ABSTRACT
Finding the appropriate combination of diplomacy and force is difficult. If there is too much force in relation to diplomacy, the result may be escalation; too little force in relation to diplomacy may lead to noncompliance. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Washington undercut Jerusalem’s threat of force with uncoordinated diplomatic initiatives from competing bureaucracies—a dual-track contest between the White House staff and State, with the president on the sidelines. Diplomacy without force characterized Washington’s first phase; force not coordinated with diplomacy typified both Washington’s second stage and Jerusalem’s, as well. One reason why Washington decided not to tie its diplomacy to Jerusalem’s use of force was its assessment on the likely disposition of Palestine Liberation Organization fighters once they departed from Beirut. The fact that Israeli force was not coordinated with American diplomacy does not mean that diplomatic activity or objectives were absent.
