Lebanese Army Commandership: A Political or a Military Post?
Elias Harfoush Al-Hayat - 25/08/08//
Selecting a new Lebanese army commander has become part of political bargaining despite the wishes expressed by the army leadership to keep this issue away from the continued political bickering whose intensity has not calmed down even after the formation of the so-called national unity government.
Over the past decade, ever since General Emile Lahoud moved from the army headquarters in Yarzeh to the presidential palace in Baabda, the army commander's post - which still remains one of the primary posts allocated for the Maronites - has practically transformed into a "factory" where the next president is made. This is why the selection of the new commander comes under the spotlight although President Michel Suleiman has barely started his term and even though the precedent of seeking a second term has become a tradition, only avoided by those who could not pursue it regardless of the constitutional impediments that are supposed to prevent extending the presidential term beyond the constitutional limit of six years.
This, however, is not the only factor that makes selecting a new army commander so important. Another factor includes the roles that are now allocated to the army, whether in terms of maintaining law and order or in following up the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701. The latter preserves peace at the Lebanese-Israeli borders where the army plays a role as important or perhaps even more important than that played by the international peacekeeping forces. In both cases, any role played by the army is open to various interpretations that fall within the political arena rather than the arena of military professionalism. This became evident during the recent events of Tareek al-Jdideh in Beirut and with the charges of "bias" that target the army from this or that side, not to mention the incidents of arms smuggling to Hezbollah in the southern border area, developments repeatedly denied by the army and the UNIFIL leaderships.
Denial, however, does not change the nature of the accusations, just as statements expressing the wishes of the army leadership that politicians refrain from involving the army in their struggles are no more than a duty the army must fulfill. After all, the confusion between the political and military role of the army commander has become evident to all since the breakdown of the political process in Lebanon as a result of its dependence on security and intelligence forces. This was evident during the Syrian mandate period and came as a result of the "wars" fought by General Michel Aoun as army commander when he was appointed prime minister of a provisional government in 1982, most notably his "war of liberation" which paved the path for the defeat and penetration of the military establishment at the hands of the Syrian army.
With Lebanon passing through a new phase, there are high hopes for a role to be played by the army and its leadership, one in which loyalty to politicians is separated from loyalty to the nation. However, army commanders, as it is well-known, come from different backgrounds with different political loyalties and sectarian identities. Consequently, the army commander will also come from a similar background, hence the explicit and implicit conflict among political leaders and their attempts to improve the chances of one candidate at the expense of another whenever possible.
In principle, the solution suggested by Defense Minister Elias al-Murr to the dilemma of selecting a new army commander seems both professional and practical, with the selection subjected to military and technical criteria taking into consideration military hierarchy and seniority among officers. In addition, the Council of Ministers is likely to offer President Michel Suleiman, whose former office will be preoccupied by the new commander, a primary role in the selection process on the basis that he is more familiar with the issues of the establishment he had headed for a decade. If things head in this direction, selecting the new army commander will be the first confirmation that the new era is interested in separating public office, especially in primary posts, from political interests, and in returning the army to its security role and politicians to their electoral bickering.
|
