Former National Security adviser, Robert MacFarlane wrote about the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut and its aftermath. Apparently, the United States had a response planned against Hezbollah targets in the Bekaa Valley, but it was aborted.
Cabinet officers often disagree, and rigorous debate and refinement often lead to better policy. What is intolerable, however, is irresolution. In this case the president allowed the refusal by his secretary of defense to carry out a direct order to go by without comment — an event which could have seemed to Mr. Weinberger only a vindication of his judgment. Faced with the persistent refusal of his secretary of defense to countenance a more active role for the marines, the president withdrew them, sending the terrorists a powerful signal of paralysis within our government and missing an early opportunity to counter the Islamist terrorist threat in its infancy.
It’s a pretty strong indictment of Caspar Weinberger and implicitly of President Reagan.
The Donovan lists the 241 servicemen who were killed. Two years ago Ocean Guy related a more personal recollection of the attack.
If the United Stataes had struck, would it have forestalled the growth of radical Islam in the past quarter century?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Weinberger was always in the Arabs back pocket. One of the worst pro-Arab defense secretary’s
I believe Reagan would have had to get rid of Baker and Bush as well to get his order carried out.
Anyway the end result has been to worsen the mess Carter started, strengthening Iranian resolve to take on the US and left us with the current situation.
Reading your link to MacFarlane’s op-ed he cites Weinberger:
“Secretary Weinberger disagreed. He felt strongly that American interests in the Middle East lay primarily in the region’s oil, and that to assure access to that oil we ought never to undertake military operations that might result in Muslim casualties and put at risk Muslim goodwill.”
That certainly shows how ignorant Weinberger was.
Also shows that he had no conception of the possibility of Iran gaining control of Lebanon and threatening Israel and then Egypt would put the whole oil region in Teheran’s pocket.
Jason,
Maybe that’s why he got so uptight with Pollard.
If the United Stataes had struck, would it have forestalled the growth of radical Islam in the past quarter century?
Forestalled, no. Delayed significantly … probably yes. I’m of the firm opinion that terrorists were loath to screw with the USA between 1945 and 1975 because everybody remembered what happened to the last aggressor who took a shot at us: we ground them into dogmeat. After we fled from Vietnam, the world’s punks got the idea they could target us again. Beirut was a test of that theory — a test that Reagan failed. And the world’s punks have been targeting us, with great success, ever since.
I remember hearing in the aftermath of the Marine barracks in Beirut bombing, President Reagan said he took full responsibility.
The only thing I could find so far, to support Reagan taking “responsibility” (2nd paragraph) for the deadly screwup.
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1984-10/1984-10-02-CBS-3.html
What did that mean?
What did Reagan suffer?
What did punishment did he suffer due to his “responsibility”.
All Reagan did was withdraw the Marines and hand the islamofascists a victory.
I don’t understand all the praise heaped on Reagan. IMNOHO, Reagan is way overrated.
The ONLY thing Reagan did was support the Beach Boys from the attack by James Watt.