Paris Conference: the army facing difficult choices (3/3)

A few weeks before the international Paris Conference scheduled for March 2026, whose goal is to mobilize international support for the Lebanese army, the army's commander-in-chief finds himself at a critical strategic turning point. In a Lebanon beset by political and regional uncertainties, every decision made on the ground or within the general staff can have repercussions far beyond its borders and influence not only the survival of the military institution, but also the international perception of its role as a national stabilizer.

According to General Maroun Hitti, the army does not only face external and internal threats: it is subjected to cumulative pressure, where multiple mandates, ambiguous political decisions, and popular expectations combine to test its endurance, cohesion, and credibility. The stakes are twofold: maintaining its credibility in a volatile internal context and convincing the international community that the army remains an indispensable pillar of Lebanon's stability.

Strategic Stretch and Multiple Fronts

General Maroun Hitti highlights the army's « strategic and operational stretch ». Today, it is called upon to monitor the southern sectors of Lebanon, control borders, ensure internal security, fight terrorism, and implicitly or explicitly limit Hezbollah's actions, all while anticipating a potential confrontation with Syrian forces hostile to the Shiite party.

This « stretch » reflects a deep tension: having to manage actors with contradictory strategies without a political clear and unanimous mandate or adequate means. The consequence, if this risk is not controlled, could be the dilution of missions, the exhaustion of forces, and the weakening of the army's image; a scenario that would compromise the troop's credibility in the eyes of international donors called to meet in Paris.

For General Hitti, the solution involves three axes: a clear and unanimous mandate from the Council of Ministers, the determination of strict mission priorities, and an alignment of international support with essential priorities.

When the Army Becomes a Substitute

The army also faces the risk of political instrumentalization. Too often, it has been used as a substitute for unmade decisions concerning national sovereignty, the management of weapons outside state control, or defense policy. This ambiguous role directly threatens institutional neutrality, weakens internal cohesion, and can erode public trust.

In the context of the Paris Conference, this risk takes on an additional dimension: the institution must demonstrate to international partners that its actions are professional, neutral, and effective, and not a reflection of internal political stakes. Clear strategic communication thus becomes an imperative to avoid any misinterpretation of its role.

Impossible Choices

External risks remain present. Limited Israeli strikes could escalate into open confrontation, forcing the army to react precipitously. The feared scenario is one where the army becomes a scapegoat if the Israeli army fails to achieve rapid results against Hezbollah. The example of 2006 remains vivid in people's minds: 43 soldiers died in a war not desired by the Lebanese people.

But beyond direct threats, the army must face an invisible but formidable degradation, fueled by regional and international pressure. The escalation involving Hezbollah and Iran constitutes a potentially explosive factor. Any regional conflict could spill over and draw Hezbollah into an existential confrontation, destabilizing the internal political balance and forcing the army into impossible choices: remaining neutral while protecting the territory, or intervening in a scenario where its legitimacy and security would be compromised. This escalation is not only military: it is political and psychological, with the risk of fragmenting the institution if strategic decisions lack clarity.

In parallel, the army must contend with a potential fatigue of international donors, which would directly threaten its operational capabilities. A reduction or suspension of support could affect the maintenance of equipment in operational condition, infrastructure, and training, generating critical failures in protection and mobility, and contributing to a moral degradation among the troops. In this context, holding the Paris conference is a key factor: it is not only an opportunity to strengthen material support, but it also represents a test of political and strategic trust.

An Army Under Internal Pressure

In addition to these external threats, the army faces other pressures inherited since its inception:

• Excessive centralization of command, which slows down decision-making in crisis situations.

• Overload of responsibilities in internal security, particularly in the face of social and economic tensions.

• Insufficient intelligence and equipment, which limit the responsiveness and security of forces.

• Loss of control over the public narrative, which exposes the institution to internal and international criticism.

All these cumulative pressures can prove more dangerous than a classic military defeat, as they erode the cohesion, discipline, and credibility of the army even before a conflict arises.

Preserve the Army Before Fighting

For General Hitti, the army's survival today depends less on a victory on the battlefield than on its ability to resist institutional and political wear and tear. The commander-in-chief must anticipate crises, protect the cohesion of his troops, maintain the morale and credibility of the institution, while refusing unfunded or politically ambiguous mandates. Every decision, plan, or communication thus becomes a strategic lever, crucial for convincing international partners of the institution's effectiveness and reliability.

Between 2026 and 2030, the challenge for the Lebanese army will not only be to defeat an adversary, but to preserve the institution itself. Three conditions are essential:

1. Total political clarity with a unanimously decided mandate, a sine qua non condition for action.

2. A definition of mission priorities to avoid strategic and operational « stretch ».

3. Well-defined strategic communication to control the narrative both internally and externally.

Without these conditions, the army risks losing its role as a national stabilizer and seeing its unity and credibility erode under the weight of institutional wear and tear and political ambiguity — a risk that the Paris 2026 conference will have to consider.

An Existential Challenge

It thus follows from the foregoing that the analysis of the army commander's dilemmas highlights an essential reality: the most serious threat is not a military defeat, but the gradual erosion of the institution. Every conflict, every incident, or political pressure acts like a small « earthquake », revealing deep fissures that threaten the cohesion and credibility of the military institution.

Between extended missions without clear mandates, political instrumentalization, risks of regional escalation, and the weariness of international donors, the army is condemned to permanent strategic gymnastics: maintaining its neutrality while remaining ready, preserving unity while anticipating possible fractures, convincing the public and international partners while managing internal pressures. This complexity far exceeds the classic framework of conventional warfare: it is an institutional and existential challenge.

The Paris 2026 conference embodies a decisive moment. It is both an opportunity and a test. International confidence rests on the perception that the institution can master its missions without becoming an instrument of internal political fractures or regional maneuvers. This is one of the major challenges its leader will have to face. To achieve this, he must be given every chance of success.

Between 2026 and 2030, the Lebanese army will not only have to defend the national territory: it will have to defend its very raison d'être. Its survival and its role as a stabilizer depend on clear political choices, institutional discipline, and a strategic vision — parameters that only a resolute leadership and unanimous support, both internal and international, can guarantee. In this context, the Paris conference will not be a simple diplomatic meeting; it will reveal Lebanon's ability to maintain its last pillar of stability in the face of uncertainty and multidimensional crises.