U.S. military likely to take behind-the-scenes role

WASHINGTON – If an international force enters southern Lebanon to enforce any cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. military is more likely to be a behind-the-scenes helper than a front-line leader.

That means U.S. troops might ferry supplies and equipment by sea and air, assist with communications, share intelligence and perhaps deliver medicines and other humanitarian aid for Lebanese affected by the conflict.

President Bush has made clear he does not intend to contribute U.S. ground troops to an international force, telling a Miami television station, “Most people understand that we’re committed elsewhere.”

The president was referring mainly to Iraq and Afghanistan. What Bush did not mention is that the U.S. options in Lebanon are limited also by the political effect of the Iraq war.

Anthony Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Iraq experience has made it harder for the United States to be viewed as a neutral actor in Lebanon.

“It would be seen as Israel’s ally rather than as neutral, and the end result would be to make the United States into a target and make the international force far more divisive than it would otherwise be,” he said.

United Nations officials announced Tuesday that nations willing to contribute troops to a peacekeeping force would meet on Thursday.

At the Pentagon on Tuesday, spokesman Bryan Whitman said there has been no request for U.S. military participation in an international force.

History would appear to weigh against any U.S. decision to put ground troops into Lebanon, in particular the memory of an October 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans.

The following February, the Marines withdrew to Navy ships offshore. There has been no American military presence since, other than those who have helped evacuate U.S. citizens from the country since last month’s fighting began.