Petraeus” visit serves as a reminder of what needs to be done in Lebanon
During his visit to Beirut Tuesday, US General David Petraeus met with President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, the two men responsible for leading the Lebanese state into the future.
Petraeus, the widely respected Commander of US Central Command, is no stranger to the political infighting that can plague military and defense strategy talks, and his visit was yet another reminder of how little progress Lebanon has made in ensuring its national security.
For months, attempts to develop a national defense strategy have been stalled, sidelined and undercut by partisan rhetoric. Sleiman and Hariri will soon stand atop a new government and the burden of innovation and compromise on this issue rests on their shoulders.
The chief question facing the party leaders tasked with forming a viable defense strategy is what to do with Hizbullah”s arms. Too often the root of this debate has been willfully or unwittingly ignored – that is the violence and indignity Israel has visited upon the citizens of south Lebanon for nearly four decades.
The institutions of the state, including the army, were never capable of protecting the South, and other communities have been too busy fighting with each other to provide substantive aid. This solitary experience of the men and women of southern Lebanon was the impetus for Hizbullah”s creation and remains it modus vivendi.
No amount of foreign military aid or political rhetoric can change this history or Hizbullah”s local legitimacy. It is clear, however, that the group”s weapons are not a practical long-term solution to national security. The state, at some point, must regain the sovereignty over its military capacity and the defense of its population.
There is no military answer to the questions presented by Hizbullah”s arms. Any attempt at forceful disarmament would be catastrophic and logistically impossible. What is needed instead is a genuine and forceful push by Sleiman and Hariri to establish a diplomatic defense initiative. This initiative could take a number of different forms, but it should start in Parliament with the creation of a cross-party committee working in collaboration with the Defense and Foreign ministries.
That committee should spearhead a campaign of awareness both in and outside of the country, sponsoring conferences, funding papers, and educating the broader public on the recent history and the on-the-ground realities of the south. The initiative should highlight the ongoing occupation of northern Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms, fields littered with cluster bombs and serial violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
The only feasible way to build a constructive defense policy is to build the state and empower the Lebanese citizenry. A diplomatic defense initiative will allow us to take possession of our history and future security. Israel has shown is eagerness to build cement walls; our goal should be to build a diplomatic wall between their aggression and our instability.