Questions about the Lebanese crisis and civil war

Hi everybody,

I’ve some question about the Lebanese crisis of 58 and the civil war. It is in case I would treat the subject in Volume 2 of “Au Bord de l'Abîme”.

I hope, my English is not too bad.


The crisis of 58

As France is supposed to be the protector of the Maronite and “Christian of the East”. Imagine that France intervene with the USA.

Will France would withdraw its troops at the same time of the American? Or will keep permanent troop in Lebanon (with the risk of being accused of neo-colonialism)?

If French troops stay in Lebanon will it avoid or accelerate the civil war?


The civil war

Case 1:
We can imagine a France which, as in 58, poses as a defender of the Eastern Christians and intervenes alongside Israel in 82 (or even earlier). We could even imagine that the USA ABATL also participate.
There is therefore no Multinational Security Force in Beirut or UNIFIL in the UN.
The Syrian forces are being swept away. The Christian phalanxes then have their hands free and are overarmed.
We can imagine that France and the USA push back the Arab troops out of the country, while Israel supports the phalanxes.
OTL the Christian phalanges have committed some massacres. Can we imagine that in this configuration Christians engage in ethnic-religious cleansing?
The Druzes supported by the USSR will take refuge in the Chouf mountains (mountain war), which could lead to a guerrilla movement comparable to what the Taliban have been doing since 2001 in the afpak.
As OTL the Shiites would take up arms in the Bekaa plaine (with implications relative to the Iran-Iraq war as OTL?).
The participation of Israel, France and the US in the fight against the OPL would fuel the resentment of a part of the Muslim population and encourage the Jihadist current like the future "Al Qaeda" of bin Laden. The Phalanges and the Army of the South Lebanon are integrated in the Lebanese Army.
We potentially find ourselves with a failed state with a Christian majority and very militarized.


Case 2:
To avoid an escalation of the conflict: France, the USA, Israel and Syria decide to disarm the militia (OPL, phalanxes ...) by force, and then frame the deployment of a UN forces (UNIFIL). Gradually the Lebanese government and the Army regain control of the country.
This follows an equivalent of the Taef agreement, which is as wobbly as OL and makes the country remain a gunpowder, or is better than OTL incorporating better and in a more egalitarian way the different religious communities of the country in the political system.


Case 3:
Beginning identical to option 2 except that Lebanon puts in place a federalized system (inspired by the USA) with regions governed by their ethnic-religious majorities accompanied by a redistribution of the regions. The latter have a large autonomy and Beirut is the federal capital. The militias of the various camps are transformed into a kind of National Guard for each region, the Lebanese army becomes the federal army. The country is relatively stable, but its domestic, economic and foreign policy suffer from the immobility generated by this system.


Thank you in advance for your help.
 
Top