Ken Shear: Cut and Run -- the Prequel
[Mr. Shear is a Seattle attorney and a lover of history.]
Not so very long ago -- America and its allies sent a peacekeeping force to a Middle Eastern country to support a pluralistic, multi-ethnic government, under attack from hate-mongering militants and neighboring dictatorships. It was a dangerous mission. A terrorist suicide bomber killed over 200 American servicemen. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since World War II -- more casualties than any single incident in the Korean or Vietnam wars. More attacks took more American lives. The President drew the line, declaring that if the terrorists did it again America would retaliate full force.
It was strong talk. But the reality was, our intervention, however well intended, was not going well. The country US troops sought to protect was instead veering into chaos. The political system crumbled under the assault of radical militants, both local and from neighboring lands, aided and abetted by the hate-mongering regimes in Iran and Syria. The US and its allies sent peacekeeping forces to prop up a moderate, pluralistic government. But worsening violence made it clear that the peacekeeping force was inadequate. The country veered toward civil war with bloody massacres nearly every day.
The President could certainly have chosen to redouble the US commitment to success of a multi-ethnic, pluralistic government. But it would have taken a massive effort. Even so, the US and our allies, with superiority in military prowess, firepower and economic resources, could have maintained a lot of control for a long time, or even perhaps could have temporarily pacified the country. The President's advisors must have told him that, if the US withdrew, it would encourage terrorist groups and the hostile regime in Iran. Consequences of pulling out would certainly include real harm to American interests.
Nevertheless, the President did not stand and fight. Instead, the U.S. withdrew its forces, leaving the moderate government to collapse and the country to fall under the control of a neighboring radical dictatorship, and leaving terrorist groups to fester. Surely this was the sharpest example of a "cut and run" in American military history.
The situation described above was Lebonan, 1983-4. Why did the American President cut and run rather than stand and fight? We can safely say that, looking at the bigger picture, the President thought American military involvement in Lebonan would do more harm to our nation's interest than good. For certainly the U.S. President in 1984 would have stood and fought, had he believed it were in our nation's best interest. But in the case of Lebonan, once one of the few examples of pluralism and toleration in the Mideast, the President abandoned the moderates to domination by a neighboring dictatorship. He stood aside while terrorist groups were allowed safe haven to plot against the US and our ally, Israel. That danger had to be balanced against the huge cost of intervention in lives and resources and potential damage to America’s image in the world. The President decided to retreat than to bog America down in another bloody civil war without realistically achievable ends, however idealistic the motives for the intervention.
The President who cut and run in Lebonan was, of course, Ronald Reagan.
Not so very long ago -- America and its allies sent a peacekeeping force to a Middle Eastern country to support a pluralistic, multi-ethnic government, under attack from hate-mongering militants and neighboring dictatorships. It was a dangerous mission. A terrorist suicide bomber killed over 200 American servicemen. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since World War II -- more casualties than any single incident in the Korean or Vietnam wars. More attacks took more American lives. The President drew the line, declaring that if the terrorists did it again America would retaliate full force.
It was strong talk. But the reality was, our intervention, however well intended, was not going well. The country US troops sought to protect was instead veering into chaos. The political system crumbled under the assault of radical militants, both local and from neighboring lands, aided and abetted by the hate-mongering regimes in Iran and Syria. The US and its allies sent peacekeeping forces to prop up a moderate, pluralistic government. But worsening violence made it clear that the peacekeeping force was inadequate. The country veered toward civil war with bloody massacres nearly every day.
The President could certainly have chosen to redouble the US commitment to success of a multi-ethnic, pluralistic government. But it would have taken a massive effort. Even so, the US and our allies, with superiority in military prowess, firepower and economic resources, could have maintained a lot of control for a long time, or even perhaps could have temporarily pacified the country. The President's advisors must have told him that, if the US withdrew, it would encourage terrorist groups and the hostile regime in Iran. Consequences of pulling out would certainly include real harm to American interests.
Nevertheless, the President did not stand and fight. Instead, the U.S. withdrew its forces, leaving the moderate government to collapse and the country to fall under the control of a neighboring radical dictatorship, and leaving terrorist groups to fester. Surely this was the sharpest example of a "cut and run" in American military history.
The situation described above was Lebonan, 1983-4. Why did the American President cut and run rather than stand and fight? We can safely say that, looking at the bigger picture, the President thought American military involvement in Lebonan would do more harm to our nation's interest than good. For certainly the U.S. President in 1984 would have stood and fought, had he believed it were in our nation's best interest. But in the case of Lebonan, once one of the few examples of pluralism and toleration in the Mideast, the President abandoned the moderates to domination by a neighboring dictatorship. He stood aside while terrorist groups were allowed safe haven to plot against the US and our ally, Israel. That danger had to be balanced against the huge cost of intervention in lives and resources and potential damage to America’s image in the world. The President decided to retreat than to bog America down in another bloody civil war without realistically achievable ends, however idealistic the motives for the intervention.
The President who cut and run in Lebonan was, of course, Ronald Reagan.