebanese Army and it is a capable force. When the foreign forces get out and the Lebanese military advances to try and establish order in their land, the Multi-National Force is supposed to, behind them, try to achieve some stability and maintain order."

At the same time, there is growing sentiment in the Administration for an option once regarded as unattainable: the use of United Nations forces to replace the four-nation peace-keeping group in Lebanon. Israel had strongly objected to a U.N. presence, claiming it had failed earlier to keep P.L.O. factions from using southern Lebanon to terrorize northern Israel. The Soviet Union was also believed ready to veto any U.N. deployment, which requires Security Council approval. U.N. officials hinted last week that the U.N. is ready to take up such duties, and State Department aides believe that both Israel and the U.S.S.R. may now view a U.N. role more favorably. Declared former Assistant Secretary of State Harold Saunders: "I would have moved heaven and earth to expand the U.N.'s mandate instead of sending the Marines there." The key question, of course, is whether such a force could be approved and deployed in time to shore up the floundering Lebanese government and prevent further tragedies like the bombing of the Marine compound.

--By Ed Magnuson. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett and Neil MacNeil/Washington, with other bureaus

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett, Neil MacNeil/ Washington