A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-Nine ... Number Twenty-Seven ... July 9, 1982
MORE FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS
TO ALLEVIATE DOMESTIC CRISES?
National elections begin on the first Tuesday in November. Consequently, official election registration and campaigning began on the first Tuesday in July. Incumbent U.S. Senators and Representatives may not take full advantage of the four months of open funding. But this did not deter President Reagan, who came off the starting pad with a celerity that would give credit to much younger runners in the political races. Off from another brief vacation, he hadn't time even to settle himself in the Oval Office before he was addressing a selected group of state, county and city officials, selling them on a revised edition of his New Federalism and promoting the respective candidates of his party who can be expected to assist him in carrying out his much-delayed programs. During the course of the address he was able to express much interest in the suggested flat rate tax system which has a good chance of sometime replacing the present hated and unconstitutional graduated income tax which has placed us all under a condition of involuntary servitude. He also was questioned about the Federal Regional Councils which preside over the Ten Federal Regions into which our fifty States have been apportioned. He gave some hope in that he now felt this was "another complicated" way of keeping federal bureaucratic control over the States and communities of the Nation. If he really meant it, his New Federalism will gain much support from those of us who detest that Fourth -- and unconstitutional -- Branch of Government that was first foisted upon us by Richard Nixon.
Next, President Reagan was addressing a group of senior citizens, telling them that unless something is done about it, the Social Security System will be completely bankrupt by July 1984. However, there was a task force studying the situation, and he could assure them all that something, he knew not what, would be done to save the system and that none should feel socially insecure. But the most important thing about this meeting: Reagan turned down an invitation to address an NEA convention, and spoke to the senior citizens instead. This would indicate that the President is not necessarily in sympathy with Education Secretary Terrel Bell's idea of teaching the nation's children by computerized programs prepared by Humanist educationalists and supplied by a corporation controlled by the NEA. However, after a good start in the new campaign season, President Reagan may have committed the worst mistake of his entire presidential career when he agreed that U.S. troops might be sent into Lebanon.
If columnists Evans and Novak, reporting from Jerusalem, have their information straight, it was Alexander Haig who started it all. The columnists wrote: "Israel's once dominant Labor Party is convinced that secret machinations between Alexander Haig and Menachem Begin not only paved the way for the invasion of Lebanon but pushed Israel into an exposed position carrying the danger of boomerang."
When Begin ordered the invasion of Lebanon almost every American official with the exception of Haig, criticized the move. And when it was known that President Reagan might agree to send U.S. Marines into Lebanon, most Washington officials voiced real alarm. Wire services reported that "leading members of Congress voiced deep concern over President Reagan's decision to involve American troops in a peace-keeping role in West Beirut. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker said it 'is not wise to introduce American fighting men in the Lebanese conflict.' Rep. G.V. Montgomery (D-Miss.) said Reagan should be prepared for American casualties if forces are sent to Lebanon. Sen. David Pryer (D-Ark.) said he thought it would be a grave mistake." And so on down the line. It was later learned that the retiring Alexander Haig was responsible for this event also. Haig, talking by telephone to the President, kept insisting that Reagan should make such an offer. So, Haig, apparently in defeat, was able to insure the vote of the so-called Jewish block and all those who think Israel is God's chosen Nation prior to the coming Armageddon, if and when he decides to run against Reagan and/or Bush in 1984. There is reason to believe that Reagan was influenced by the feeling that Congress and his administration had been "too tough" on Begin because of the invasion. The offer to aid in a peacekeeping move would serve as a kind of penance and restore relations with Israel. So, Haig won out over Reagan even as he was packing his bags.
More and more people are asking why Israel should be treated as though she were our 51st State. And the question has come close to the boiling point as officials mull over the plan to "risk another Vietnam" in behalf of Israel. For, if U.S. Marines were sent into Lebanon, they would not assist with the removal of PLO activists to other Arab States and then leave. They would stay on as a buffer force between the Lebanese Christians and the Lebanese Moslems, who are almost sure to start fighting each other as soon as the Syrian troops and the PLO terrorists are gone. We have no brief for Arafat, but we are pleased that he has rejected the offer of any kind of aid from the U.S. And that another PLO spokesman, Bassam Abu Sharif, said the whole idea is "ridiculous" because "you don't expect the aggressor to come to the rescue of the victim." To which Arafat responded that "We are not in need of American help. The weapons and the 6th Fleet that helped kill my women and children cannot protect us. Definitely, I won't accept." Of course, he could be overridden in his resolve.
If Newsweek is correct, this whole ridiculous and dangerous proposition began when Begin suggested (to Haig) that a "peace keeping force" of American troops be sent into Lebanon, seemingly to replace the Israeli troops when the latter begin to pull back toward Israel. The Pentagon was immediately alarmed, concluded that "an American military prescence in that no-man's-land would be so tempting a target for terrorists that nothing short of a full armored division of 15,000 men with artillery would be needed to make it secure." Furthermore, "Placing such a large U.S. force within striking distance of Damascus, officials fear, would be seen as a provocative strategic action in the highly sensitive region." Defense Secretary Weinberger added that "Working out conditions that would allow the entry of a peacekeeping force into besieged West Beirut is proving to be hideously difficult, because of the many factions involved. There are groups without spokesmen and spokesmen without groups." But it seems that only Weinberger and other officials in his Department are opposed to the proposal. Actually, the Palestinians are opposed, the Lebanese are opposed, and the Israelis are opposed unless far better arrangements can be made. Those better arrangements now seem to involve the creation of a UN peacekeeping force, of which the U.S. Marines would be a part. Thus, instead of referring to the situation as another Vietnam, it could become another Korea. We lost both of those wars at terrible cost in American lives, it should be remembered.
Reaction from the Arab Women's Council in Washington, D.C.: full page advertisements were run in leading metropolitan dailies headlining the ad with the words "Begin's Holocaust in Lebanon." This was followed by a picture of some of the devastation in Beirut, then came the copy: "In One Week: 600,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were made homeless, 10,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed, 30,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were wounded, 10,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were made captive, and whole cities, towns and villages were levelled." Even Meg Greenfield of Newsweek was shocked, spoke of the visit of Begin to Washington, D.C. as "a kind of boiling-point discourse we have not heard before .. A number of senators and other politicians are heard to say that they will not be intimidated by the Israeli lobby, but will vote and act as they damn please. The papers and magazines are full of no-holds-barred attacks on the Israeli action; living rooms and the lunch places resound with argument about it." Greenfield ends her "Plain Talk About Israel" with this paragraph:
"And we should thank Begin. His utterly outrageous go-to-hell behavior in Washington was nothing if not human and normal and wanted nothing so much as a kick in the pants or at least a good shout back. I think he got the latter from the assembled senators. The Israelis and the Americans could see each other as they were and hear each other plain for once. This is the way it ought to be." So wrote Meg Greenfield. If it had been written by a conservative columnist, little would be thought about it. But by Meg Greenfield! However, all is now forgiven and everybody but the people in the Pentagon are anxious to get ourselves involved in another Korea-type mess.
Making the situation even more dangerous: As soon as it seemed that no immediate plan could be worked out, the Israeli guns started booming again, and the Soviet Embassy was hit. The Kremlin immediately said that "Israeli artillery heavily damaged buildings at the Soviet Embassy in Beirut and the Soviet government cannot be indifferent to what is going on in the Middle East. That area is in direct proximity to borders of the U.S.S.R. Therefore our country is interested in what is going on there not in abstract terms, but from the viewpoint of its own security." The author of that statement was Leonid Zamyalin, chief of the international information department of the Communist Party's Central Committee. So, American military involvement in Lebanon could lead to American military involvement with the Soviet Union. And who wants that?
As we want to press with this issue of DBR, no resolution of the situation in Lebanon was in sight. Still indirectly involved were the United States, France, the Soviet Union and possibly the United Nations. Involved directly were the Israelis, the Syrians, the Palestinians and the PLO, the Christian Lebanese, and the Moslem Lebanese. Not one of these groups was in accord with any other group. And in addition to the danger presented to the U.S. by the Lebanese situation itself, there is the growing antagonism toward the U.S. of all the Arab Nations. This hostility was shown rather subtly by the Saudis who have a pavillion at the Knoxville World's Fair. There they are giving out maps of the Middle East in which Isreal doesn't even appear. The land now called Israel is included as a part of Jordan; which it was before the British grant of that part of Palestine to create the State of Israel. That the next Secretary of State, George Shultz, as a multinational developer has had much business with the Saudis and none with the Israelis is supposed to temper the situation insofar as Saudi Arabia is concerned. But in the final analysis Shultz is not a Reagan-type, Western Republican from California. In fact, he's just another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is firmly (and by his firm) connected with the Rockefeller-controlled Eastern Establishment. The appointment of Shultz will in no way stem that slow drift of the Arab Nations toward futher business accomodations with the U.S.S.R.
In this same trend, there is an ever widening split between the U.S. and its allies in Western Europe. Despite warnings that they are buying the rope with which they are to be hanged, the United States of Europe insist that the building of the Siberian gas pipeline "is just good business," and has no serious political overtones. Margaret Thatcher recently joined the chorus, lent her voice to criticism of Reagan, said the building of the pipeline was just a good business deal. And Moscow, to seal the deal, said it doesn't matter whether the U.S. suppliers cooperate, the pipeline will get built anyway -- with slave labor if necessary. At least, that's what we read into the announcement from the Kremlin that the workers of the Communist world have united themselves in a pledge that they will build the pipeline, regardless of the misery and suffering that its construction with U.S. technological aid may entail. In all of this Eurepean leaning toward the U.S.S.R., it is becoming clear that the United States of Europe are beginning to assume that they are bigger, wealthier, more productive industrially, economically and financially more powerful than the United States. In every way except military power and agricultural production, we have built a part of a developing Trilateral World Order composed of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United States of Europe. Yes, we've built them all! And sooner than we think, the Marshall Plan may be back to haunt us.
But that isn't all. Our taking sides with Britain when we should have remained neutral, has alienated us with most of Central and South America. As U.S. News remarked: "Repairing ties with Latin America, damaged by U.S. support of the Falklands war, calls for early and imaginative action by Washington. The administratoin will find itself in a difficult bind -- with Britain pressing for participation by the United States in a multinational force to protect the islands under an independent government, while Latin Americans seek greater sympathy for Argentina's claim to sovereignty."
Yet another area with which there can be trouble involves the two Chinas. The Trilateral Commission plan was to open up Red China for industrial development and expansion. But relations have been strained from the very beginning. Haig had spent much of his time trying to get the U.S. to limit arms sales to Taiwan. In exchange, Peking would seek a peaceful settlement with both the United States and the National Republic of China. But Haig is gone; officially, that is. He's still a strong man on the Rockefeller team and may be playing his cards in the hope of replacing Ronald Reagan in 1984.
STOP PRESS: As we were finishing this report it was revealed that Brezhnev of the USSR and Reagan of the USA have been in communication regarding Lebanon. Brezhnev released a letter to Reagan, warning that the Kremlin might take action if U.S. troops are sent into Lebanon. Just what action was not specified. In reply: "State Department spokesman Dean Fischer said the Brezhnev letter would not detail plans to send a contingent of U.S. troops to Beirut. Deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said American policy in Lebanon remains unchanged despite the Brezhnev message." Meanwhile, "The Soviet Union has started an apparently major replacement of Syrian weapons and equipment destroyed or captured by the Israelis." Surrogates again?
There are indications that more than the Pentagon officials are worried about the possibility of another Vietnam or Korea. Saul Friedman of Knight-Ridder reports: "There is growing skepticism within the White House over Israel's motives in Lebanon and fear that the United States could be drawn into a military role in the Mideast ... The President now is almost alone in his unstinting commitment to Israel ... Officials added that while most advisers support the President's offer, they fear that if Americans are killed or wounded, or even fired on, the United States could be put into the position of having to fight on the side of Israel .. Indeed, there are some suspicions, the official said, that some elements of Israeli leadership would welcome this. 'They've been wanting U.S. forces to become involved for some time."
We began this Report with the headlined question: "More Foreign Entanglements To Alleviate Domestic Crises?" When the "Society of the Elite" fears financial collapse, a war is started. Are we falling into the same old trap?
Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480