Remarks by Lebanese Army Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal on the military’s role and national policy have sparked a political dispute over the army’s authority, its relationship with the government and who has the right to define patriotism.
Addressing troops, Haykal declared: “The army’s policy is the national policy, and anyone who does not agree with it is on the other side.”
He added: “Anyone who speaks ill of their country’s army is not suited to Lebanon and has no right to be here.”
The comments drew criticism from lawmakers who accused Haykal of overstepping his authority, while supporters defended the military as a pillar of stability and national unity that should remain above political disputes.
Lawmakers Challenge Army Chief
The controversy comes amid accusations that the army leadership has been slow to implement government decisions to place Hezbollah’s weapons under state control.
Supporters of the military command argue that its cautious approach is intended to preserve civil peace and prevent political divisions from undermining the army’s unity.
MP Waddah Sadek questioned whether Lebanon was now “under military rule” in which the army determined who was patriotic.
“Is the Taif Agreement no longer in force? Has the government’s collective authority to determine national policy been taken away?” he asked, calling the situation “extremely dangerous.”
MP Michel Douaihy stressed that Lebanese citizens had both the right and the duty to scrutinize state institutions, including the army, without anyone monopolizing the definition of patriotism or questioning their national allegiance.
Fellow lawmaker Mark Daou insisted that national policy was determined by the president and government and approved by parliament.
“It is not for you to decide what constitutes national policy or who supports or opposes it,” he told Haykal.
“In a democratic state, your duty is to protect all political viewpoints, remain politically neutral and focus on security, where the results so far have been very limited, if not a failure.”
Supporters Defend Haykal
Free Patriotic Movement MP Jimmy Jabbour described Haykal’s remarks as “self-defense” against a sustained political campaign targeting the military through press reports and leaks.
Jabbour told Asharq Al-Awsat that some politicians sought to exploit state institutions for their own interests and were prepared to push the army into confrontation, even at the risk of civil war.
“Those who have no objection to that will have no problem attacking the commander,” he argued, accusing the army’s critics of undermining the sovereignty they claim to defend and seeking to tie Lebanon to Israel.
Hezbollah and Amal Movement lawmakers also defended Haykal.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah described the “resistance and the Lebanese Army” as Lebanon’s two pillars of strength and cohesion, essential to liberating territory and protecting the country.
He accused critics of waging a campaign against both institutions to revive plans for sectarian mini-states, which he portrayed as serving an Israeli project to fragment the region.
Fadlallah warned against undermining civil peace and internal unity, arguing that the army was being targeted precisely because it was carrying out its national duty.
Amal MP Qabalan Qabalan thanked Haykal for steering the national debate “in the right direction,” saying his remarks had reassured Lebanese citizens worried about the country’s future.
“Despite all the difficult circumstances, hope remains in the national army to protect the country and its people, safeguard sovereignty and defend our land and national dignity. The army remains the guarantor,” he maintained.
Legal Expert: Army Must Follow Government Policy
Constitutional expert Dr. Said Malek emphasized that the army commander is appointed by Cabinet decree on the defense minister’s recommendation under Article 19 of Legislative Decree 102/83, Lebanon’s National Defense Law.
As a public official, the commander is subject to the Cabinet’s authority and must abide by government policy, Malek told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“The Cabinet alone has the authority to set general policy in all areas, including political, foreign, domestic, security and military affairs,” he explained.
Any departure from government policy would constitute a violation carrying legal consequences, he warned.
“The army commander cannot establish a separate policy for the military. Its policy must follow that of the government, without independent interpretation.”
