ABSTRACT
From the opening gambits of the parties engaged in tacit bargaining to the moves of the endgame there, Lebanon offers valuable lessons on policymakers, processes, and policies. Compared to Defense, Secretary Alexander Haig’s State Department was less worried that Israeli military action in Lebanon would harm American relations with other Arab states in the area, such as the Gulf states. The complexity of American policymaking in regard to Lebanon can be seen in the diverse stands of the White House, State, and Defense on Israel’s war against the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon. American responses to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon from June 6 to 18, 1982, came from an interagency process, initially led by State under Haig but subsequently led by the White House as Haig’s influence waned. Robert McFarlane took over as the special envoy, he made repeated calls for the use of force in Lebanon.
