Aoun: No targeting of the army for reasons inconsistent with Lebanon's supreme interests

- Defense Minister: What the army demands is that no Lebanese should allow himself to become a dagger in its back or a stab in the side of its sacrifices

The highly opaque atmosphere enveloping Lebanon during a sensitive transitional phase, both American and Israeli, did not divert attention from the contours of a confrontation in Beirut regarding the Lebanese Army, its performance, and the stance of its commander, General Rodolphe Haykal, a few days ago. This was particularly evident in his assertion to military personnel that “the army’s policy is the national policy, and anyone who does not align with this policy is on the opposite side,” and his declaration that “whoever speaks ill of his country’s army is incompatible with Lebanon and has no right to be in Lebanon.”

This stance drew criticism even from MPs who viewed Haykal’s statements as an overreach of the government’s authority over the military institution, which does not formulate policies but rather implements those set by the executive branch, while reminding them of the constitutional provision stating that “the President of the Republic is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, which are subject to the authority of the Council of Ministers.”

Amid the debate on this issue, Defense Minister Michel Mousa’s visit to the President of the Republic highlighted the latter’s emphasis on “the importance of maintaining security stability,” praising “the fundamental role the army plays in preserving public security and safety and implementing the decisions of the political authority,” and calling for “not targeting the army, its leadership, officers, and personnel, for reasons that do not align with Lebanon’s supreme interests.”

During his reception of the Army Commander, Aoun discussed with him “the tasks the army undertakes to preserve security and stability and implement the decisions of the political authority, despite the difficult conditions Lebanon and the region are experiencing.”

Mousa had previously issued a statement that fueled the constitutional debate, responding “to positions that addressed the Lebanese Army and its leadership, under the banner of the military institution’s commitment to government decisions without debate or objection, down to the point of questioning, doubting, and inciting against the army, its leadership, and its commander, and raising the issue of his resignation or dismissal.”

Mousa stated, “The Council of Ministers’ authority is limited to decisions concerning general defense and security policy, and not to issuing orders or instructions that fall exclusively within the authority and duties of the Army Command (...) The military institution adheres to the political decision issued by the executive branch and the directives of His Excellency the President of the Republic, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. However, the grave and serious national responsibility borne by the army is the highest priority, the most significant consideration, and the ultimate goal under which it operates, ensuring that any decision takes into account the army’s capabilities and resources, preserves the morale of its officers and personnel, guarantees the unity of its people, and prevents any fitna that any step taken under pressure or in response to circumstances might lead to.”

He concluded: “The Lebanese Army is the only unifying institution that forges Lebanese unity. All it asks is that no Lebanese should allow himself, intentionally or unintentionally, to become a dagger in its back or a stab in the side of its sacrifices and the blood of its martyrs.”