The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. From hundreds of anxious families waiting for word to Marines clawing through the debris in Beirut for bodies, the nation was consumed today by the terrible bombing of the Marine headquarters on Sunday. This evening the death toll stands at 191 and may rise further. But President Reagan says the Marines must stay in Lebanon because the U.S. has vital interests there and cannot be intimidated by terrorists. Jim? Beirut

JIM LEHRER: The Beirut tragedy is the hour tonight, and our order of march through it, our table of contents, goes like this: first, the details of today's reactive events, the ones Robin just mentioned, in Beirut, Washington and elsewhere; then through three principal questions that leap out of the thousands of words written and spoken since yesterday morning: what now on the ground for the U.S. Marines, their immediate safety today, tomorrow and the next few tomorrows; who did it? who was behind yesterday's attack and why? and, finally, what next for U.S. policy and purpose in Lebanon and the Middle East? Where is it all headed?

MacNEIL: Hour by hour the casualty figures mounted today as searchers found more bodies in the wreckage of the Marines' headquarters building at Beirut airport. By late today the toll stood at 191 Marines and sailors dead and 75 wounded from the explosion caused by a ton of TNT driven into the building by a suicidal terrorist. Two miles away, 23 French paratroopers were dead, 35 missing, and 15 wounded in a similar explosion a minute or so later. Identification of the American dead was difficult because the records showing which men were staying in the building were destroyed in the bombing.

[voice-over] Shortly after the explosion yesterday the scene at the shattered Marine command post was a picture of pain and grief. One by one the bodies of dead and wounded Marines were lifted out of the rubble and sent to the hospital ships off shore. There was a similar scene at the French army barracks. Early today the President of France, Francois Mitterrand, arrived in Beirut and made a 10-minute tour of the French command center. Rescue operations were still underway. A few minutes after Mitterrand left, the body of another French soldier was found. In both places the rescue work will go on for days, but there is no hope that anyone will still be found alive under the wreckage. Throughout the day today cranes lifted heavy slabs of concrete at the American command post. Marines pawed through the wreckage looking for their comrades, a search that will go on until every missing man is accounted for. The unit commander said morale was high, but some of the rank and file Marines were clearly disturbed by all that had happened.

Col. TIM GERAGHTY, Commander, U.S. forces ashore: The morale is high; I think if you look around here you see a lot of Marines that are mad. They're recommitted and they're firm, and they're going to stay the course.

Cpl. ROBERT CALHOUN, USMC: It's sad because I know a lot of people who just got married, had wives, had kids born over here that they'd never seen, had kids on the way who were so proud and they'd go home, you know, like, "Oh, I get to see my kid," and all this stuff, and they were just -- they were just saying, "We only have so many days until we go back, you know? We made over 100 days here already. Over 150 here already. We only got a couple more, we'll be back in the States."

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And some of them went back early. [unintelligible]

Cpl. CALHOUN: You're mad, but how can you take it out on the people of Lebanon, you know?These people who are here, it seemed like they had a ceasefire but now they've got a new target -- Marines. It's a shame, you know. I'm not sad we're here. I -- sometimes I regret being here. I guess that I'd have done anything to get out of here.

MacNEIL: Even before the casualty list was complete, Marine reinforcements to replace those killed or wounded were on their way. Late yesterday, the first of more than 300 Marines from Camp LeJeune left Cherry Point Marine Air Station in North Carolina to bring the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit in Beirut back up to strength. The commander of the second Marine division, Major General Al Gray, said the morale of the replacements was "fever-pitch high." Meanwhile, other Marine officers and naval officers fanned out across the nation with the duty of informing the families of those killed. Jim?

LEHRER: President Reagan made his first major statement about the Beirut tragedy today, reaffirming the need for the Marines to stay in Lebanon on a mission of peace. He said it to a group of local journalists from around the country at a White House luncheon. The session had been scheduled before yesterday's events in Beirut, but Mr. Reagan discarded what he was to have talked about and said this.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Yesterday's acts of terrorism in Beirut, which killed so many young American and French servicemen, were a horrifying reminder of the type of enemy that we face in many critical areas of the world today -- vicious, cowardly and ruthless. Words can never convey the depth of compassion that we feel for those brave men and for their loved ones. Many Americans are wondering why we must keep our forces in Lebanon. Well, the reason they must stay there until the situation's under control is quite clear. We have vital interests in Lebanon, and our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace. Peace in Lebanon is key to the region's stability now and in the future. To the extent that the prospect for future stability is heavily influenced by the presence of our forces, it is central to our credibility on a global scale. We must not allow international criminals and thugs such as these to undermine the peace in Lebanon. If Lebanon ends up under the tyranny of forces hostile to the West, not only will our strategic position in the Eastern Mediterranean be threatened, but also the stability of the entire Middle East, including the vast resource areas of the Arabian Peninsula. In conjunction with our multinational force partners, we are taking measures to strengthen the capabilities of our forces to defend themselves. The United States will not be intimidated by terrorists. We have strong circumstantial evidence linking the perpetrators of this latest atrocity to others that have occurred against us in the recent past, including the bombing of our embassy in Beirut last April. Every effort will be made to find the criminals responsible for this act of terrorism so this despicable act will not go unpunished.

LEHRER: Mr. Reagan then took a few questions from the reporters, and we'll have excerpts from that part later in the program. While the President was doing that, two of his top Cabinet members were at the Capitol -- Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- appeared before closed sessions of key House and Senate committees. Their purpose was to brief the congressmen on what happened yesterday and on what options the administration is now considering on the ground in Lebanon and elsewhere. Afterward it was announced that Secretary Shultz will go to Europe later in the week to meet with officials of the three other nations with troops in the multinational force -- Britain, France and Italy. The official reaction in those three countries to yesterday's tragedy was similar to that of the Reagan administration. France, which has 2,000 troops in Lebanon, and Italy, which has 1,200, both declared their intention to keep them there, and the foreign secretary of Britain, which has 97 soldiers in the force, said this was not the time to discuss taking the troops out, but said the peacekeeping role was not something Britain wanted to continue indefinitely. Robin?

MacNEIL: Our first major question tonight is, what happens now to make the Marines' position in Beirut more secure? Recommending ways to do that is part of the mission of Marine Corps Commandant General Paul Kelley, whom President Reagan sent to Beirut today. The security problem stems from the mission assigned to the Marines as part of the international peacekeeping force -- to protect the exposed stretches of the Beirut airport, a symbol of control for the struggling Gemayel government.

[voice-over] The fact that the political goals of their mission placed them in a militarily vulnerable position defending the low ground was a concern to the Marines.

Col. GERAGHTY: Well, given the choice, I'll take the high ground. Easily, I think. That's unanimous. But it just so happens that as things have evolved here that when we came back in here, into Lebanon, that we were given the area around Beirut international, which happens to be a very highly visible government -- symbol of government.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: The question of Marine security became a serious one in late August when they began taking incoming rounds from the surrounding villages and hills. The Marines stopped patroling those areas near their perimeter, and began reinforcing their positions, adding more sandbags and digging trenches between bunkers. The reinforced positions afforded them protection against shrapnel from exploding shells, but not from a direct hit. Following the ceasefire on September 26th, the principal threat to Marine security was small-arms sniper fire. Marine marksmen were in the process of searching out those snipers and returning fire when the latest tragedy occurred. It caught them unprepared; the gates at the entry to the Marines headquarters were lightly guarded and offered little defense. The truck that blew up the headquarters building had to pass Lebanese checkpoints on the highway to the airport. It then passed the main Marine gate and turned left on an access road leading to a parking lot in front of the headquarters building. The driver then raced his engine, breaking through a barbed-wire fence and swerving past a sandbagged bunker. As he drove past a guardpost, a Marine fired five shots at the truck, but it continued into the central atrium of the headquarters building where the terrorist detonated his bomb.

[on camera] A number of options are apparently under consideration to improve the Marines' security.At his meeting with editors and broadcasters today, President Reagan was asked about one option -- sending in a much stronger force.

Pres. REAGAN: We would then be engaged in the combat. We would be the combat force. We would be fighting against Arab states, and that is not the road to peace. We're still thinking in terms of that long-range peace. Lebanon must be resolved and resolved within itself, its own problems. With the present mission of the multinational force -- and remember, there are four nations involved there -- enlarging their forces, if it would help with the mission they're performing, would be one thing, but to join into the combat and become a part of the combative force actually all we would really be doing would be increasing the number of targets. And this is -- and risking, really, the start of overall conflict and world war.

LEHRER: A perspective on the question of how to make the Marines' situation more safe now from James Webb, a much-decorated Marine officer in Vietnam, now a novelist, the author of the bestseller, Fields of Fire and other books. He was in Lebanon with the Marines at the Beirut airport a few weeks ago on assignment for us.His comments on what he saw and heard there were the subject of a documentary we ran 10 days ago. Jim, based on your experience and what you saw when you were there, what would it take to make it safe for the Marines at the Beirut airport?

JAMES WEBB, former Marine: I think the first thing that's got to happen is for the commandant of the Marine Corps and the President to clearly define what they want the Marines to do. As the intro shots showed, this has been an evolutionary process from pure visibility when they were actually running foot patrols out in the Shiite areas to catching a spillover from these firefights that were going on between the Lebanese and the different factions to being directly attacked, and now to becoming almost the focal point of the whole problem. If we are going to ask the Marines to continue in what you would call a quasicombat environment, the way that they have done now, I don't see how you can do it without having more people in it.

LEHRER: What would more people do?

Mr. WEBB: Well, even with the configuration that they have right now, they only have three rifle companies on the ground. You don't have a traditional perimeter --

LEHRER: And that's how many men in a rifle company?

Mr. WEBB: It varies, but a table of organization is about 200 people, so you have 600 people in a perimeter situation protecting 600 people behind them. They can't do it, and they're not. They're stretched out in one long segment south of the airport. It wasn't intended that they were going to do this. So your options really are going to have to be to put more people on the ground so that you can adequately protect the whole environment with outposts and this sort of thing. By example, there were eight times as many Americans in Beirut in 1958 when we went in than there are right now. Or narrowly define the mission and go to a smaller type situation, which is analogous to what the British are doing. They only have 100 people there, but they're very visible with their armored patrols, with these little Ferret vehicles. They show the flag, and yet when they're back inside their compound, it's extremely well protected.

LEHRER: One of the suggestions, or one of the options, apparently, that General Kelly is going to consider when he goes over there, at least according to what's been written, is to expand the perimeter. Now, what would be involved in that? And that would take more people, certainly, would it not, if they're thin now?

Mr. WEBB: I think if you could close the perimeter, you could do that. But in order to expand it --

LEHRER: Close it?

Mr. WEBB: Close it meaning we don't really have a perimeter now. We have a line of troops along the southern part of the airport that actually link in on one end to the artillery battery, which should never be on the direct line of fire the way they are now, and these various support elements are protected by the sentry positions, which were shown in the diagram, but not a complete perimeter that will protect them with infantry troops out there. There is no perimeter right now.

LEHRER: To do that that would take what? Several thousand men, would it not?

Mr. WEBB: Probably have to have another batallion to close --

LEHRER: That's another 1,500 men.

Mr. WEBB: Yes. When they were in in 1958 they were on that first line of hills which is Shuefat and the Shiite areas. I think that would get the men in a real mess if they up there now because that is the areas of contest.

LEHRER: What about the suggestion that the Marines be visible during the daytime doing something or other, but that they sleep at night out on the ships offshore? Does that make sense to you?

Mr. WEBB: I'd have to leave that to General Kelly's analysis, but the problem that immediately comes to my mind when you do that is you're going to have to heli-lift them in every day, and wherever you drop them -- the zones that you're going to be able to drop them in are pretty well defined, and you're opening yourself up to attack coming and going on a situation like that.

LEHRER: Many have expressed shock over the fact that that truck could drive through all of those many checkpoints and drive right into the lobby of that building. Based on your having seen that situation and been around it, were you shocked and surprised that that could have been done so easily?

Mr. WEBB: I was shocked at the horrendous audacity of the people who did it, but I was not shocked in a tactical sense. This is not the Marines' fault that this sort of thing has happened. They are operating from orders from above; we were told this magical number of 1,200 people would be on the ground. They don't have enough people to put at outposts so that you could have early warning devices; they busted through a couple of gates where you got a guy standing there with an M-16. Once someone decides to make a move like that --

LEHRER: Which is a very simple rifle?

Mr. WEBB: Yes. Just, you know, an individual weapon to try to stop a truck going full blast. The gates were rather flimsy; that was the only alternative, in my opinion, other than not occupying the southern part of the airport, which is the area they were assigned.

LEHRER: All right, Jim, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: We turn now to the next major question: who did the bombing yesterday and with what motive? Yesterday Defense Secretary Weinberger said there was circumstantial evidence that Iran or Iranians might have been involved. As you just heard today, President Reagan said there was strong circumstantial evidence that linked yesterday's bombing to the same movement that bombed the American Embassy last April. Iran has denied involvement in either incident. Charlayne Hunter-Gault looks further into who may have been responsible and why. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, yesterday's terrorist assault at the Marine compound was the bloodiest but not the first such attack in Lebanon. Since the beginning of the year, some 190 people have been killed in seven similar attacks.

[voice-over] The tactic of the terrorists has always been the same: vehicles laden with explosives. The other attack aimed directly at Americans took place on April 18th when a car loaded with 2,000 pounds of explosives blew up in front of the American Embassy in West Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans. Some 120 others were injured. Two of the victims found in the rubble of that blast were wearing Marine uniforms, but were believed to have been the drivers of the car on a suicide mission. An extremist, pro-Iranian group called the Islamic Struggle Organization claimed responsibility for the April blast.

[on camera] Two groups have claimed responsibility for yesterday's blast. One calls itself the Free Islamic Revolution Movement. The other, which also claimed credit for the April embassay bombing, calls itself the Islamic Holy War. For more on what's known about who might be responsible for yesterday's bombing, we go now to two experts on the region. Yonah Alexander, an expert on terrorism, returned to the United States last week from a visit to Israel, Turkey and Lebanon. Mr. Alexander is the director of the Institute for Studies in International Terrorism of the State University of New York. He is also an an author of a forthcoming book, Terrorism, the Soviet Connection. Also with us is Eric Rouleau, an editor and chief Middle East correspondent for the Paris newspaper, Le Monde. Mr. Alexander, starting first with you, you just heard me say that two groups are now claiming credit for the bombing.What do you make of that?

YONAH ALEXANDER: Well, it's not the question of what particular group was involved. I think you have to look at the conceptual framework. That is to say the politicization of religion or religionization of politics; the utilization of religious terms, symbols, ideas in order to achieve certain secular goals, and what I'm referring to is particularly the Islamic fundamentalism which is supported by the Ayatollah Khomeini. And we know that there are camps in Iran today training those who are sent on missions, not only in Lebanon, but to the Gulf states, for example, and elsewhere.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are you saying -- excuse me. Are you saying then that whichever group it was that really did it, Iran is behind it as the President and other officials in the United States government have suggested?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, we don't have the smoking gun on the table, but circumstantial evidence, at least from the various reports -- and we know what happened before. We do have enough evidence in terms of the involvement of these groups. There is an Islamic network; there is no question about it.

HUNTER-GAULT: What is the circumstantial evidence? You've talked with officials who are privy to that. Can you give us a hint of that?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, there are various reports -- intelligence and press reports and others, and my personal interviews with people in the region -- convinces me that terrorism is not only the weapon of the weak, but also the weapon of the strong. That is to say, a country like Iran, a country like Syria and the Soviet Union and Libya are interested in turmoil in that region.

HUNTER-GAULT: Eric Rouleau, what's your best guess on who might be responsible for the bombing yesterday?

ERIC ROULEAU: I have no direct information on the subject, but what I can say is what should worry people is not the fact that Iran, Syria or some other country helps these people, but the fact that in Lebanon today there are many Lebanese people -- I am thinking especially of the Muslim opposition -- who are hostile to the presence of American or French troops in Lebanon. I think this political fact is much more important of who is funding and who is helping the terrorists. The multinational force came to Lebanon on the basis of a national consensus. All the Lebanese wanted the force about a year ago. Today this has changed dramatically. The American forces in Lebanon and the French forces are perceived as non-neutral, as supporting a faction which is in power, which is the Gemayel -- President Gemayel's faction. And I think this is where resides the danger, because even if this group is completely eliminated, let us suppose that they are all killed, there are other organizations which are ready to start again and attack American and French forces.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Alexander, do you have any sense -- you mentioned the Syrians and several other countries. I mean, just -- I know it may be difficult to pin down, but do you have any sense of how big this movement is and just where the orders are coming from?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, it's nothing new. If you look at the record in terms of chronology of various terrorist attacks in Lebanon, including the assassination of the American ambassador back in '76 and so on, and the attacks directed against American interests -- both military and business -- in the region, and also in Europe, you would find that certainly states like Syria using the Abu-Nidul (Black June) group as one example, Asaiga as another example --

HUNTER-GAULT: These are Islamic fundamentalists?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, these are actually groups who are involved, not specifically the Islamic or the Eagles group. You have different proxy groups of different names, but what it really boils down to, that it's very cheap, inexpensive to activate these activities and very costly to counter them. And Syria, for example, would resort to this kind of violence because they cannot confront the United States eyeball-to-eyeball on the battlefield. And this is a new mode, a new type, a new from of warfare. And we are not really used to this kind of irregular warfare.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that Syria is directly rather than implicitly involved, perhaps?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, there is no question about training of terrorists in Syria today. We have evidence of that. We interviewed people who are trained in these Syrian camps, Libyan camps, as well as the Soviet Union. So it's not a question of speculation about the role of states. You have the smoking gun in this instance, although, again, in this particular case, evidence is coming out, but if you look at the background there is no doubt in my mind as to the role of states or terrorism from above.

HUNTER-GAULT: Eric Rouleau, you've been talking with American officials today as well, I understand. Did any of them shed any light on what they meant by circumstantial evidence that implicated Iran in this?

Mr. ROULEAU: Yes, some did. I think there is intelligence reports -- American intelligence reports about this organization. It's not Iranian, I think; it's Lebanese, but with links with Khomeini, which is Iran. And I think they got some report also from French intelligence which has substantiated this accusation.

HUNTER-GAULT: What would Iran have to gain?

Mr. ROULEAU: Well, what has it got to lose?

HUNTER-GAULT: But I mean, why would they do it?

Mr. ROULEAU: Well, the Iranians are anti-American anyway. They consider America as a big imperialist power. But in this particular subject, the pro-Iranian Lebanese have no -- have received no place in the reconciliation -- national reconciliation conference, which is to open next week in Switzerland. They have no part in it. They have been excluded. So that could be another reason.

HUNTER-GAULT: To disrupt the talks?

Mr. ROULEAU: Disrupt the talks from which they are excluded, and also I think it is -- they hate the French because the French government has delivered, as you know, sophisticated planes -- the Super Etendard -- to Iraq, their enemy, and therefore that will afford them with a good opportunity to hit both France for doing that and the United States.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Alexander, do you have any idea -- you've studied the Shiites and fundamentalists and others in the region. Do you have any idea what would go on in the heads of the two men who drove that vehicle into that compound? What would cause them to go on such a suicide mission?

Prof. ALEXANDER: Well, it's extremism. It's extremism and dedication to a certain cause. They are called, for example, in Arabic, the Fedayeen, those who are ready to sacrifice themselves for a certain cause, and they feel it's sort of the Samson complex. If you cannot get what you want, then you destroy your enemy and yourself included. Now, whenyou interview some of these people, you can see the kind of extremism that they believe in. In other words, they don't believe in any democratic way to resolve issues or peaceful resolution of conflicts. The gun certainly is very important for them, and as I indicated before, this is a new mode, a new kind of warfare, and we are not used to it. That's why everyone is shocked, but again, I don't think you can respond to this kind of activity simply by sending a navy or Marines. You have to develop some other strategies in order to cope with the problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you, Mr. Rouleau and Mr. Alexander. Jim?

LEHRER: We move now to maybe the toughest question of all: what next for U.S. policy and purpose in Lebanon or, put another way, what's the point of the U.S. Marines' presence there anyhow? There have been a multitude of answers already offered since yesterday. Former Secretary of State Kissinger, for instance, says there is no point unless the U.S., possibly in alliance with Israel, is prepared to make a much larger commitment, militarily and otherwise. Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia posed the policy question this way today.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD, (D) West Virginia, Minority Leader: We have to define our interests. I don't really know why we have to be in there. Is it oil? If it is, then there are countries who have deeper interests than we have in oil. Some of the West Europeans, the Japanese. Why don't they join in this peacekeeping force? There is a U.N. force in Lebanon. Why isn't it brought in? Maybe Mr. Gemayel doesn't want it, but it's not what he wants that counts in this situation. If he expects these four governments, the French, the Italians, the British and ourselves, to keep the peace, he's got to listen to us, too. And the sooner he gets busy and broadens the base of that government, the sooner we can get our boys out.

LEHRER: President Reagan sees the purpose question differently, and today, in answer to a woman reporter whose husband is a Marine Corps captain, stated it like this.

Pres. REAGAN: It would be a disaster if a force took over the Middle East -- and a force is ready to do that, as witness what has taken place in Yemen, in Ethiopia and now the forces that -- some several thousand that are theirs in Syria. The free world cannot stand by and see that happen. Yes, this has been an area torn by strife over the centuries, and yet, not too many years ago, before the kind of breakup, Lebanon was a very prosperous, peaceful nation that was kind of known as the gateway to the East. And we believe it can be again.

LEHRER: When Jim Webb was in Beirut for us four weeks go, purpose was very much on his mind. He talked with the Marines about it, and he had some comments of his own. Here's an excerpt from his piece. At that time only four Marines had died; one of them a lieutenant who was the commander of a platoon out on the perimeter of the Beirut airport. Our excerpt begins with Jim's conversation with that man's replacement, First Lieutenant Andy May of Nashville, Tennessee.

JAMES WEBB [September 24, 1983]: How do you feel aboutwhat your people have been doing in the company?

1st Lt. ANDY MAY, USMC: Real proud of the people. I mean, we've had -- when we've taken, you know, direct hits here and gotten people hurt, there have been some people pretty upset by it, but I think that's always going to be the case on the whole. On the whole everybody's pretty cool. Those are -- [incoming shots]

WEBB: Morale good?

Lt. MAY: Morale's pretty high. I don't think there's anybody here who doesn't know how many days it is before we're supposed to go home, but on the other hand --

WEBB: Anybody want to stay?

LT. MAY: Haven't had too many volunteers. But everybody knows they got a job to do here, and there's no -- certainly no morale problems. A lot of people who'd like to be make some frontal assaults out there.

WEBB [voice-over]: The positions occupied by Lieutenant May's platoon and the other platoons of Alpha Company lie just south of the airport runway. It's a place of red dust and foul air, of heat and, when the shells are not flying, of tedium. The men of Alpha spend much of their free time burrowing into the earth, filling sandbags and improving their trenches.

1st MARINE: I just thank God I'll be out before you --

2nd MARINE: -- Vietnam.

WEBB [voice-over]: During the month of fighting, they lived continuously inside their cavelike bunkers. These are infantrymen or, as they call themselves with perverse pride, grunts. Under the traditions of the Marine Corps, the greatest respect is accorded those who are nearest to danger. It may seem more exiciting to fly a helicopter or blast away with an artillery piece, but the grunts have always been called the pride of the Corps because they are the ones who stand on the cusp. They take the most casualties; they have the fewest creature comforts. They must answer in their honor to no one.

3rd MARINE: I'm not high on what the politics are back in the government or the politics here are. I'm just your basic grunt. I don't pretend that I know everything that's going on. All I know is that I have a job, and that that job was to come here and do what I was told to do and that was to help keep the peace here and help protect the people we're supposed to protect.

4th MARINE: Even though we've taken, you know, casualties, had a lot of people injured, I feel proud of the fact that we had a part of this peacekeeping force. I, more than anybody, or just as much as anybody, would like to go home as soon as possible. You know, if they say we could leave tomorrow, I'd be the first one to the ship, but since we got to be here and since we got to do a job, you know, I'm with the rest of the company saying that I'll be here, and I'll be here as long as they want me here.

5th MARINE: I really want to go home, but when I leave I want to know that deep down in my heart that four guys that died, they died for a good reason because something turned out good because of us being here.

WEBB [voice-over]: There's a small irony in hearing the men of Alpha One talk about their presence in Lebanon. The lowest private seems to understand the nature of the American commitment more clearly than many congressmen. In a way it made me feel deeply protective of these men. I and many of my fellow veterans from Vietnam still feel the pain of having made a greater commitment than the political process was willing to uphold. These men are trusting their very lives to the wisdom of our leaders. Our government's obligation to them, which was too frequently betrayed in Vietnam, is to proceed with a clarity of purpose that matches their own trust and commitment.

6th MARINE: All my life was Scouts and the Marines. All I ever read about was the Marine Corps, and so I said, "I'm going in the Marine Corps," and I just walked home one day and told my mother, "Hey, Mom. I just joined the Marine Corps," and she said, "You did what?" "I joined the Corps and I'm leaving September 22nd." And she said, "Okay," and I love the Corps. It's the best job I ever had in my life.

LEHRER: No, we do not know if any of those Marines Jim Webb talked to were victims of yesterday's explosion; all we do know is that none of their names have turned up on the incomplete casualty list released today. Jim Webb, anything that you would add to your comments about clarity of purpose, the grunts versus the politicians, on a night like tonight?

Mr. WEBB: I think that something we should all remember, and it was one of the things that I wanted to make clear in the piece is that, you know, the military doesn't make policy. These guys are the implementers. And the attack on them was not an attack on them for anything that they've done while they've been in Lebanon. Their restraint has been remarkable. Their attack on them was because they're Americans, and as we go through this whole thing, I think that we should remember that, because that happened to them because they're a part of us. And no matter what happens in the rest of this, our duty is to, above all, honor them.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The tragedy at Beirut airport has turned what was a low muttering about U.S. policy goals into a torrent of comment, some of it criticizing Reagan policy as too vaguely defined. For a look at the foreign policy issues this raises, we start first with Zbigniew Brzezinski, national securty adviser to President Carter. Mr. Brzezinski is now a senior adviser at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies and professor of government at Columbia University. Mr. Brzezinski, do you agree, first of all, with what President Reagan said earlier on tape: it is not an option to withdraw the Marines?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, let me begin by saying that at this time one has to be as supportive of the President as one can be. This is a time of anguish, of very difficult choices in the White House, and I know how the President must feel. So I don't think we should be launching an all-out assault on the policies that we have been pursuing. Leaving is not the best option, certainly not the best option, but there are worse options than that, too. For the moment I don't think that a precipitous departure by the United States would be the right course.

MacNEIL: Why not?

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: If we were to leave immediately I suppose we could argue that we are saving lives, we are avoiding renewed risk to our men. But leaving under pressure would leave the field to the terrorists, to the radicals. It would be a very poor signal to send to the world. But just staying put is also not the best alternative.

MacNEIL: Well, what are the options, in your view, then?

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, basically we have, as I see it, four. One is to leave, and we have briefly talked about it. One is to stay put as we have been, which means a narrow diplomatic political focus on the Lebanese issue itself with our troops in Beirut. I believe that's an invitation for the whole tragedy to be repeated again because we cannot put Lebanon together by focusing on Lebanon alone. The third option is to invite the Israelis in. You alluded to the fact that Mr. Kissinger seems to favor that. They would do the job for us, so to speak. The trouble with that, in my judgment, is that it's demeaning for a big power like the United States to call in a small country like Israel whom we are supporting to do the job for us. And besides, becoming engaged together with Israel means we are ceasing to be a mediator in the region; we are becoming a protagonist. And we woulddrive the Arabs to the Soviets. Which brings me to the fourth option, the one I prefer, which is that we do stay in Lebanon militarily, but that we focus our political and diplomatic efforts urgently and energetically on implementing the Reagan plan in keeping with the Camp David process.

MacNEIL: The Reagan plan of September, a year ago.

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: Which is designed to resolve some of the major issues in the Arab-Israeli dispute, particularly the West Bank, but Golan will have to be added to the agenda because of Syrian involvement. The difficulties of Lebanon are rooted in the crisis of the region produced by the Arab-Israeli dispute, and the Israelis and the Arabs by themselves cannot solve this problem.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan, when he was defending his policy today, also said that progress is being made. He instanced the withdrawal of the PLO last year, the Israeli withdrawal so far, and the preparations for the reconciliation conference in Geneva next week. You do not see that progress as being a constructive evidence of the --

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: Not at all. Those are tactical steps focusing on Lebanon alone and by itself, and the key point I wish to stress is that if we remain bogged down in Lebanon, we'll remain bogged down in an affair which we cannot resolve by focusing on Lebanon alone. The root cause of the crisis in Lebanon is the wider Arab-Israeli dispute. And if we are serious about being mediators in the region and enhancing our position in the region, we have to very energetically engage ourselves in promoting the Reagan plan, in dealing with the Israelis and the Arabs on behalf of peace, and that means a very major and direct presidential commitment of the sort which has not yet been forthcoming.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Another view of the policy issues now from Joseph Sisco, undersecretary of state in the Ford administration and a key player in Middle East policy under then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. He is now a Washington-based consultant on international affairs. Mr. Sisco, do you have a viable option that appeals to you more than all others?

JOSEPH SISCO: Well, there is no panacea, Jim. I met with a number of members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning in a rather extended session, and I made three suggestions. The first is to bring in the Europeans in the diplomacy on Lebanon in relationship to these reconciliation talks that are scheduled to begin in Geneva around October 31st. I was in the forefront in the past of saying that the Europeans ought not be in the diplomacy of the Middle East. I've changed for two reasons: one, they've paid their dues as peacekeepers, but secondly, the problem in Lebanon is intra-Lebanese. The Europeans have influence on the Lebanese, and it is no longer a question "of producing Israel," which has always been our primary task. That was the first suggestion I made. The second suggestion, very much along the lines as Mr. Brzezinski, is that the agenda has to be broadened. I think we have to test Syria. I know Assad very well.

LEHRER: Test them in what way?

Mr. SISCO: I think we have to test them politically and diplomatically. I believe that Assad is very dependent on the Soviet Union. I'm not going to suggest that he's ready to turn his back on the Russians. I do not believe that he is a total hostage. I believe that Syria has legitimate security interests in the area, and therefore I would broaden the process with a U.S.-sponsored negotiation that focuses on, one, the withdrawal of extraneous forces from Lebanon; secondly --

LEHRER: That means the Syrians and the Israelis.

Mr. SISCO: And the Israelis. Secondly, the question of negotiations as they relate to the West Bank and the Gaza, as the Reagan plan called a year ago, as well as a negotiation without preconditions within the framework of Security Council Resolution 242 between the Syrians and the Israelis as it relates to the Golan Heights. Now, that doesn't mean I'm ready for the United States to adopt the position that we should push the Israelis off the Golan Heights, but I happen to believe that a territorial compromise between Jordan and Israel on the one hand and Syria and Israel on the other hand that serves the mutual security interests of both is still not to be precluded.

LEHRER: In the meantime, Mr. Sisco, what do we do about the Marines in Lebanon? Keep them there?

Mr. SISCO: Oh, I think we keep them there.

LEHRER: Do we add more to them?

Mr. SISCO: No, we do not augment. I don't think it's a question of size. It's a question of the maximum safeguards which can never be absolute in the situation to protect their own situation. But I would do one other thing. I made a third suggestion this morning. I would begin to try to develop complementary peacekeeping structures in Lebanon, two in number; one, I would begin to build on this observer group of Greece and Italy, perhaps bring in Saudi Arabia and the Scandinavians, largely because of the fact that they would be more generally politically acceptable to the spectrum of political opinion in Lebanon.

LEHRER: When Jim Webb says those Marines were killed because they were Americans, in other words, you're saying you agree?

Mr. SISCO: That's right. We have become, in a sense -- and I say this with deep regret, Jim -- part of the problem. We're visible politically; we're visible militarily. There are all sorts of people that would like to get us out. And therefore, if we can begin to develop a complementary peacekeeping structure plus continue to train the Lebanese army, then that might ultimately provide the basis for our disengagement, but in the context that we're helping a political process on reconciliation in Lebanon and the broader peace process in the

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Brzezinski, both of you are suggesting, in a sense, broadening the agenda, and in similar ways. In the months that that might take, won't the Marines continue to be the object of attacks for the reason that Eric Rouleau and the others said earlier, that they appeared to some Muslim factions to be siding and become partisans with the Gemayel government, particularly during the naval bombardment and the Druse warfare in the mountains?

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: What I would say in response might sound callous; it certainly isn't meant to be. The Marines are there to serve the American national interest; I think the Americans were there and were exposed to attacks, but the American policy in the region was moving on a wider front as advocated by me and by Joe Sisco, with whom I very much agree. Then at least that sacrifice, if it occurred occasionally, would have some meaning. I hope we could take additional security precautions to avoid a repetition of the tragedy that happened. But the tragedy that happened is compounded in its tragic dimensions by the fact that the Marines were not serving any visible national interest because they were not supporting any policy that is feasible or even spelled out.

MacNEIL: Mr. Sisco, do you agree that the Marines will continue to be vulnerable to these attacks because they're perceived by some factions -- however small and whoever backed by -- as defending and on the side of an unpopular government?

Mr. SISCO: Yes, I do, and in a sense it is almost inevitable in this kind of a situation. My own feeling is, however, that we can continue to play a political role even if you bring in the Europeans in the reconciliation talks between the Lebanese. Our principal influence is with the Christian element within Lebanon, and we will have to exercise that particular influence. So I'm not trying to suggest that we should disengage from the diplomacy. I have very much in mind, too, Robin, that we're talking about Lebanon and the Middle East. We've got a smoouldering stalemate in the Persian Gulf. Iran and Iraq can't seem to find an accommodation, and that could very well explode over the next year or two, and of course Western interests and U.S. interests are vitally involved in that situation.

MacNEIL: What would have to happen for the United States to be able to say the Marines had fulfilled their task and could come home, in your view?

Mr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, I suppose minimally putting Lebanon together again through some compromise. But I don't believe that can happen because I don't think Lebanon can be put together without some wider peace process, which in turn means initiating some larger endeavor, appointing a very senior negotiator -- I think Joe Sisco would be an excellent candidate; Sol Linowitz, Mac Bundy -- and the President would have to be involved himself in pursuing the Reagan plan as attentively and as energetically as Jimmy Carter was engaged in the Camp David process.

MacNEIL: Professor Brzezinski, Mr. Sisco, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: What next after yesterday for the U.S. in Lebanon dominated the attention of Congress today. In the House a bill is coming to stop funding for the Marines' presence in Lebanon. In the Senate there is a move to rescind the 18-month War Powers compromise on Lebanon passed last month. Other efforts are also being talked about by various members of Congress to take action in response to yesterday's tragedy. Those "what next?" possibilities are among the things Judy Woodruff is going to discuss now with two members of Congress who see the situation very differently. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, here with us are Senator Sam Nunn, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Gerald Solomon of New York, who is a Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Senator Nunn, do you agree with the President that the Marines must stay in Lebanon to protect America's vital interests?

Sen. SAM NUNN: I certainly do not believe we ought to precipitously withdraw them. The first task is to make sure we augment the force with sufficient additional Marines and other forces as necessary to fully protect the Marines on the ground there now. We all stand together on that. So that's number one. Number two, I would like to see Third World nations or U.N. forces augment our forces and begin to replace them. I think over the next several weeks we should begin that process. I do not -- I do not understand how the President can define this as being in our vital interest and in the same news conference state that he is not going to increase the forces there. This is the first time I've heard Lebanon as being defined in our vital interest. When you define vital interest you usually think in terms of being willing to commit all the necessary military force to secure that vital interest. So I'm a bit puzzled on that.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Solomon, can you shed any insight on that?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I think the President's absolutely right. The President can't govern through emotion; the Congress can't legislate through emotion. We have to look at this from a practical matter. The fact is, whether we like it or not, the Marines have to stay there. We do have a vital interest not just in Lebanon but in the entire Middle East. Ask yourself the question, why is not Russia a part of the peacekeeping multinational force? They are not. Why? Because they don't want peace. Who is their surrogate? Syria. Syria is the one that is destabilizing the whole area. So, yes, we have a very strong interest in the Middle East and in Lebanon itself.

WOODRUFF: Well, Senator Nunn, you're saying that we should find substitutes for our Marines. What if we cannot find a substitute? What if the Soviets, as we would expect them to, veto any move for the U.N. peacekeeping force?

Sen. NUNN: Well, our forces went in there as peacekeeping forces. If we are now defining Lebanon as part of our vital interest, it seems to me that's totally inconsistent with continuing to say they're peacekeeping forces. Israel is in our vital interest. We've defined that. The Persian Gulf is in our vital interest. But Lebanon has never been defined that way. So I think the rules are changing, and it seems to me, first of all, we'd like U.N. forces. If they are not forthcoming, then Third World countries. If they are not forthcoming, then the Lebanese army.

WOODRUFF: In other words, you're saying if we can't find a substitute, we should get out regardless?

Sen. NUNN: No, I'm saying we need to phase our way out. We have commitments to the other nations that are there; we have commitments in Lebanon. We cannot move precipitously or unilaterally, but I am saying that long term presence in Lebanon by U.S. forces, in my view, in an untenable military position is not consistent with our vital interests elsewhere in the world, including the Persian Gulf. We are too -- we're spread too thin around the world, and it is my view that we are now jeopardizing interests elsewhere by that kind of stretched-out military position.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Solomon, that makes sense, doesn't it?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, the truth of the matter is that, in spite of this recent incident, which is deplorable, the multinational force's presence in Lebanon has brought about progress. I think that's why this concerted effort was made against the French and the U.S. forces in the bombings, because they know that the talks in Geneva are about to start. And that is a step in the right direction. What we want is peace in the area and to pull those troops out now, either ourselves or the other countries, would be completely counterproductive to any future peace in that area.

WOODRUFF: Well, at what cost do they remain? I mean, we have now lost more -- 183 lives. What price do we pay?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I think what you've got to look at is the overall picture.I'm a former Marine. Certainly I don't want to see any more American lives left. But the future of this country is at stake. Our national security, our economy. We can't afford to have the oil shut off from this country. Do we turn off our furnaces for every other day? Do we shut down industry every other day? The whole world's future is at stake in the Middle East, and we have -- if it means putting American troops in there, then we have to do it for the time being.

WOODRUFF: Well, Senator Nunn, if the world's future is at stake then don't we have some role in that region?

Sen. NUNN: I'm afraid we aren't studying the map very carefully. Lebanon is a long way from the oil. Lebanon is a long way from the Persian Gulf. We have Iran and Iraq between Lebanon and the Persian Gulf. That's why I'm confused about the President's definition of its being in our vital interest.Certainly it's important to us. Certainly we have diplomatic goals in Lebanon, and certainly we want to pursue them. But I do not see how we can expect 1,400, 1,500 Marines to carry out the mission impossible that has been assigned to them. If the President wants to redefine the mission, declare this in our vital interest and send enough forces in there to really take over Lebanon, then that's another question altogether. But he is refuting that kind of action at the same time he's declaring it in our vital interest. So I'm confused, and I think we need a much clearer explanation.

WOODRUFF: Well, Congressman Solomon, would you support that kind of beefing up of our forces?

Rep. SOLOMON: I don't think it's necessary. I think the fact that we have our present forces there is satisfactory for the time being. The time might come when we might need to. In conjunction with the other multinational countries, such as France and Italy and Great Britain. But presently, if our presence is felt there it is making progress. And that's what we are looking forward to. I think those talks are going to be successful.

WOODRUFF: Well, the two of you don't see eye to eye on this, obviously. Where is the consensus, or is there a consensus in the Congress, either one of you?

Sen. NUNN: There is really no consensus, I don't believe. I think the Congress asserted, rightfully, its powers under the War Powers Act, but I think by defining a precise time, 18 months, is to misconstrue the congressional role. We should have been debating mission, not time. If we could get the President to say what the military mission is as opposed to the diplomatic mission, then we could begin to build a consensus.

WOODRUFF: You feel that he has stated the military mission, is that correct?

Rep. SOLOMON: I feel he has, but I also agree with Senator Nunn that we never should have passed a resolution setting a time period of 18 months. I think that was counterproductive.

WOODRUFF: Well, what is the Congress to do now? That resolution has been passed. The President's signed it.

Sen. NUNN: Well, I voted against it, and I think Congress needs to re-examine the issue, but the thing that Congress needs to do is to realize its role under the War Powers Act is to make sure the President of the United States as commander-in-chief explains what our forces are doing, what they're attempting to do, to the American people. We are supposed to pin the President down on that; we are supposed to know what success is. I've not been able to get anyone in this administration to tell me under what conditions we would declare ourselves successful and move out of Lebanon. If you can't do that it seems to me you should not really be there.

WOODRUFF: Can you help answer his question?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I disagree with the War Powers Act in the first place.I think it's unconstitutional; I think it'll be found so. But the last thing we need is 535 members of Congress running around pretending that they are secretaries of state.

WOODRUFF: But what about the point Senator Nunn was making that the administration hasn't said what the mission of these Marires is?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I think the administration has. I think that some of us don't want to listen to that, but the truth of the matter is it is an East-West confrontation. If we let the Gemayel government fall, it means that the Russian influence throughout the entire Mideast is going to expand, and even though Lebanon has Iran and Iraq between it and the oil fields, it's still a critical area. We cannot afford to see that area fall to Russian influence.

WOODRUFF: Is that what -- does that concern you, Senator?

Sen. NUNN: I don't want it to fall to Soviet influence, but if that is the case, if we're there to protect the Gemayel government, if it is in our vital interest, then we better re-examine the number of troops we have there. We better be ready to put in an awful lot of forces.

WOODRUFF: Weould you support that if that's what the administration asked for?

Sen. NUNN: I would think it would be unwise unless we had other countries that were willing to give us greater assistance, including Israel. Israel is the only country there that has the military power to be able to carry out the tasks that the President has defined of pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon. If you're not willing to do that, then why keep people there who are in an untenable military position and being killed every day.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you both, Congressman Solomon, Senator Nunn. Robin?

MacNEIL: In other news, on the Caribbean island of Grenada the 24-hour curfew was relaxed to an overnight curfew, and on the neighboring island of Barbados about 50 Marines in combat gear arrived by plane and left at once by helicopter. The American Embassy said they might be used to evacuate Americans from Grenada.A task force of American warships with 2,000 Marines aboard is headed for the island to evacuate Americans if necessary.

The body of Jessica Savitch, an anchor for NBC News and the public television series Frontline, was recovered today from the Delaware Canal at New Hope, Pennyslvania. She and a companion, Martin Fishbein, an executive of the New York Post, died when their car fell into the canal. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, on the Marines' tragedy in Lebanon. Over the next few days there will be many stories about mothers and fathers and wives and children. Some will be in tears, others will be angry. Many will be both as we share their grief through news stories on television and elsewhere. UPI moved the first of those stories late this afternoon. Mrs. Silas Kimm was notified at her home in Atlantic, Iowa, that her son Edward, a 33-year-old Marine gunnery sergeant, was among yesterday's dead. For Mrs. Kimm the tragedy was particularly awful. Ten years ago she had received the same word with the same "we regret to inform you" preamble. That was when another son had been killed in Vietnam. Robin?

MacNEIL: As we said at the beginning, the toll in the explosion at the Marine headquarters now stands at 191 dead and 75 wounded. All day Marine officers and Navy chaplains have been making those personal calls to break the news to the families of those killed. The names are not released until those calls have been made. So far 12 of those killed have been identified publicly. We close tonight with their names. MARINES

B. Sanpedro, Hialeah, Florida

D.L. Battle, Hubert, North Carolina

M.E. Camara, Jacksonville, North Carolina

L.D. Trahan, Lafayette, Louisiana

B. Mercer, Vail, North Carolina

J.J. Langon, Lakehurst, New Jersey

R.A. Relvas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

T. Dibenedetto, Mansfield Center, Connecticut

J.B. Owen, Virginia Beach, Virginia

E. Kimm, Atlantic, Iowa

J.R. Cain, Birmingham, Alabama

B.L. Earle, Painesville, Ohio

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.