WI: US retaliates for Beirut bombing

Keperry

After the October 23, 1983 bombing of American and French barracks in Beirut by the Shia group the Islamic Jihad Organization that killed 241 American and 58 French personnel, parts of the American and French governments (particularly secretary of state George P. Schultz) wanted to launch retaliatory attacks against Iranian and Iranian-aligned Shia positions in Lebanon. However, secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger was against retaliation because it wasn't certain that the Iranians and/or Hezbollah were behind the attack, so there was no major retaliation, and the Multinational Force withdrew from Lebanon in February 1984. What if Weinberger had been overruled and retaliation was ordered? Could the US and/or France have been drawn into a Vietnam-like quagmire in Lebanon? Or a war with Iran? What would be the impact on the course of the Lebanese Civil War? On the politics of the US, France, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Israel, the PLO...?
 

Dave Howery

it's doubtful that the US would let itself be drawn into a 'Vietnam like quagmire'. The Reagan administration was always lukewarm to the idea of American troops in Lebanon, and unwisely let themselves be prompted into it by international opinion. Even if there were retaliatory strikes, I'd think the US would still pull it's troops out ASAP. The impression I had at the time was that the administration was relieved at having an excuse to vacate the place...
 

cubefreak123

Banned
Dave Howery said:
it's doubtful that the US would let itself be drawn into a 'Vietnam like quagmire'. The Reagan administration was always lukewarm to the idea of American troops in Lebanon, and unwisely let themselves be prompted into it by international opinion. Even if there were retaliatory strikes, I'd think the US would still pull it's troops out ASAP. The impression I had at the time was that the administration was relieved at having an excuse to vacate the place...
Click to expand...

What about the knock-on effect of it though? IIRC the US not retaliating after the bombings was one of the inspirations to terrorists in the Middle East, even Bin Laden himself said as much in an interview. If there was a response it could have deflated at least some of the perceptions of a "victory" among some of the more radical elements in the region.
 

Coiler

There was retaliatory shelling and a (horribly botched) airstrike by the US, so it's not like there was absolutely no retaliation.
 

Carl Schwamberger

The French sent a airstrike as well. The book 'Super Carrier' by George Wilson has a description of the US air strike. A Washington Post reporter Wilson had been aboard the USS John Kennedy for several weeks when the attack went down. He describes a professionally done air attack plan wrecked by last minute orders from some senior level inside the Beltway. He also claims the US Admiral who the US 6th Fleet reported to as being bypassed by the order from Washington, and quotes him as stating that if he had seen the order he would have halted the air attack.

http://www.amazon.com/Supercarrier-George-C-Wilson/dp/0425109267
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top