Marines: It's Time to Leave

OSTENSIBLY, the U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon to stabilize internal conflict there sparked by the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the tenuous installation of the Gemayel government. So the realization that, on balance, the Marines' presence seems to heighten rather than diminish conflict within that country leads to a simple conclusion: they should be recalled.

Since their arrival in Lebanon, the Marine troops have drawn and, more recently, returned bullets and heavy shelling. Nothing seems more antithetical to the purpose of a peacekeeping mission than the sight of the guns of the New Jersey pounding the hills outside Beirut to protect U.S. ground forces there--a scene re-enacted only days ago. This newest layer of violence in a country already "blessed" with more than its due, is a straightforward and compelling case for withdrawal.

Not, however, compelling enough for those most industrious of foreign policy advisors, the "face savers," who claim a Marine withdrawal would be perceived as a defeat for the United States. But this is a strange argument if we recall that the Marines were sent to Lebanon not to gain face but, rather, peace. Nor were they sent for a host of equally flabby reasons now being bandied about as arguments against withdrawal. Last week, for example, a congressman remarked that a U.S. withdrawal would give a green light to terrorism around the world. Now President Reagan has adeptly identified terrorism as a growing U.S. foreign policy concern, but when has he ever identified the Marine presence in Lebanon as the definitive launching point of his anti-terrorism crusade?

Other critics of withdrawal argue that, while the Marines were ostensibly sent as a peacekeeping force, their true mission is to preserve U.S. strategic interests in the region--namely a democratic and pro-Western Gemayel government. But if this was the true Administrative intent behind the mission, it was not the basis on which Congress and, tacitly, the American public, sanctioned the stationing of Marines in Beirut.

A foreign policy in Lebanon that pursues U.S. strategic interests without regard for the rights and wishes of the Lebanese people themselves would be morally reprehensible. Further, it is clear that current U.S. policy is failing even with regard to purely strategic considerations; the Marines hunkered around the Beirut Airport clearly are not capable of effectively com-batting Syrian influence in the region.

The Marines were stationed in Beirut not as a combat force, but in the reasonable hope that they could provide a neutral, stabilizing force in the vacuum created by the Israeli withdrawal. Sadly, they have failed in this task--largely because they are viewed by most Lebanese (and, most likely, the Gemayel government itself) as anything but neutral. In an already bulletridden nation, the Marines have become just another target.

In light of this country's long term interests in Lebanon--peace and the establishment of a government willing to cooperate with the U.S.--President Reagan should withdraw the marines and step up diplomatic efforts in Lebanon. So long as rival factions within Lebanon feel they have no stake in their government, that country will be fertile ground for violence from all quarters and immune to "peacekeeping."