Deeper into Lebanon

The Administration acts to strengthen, and justify, the Marines'position

In Washington, as in Lebanon, it was a week of false hopes. Day after day, the reports from Beirut suggested that the fighting in Lebanon's Chouf Mountains was just about over, thereby reducing the threat to the lives of the 1,200 U.S. Marines dug in around Beirut International Airport. But the ground combat and the artillery fire persisted as the fledgling Lebanese Army fought Syrian-backed Druze forces for control of the strategic hill town of Suq al Gharb. The Marines, after savoring a brief lull in artillery fire directed at the airport, were forced back into their bunkers when mortar rounds began falling near them. And as they hunkered down, a political battle erupted in Washington between Congress and the President over the thorny issue of who has final authority to keep U.S. forces deployed in a foreign combat zone.

For most of the week, the Administration was heartened by repeated predictions from the Middle East that the peacemaking efforts of U.S. Special Envoy Robert McFarlane were about to pay off in the form of a ceasefire. By week's end it seemed clear, however, that the mission's chances for success were slim, largely because Syrian President Hafez Assad was determined either to bring down the Lebanese government of President Amin Gemayel or bend it to Syria's will.

Throughout the week, the Administration demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment to help solve the crisis in Lebanon. The number of U.S. naval vessels standing off the Lebanese coast reached twelve with the arrival from the Indian Ocean of a three-ship amphibious force. Aboard were 2,000 more Marines, who would be available for duty onshore if necessary. Those vessels, which include the nuclear-powered carrier Eisenhower, will be joined some time this week by the battleship New Jersey, whose 16-in. guns could flatten unfriendly artillery positions up to 23 miles inland.

Then, in a specific effort to improve both the security and the morale of U.S. troops on the ground in Lebanon, the Administration announced that the Marines had been authorized to call for air strikes and naval gunfire from the U.S. fleet, not only for themselves but also for the French, Italian and British contingents of the multinational peace-keeping force and, if necessary, for the beleaguered Lebanese Army.

In the U.S., even as the nation mourned the deaths of four Marines over the past three weeks, questions increased concerning the extent of the U.S. military role in Lebanon. Senators and Congressmen debated whether the Administration should not be obliged under the present circumstances to make itself, and its Middle East policy, more accountable to Congress by invoking the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Act (see box).

Just back from vacations at home, many members of Congress were fearful that the U.S. was becoming too deeply involved in Lebanon. Some also were concerned that the deployment of Marines in that country would set an unwelcome precedent for the use of troops in Central America, and they decided to call the President on the issue.