The contentious matter commonly referred to as “defense strategy” has been at the center of a comprehensive national debate for more than 15 years. This is of great significance as it directly pertains to the country’s primary political and geostrategic problem since the early 2000s, which is Hezbollah’s obstinacy in maintaining its military arsenal, all under the guise of “resistance.” This intricate issue was thoroughly exposed and analyzed from multiple angles during the October monthly “Rencontres” of This Is Beirut.
The discussion, which was led and overseen by the Editor-in-Chief of This Is Beirut, Michel Touma, took place on October 31. It featured General Maroun Hitti, the former Director of Operations and Chief of Plans of the Lebanese Army (LAF) and a former advisor on defense affairs to the Council of Ministers, as well as MP and former Minister Pierre Bouassi. The distinguished gathering featured a wide array of notable figures including MPs Marwan Hamadeh, Antoine Habchi and Melhem Riachi, along with former MPs Ahmed Fatfat, Misbah el-Ahdab and Jean Oghassapian. Also present were former Minister May Chidiac, General Khalil Helou, Jean-Christophe Carret, Director of the World Bank for the Middle East, and former Ambassador Khalil Karam, president of the Maronite League, alongside numerous academics and corporate managers.
At the outset, General Hitti emphasized the importance of defining the concepts of “national security and defense policy” and “defense strategy.” He highlighted that, in principle, it is the duty of the Council of Ministers to establish an overall defense policy. Subsequently, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense to lay the foundations for a defense strategy, with the military command defining a military strategy afterwards. In the realm of national security (internal), the Ministry of Interior, in accordance with the comprehensive policy guidelines established by the Council of Ministers, formulates a strategy for Internal Security. The Directorate General of the Internal Security Forces (ISF) thereafter formulates the ISF’s strategy, the Directorate General of General Security defines the strategy for General Security, the Directorate of Civil Defense outlines the strategy for Civil Defense, and finally the Directorate of State Security shapes the strategy for State Security.
As a result, what is labeled “defense strategy” does not solely pertain to the military aspect, as General Hitti emphasized. Rather, it encompasses “all facets of a nation’s activities, which must be integrated into defense in the broadest sense.” This encompasses, among other domains, healthcare, the economy, internal security and information.
In a practical sense, General Hitti provided a concise and explicit outline of the objectives of a well-defined defense strategy, which notably encompasses “undermining non-State actors” (who possess illegal military arsenals), preventing the “dilution” of national defense responsibilities, imposing the exclusive monopoly on legitimate use of force on “the State,” and preventing the emergence of “gray areas” in terms of defense that non-State actors exploit to invade the defense domain.
Hitti expressed concern that Lebanon’s most recent defense law dates back to 1983 and that the defense strategy “is subject to the narrow calculations of competing sectarian political elites or, worse, the interests of foreign partners.”
Pierre Bouassi and the Concept of “Resistance”
As he took the floor, MP Pierre Bouassi primarily addressed the political aspect of the issue, underscoring Hezbollah’s obstinacy to include the “army, people, resistance” triptych in ministerial statements of various governments. From the outset, he made it clear that a rational and effective defense strategy could not exist in the presence of a faction possessing a completely illegal military arsenal.
In this particular setting, the MP for the Lebanese Forces embarked on a thorough examination of the triptych endorsed by the pro-Iranian party. He began by denouncing the fraudulent use of the term “resistance” in ministerial statements and the political rhetoric employed by certain political factions. “There is no resistance,” Bouassi emphasized. “Resistance conveys a positive connotation, but in our specific situation, what is labeled as resistance is actually nothing but Hezbollah. Therefore, when we talk about resistance, we are essentially referring to Hezbollah, an illegally armed faction.”
In this context, evoking the terms of the aforementioned triptych, Bouassi underscored that two of these terms cannot be dissociated, while two other terms must be. “We cannot, indeed, separate the army from the people because the command of the army is subject to the authority of the executive power, which derives its legitimacy from Parliament and, consequently, from the people who elect this Parliament. Thus, the army derives its legitimacy indirectly from the people, which is why they are inherently intertwined.”
The Lebanese Forces MP went on to say, “However, it is entirely impossible to associate the army with Hezbollah. This is absolutely inconceivable. Where does Hezbollah obtain its legitimacy in matters of defense? Given the current situation in South Lebanon, Hezbollah is involved in clashes and skirmishes (with the Israeli army). Did they seek our opinions as MPs and representatives of the people? Did they even consult the Lebanese army regarding this matter? So, where does it get legitimacy in this regard (in terms of defense)? It is therefore imperative to dissociate these two actors, the army and Hezbollah, in this context.”
What About the State?
After the two participants had completed their presentations, a debate was initiated with figures from the audience. MP Marwan Hamadeh notably deplored the complete absence of the Central State Authority and the Council of Ministers. He briefly recalled the political and constitutional foundations of modern Lebanon since 1920, as originally determined by Michel Chiha, in specific regard to the power-sharing among “associated minorities” and the 1943 National Pact, which was based on the idea of “neither East nor West.”
“All of this no longer exists,” declared Hamadeh, emphasizing that this matter is not primarily centered on Hezbollah or Amal but rather on Lebanon being subject to the dictates of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who believes he holds divine power.
Former MP Ahmed Fatfat (who was part of the Future Movement’s Managing Board) voiced a similar opinion, asserting that the core issue Lebanon is currently facing is the Iranian occupation acting via Hezbollah. Within this framework, Fatfat underscored that this proxy occupation serves as the primary barrier, obstructing any attempts to find solutions on various fronts.
