Flank Speed to Nowhere

The best policies result from thoughtful analyses and a careful weighing of risks and consequences. The worst are produced in a climate of agitated frustration. The United States, the possessor of considerable influence in much of the world, remains frustrated by its inability to deal effectively with a handful of Lebanese terrorists who hold Americans hostage. Now the United States is parading some of its vast military power off the coast of Lebanon. To what purpose? The White House, seeking to reduce apprehensions, cautions against speculation about a resort to force. The Pentagon, meanwhile, talks of contingency planning and keeping options open. But even to imply that there are feasible military options for assuring the safe return of the hostages heightens tensions and puts lives at risk even as it misleads.

The surest immediate result of any U.S. military action in Lebanon would be the murder of some and probably all of the American hostages, and quite possibly other Western captives as well. There may be some in the Reagan Administration who are ready to pay such a price for the satisfaction of bombing a few terrorists and who knows how many Lebanese noncombatants alongside them into their graves. The appeal of a military attack may even be heightened if it is misperceived as a way to recoup some of the anti-terrorism credibility that the Administration lost when its arms deal with Iran was exposed. If there are in fact those offering such counsel, they are not only wrong but also stupid. The government must never pay ransom for hostages. Neither must the government ever deliberately sacrifice its own citizens’ lives or the lives of foreign civilians in a crude and unproductive effort to show how tough it can be.

There is nothing routine in the maneuvering of aircraft carriers and Marines off the coast of Lebanon. The ships and men were dispatched ina calculated show of force. But the show, though it has disturbed Western Europeans, seems not to have intimidated either the terrorists or their sponsors in Syria and Iran. Now the United States seems to be backing off somewhat, reducing the size of its battle group, taking a softer line. What has been gained by this display? So far as can be seen, nothing. What has been demonstrated? That the threat of overwhelming military power is not an effective response in the war against terrorism. That is hardly something that once again needed proving. Someone in Washington should have thought about that before the fleet was sent out on its highly publicized venture.