A statement issued in the name of the “National Officers” sparked a state of confusion in political and media circles, after it addressed the role of the Lebanese Army in light of recent developments, which pushed the issue to even reach the Council of Ministers session in the government palace, amid questions about the party behind this statement and the goals behind it.
During the Cabinet session, the Prime Minister touched on the circulated statement, stressing the need to pursue this file judicially to uncover its circumstances and the parties behind it.
In this context, the Directorate of Guidance at the Army Command issued an explanatory statement in which it confirmed that there is absolutely no truth to what was contained in the news about army officers, stressing that members of the military institution are committed to loyalty to the institution and the nation only. The leadership also clarified that the aforementioned statement has nothing to do with the army, neither closely nor remotely.
The circulated statement spoke on behalf of what he called “national officers,” considering that the army was not created to be a party to an internal conflict between the people of one nation, and that its combat doctrine is based on protecting the homeland, defending its land and people, and preserving civil peace and the unity of the state. The statement also warned against placing the army facing “national forces confronting external aggression,” considering that such a matter may constitute a dangerous precedent that may affect the cohesion of the military institution and national stability.
Commenting on the controversy raised by the statement, retired Brigadier General Shamil Roukoz, President of the Armed Forces Veterans Association, confirmed in an interview with “Lebanon Debate” that the statement issued by the Association two days ago represents the Association’s official opinion.
Roukoz stressed that the circulating statement does not affect the unity of the official army and does not threaten its stability, stressing that the army, with all its units, officers, and members, continues to perform its national duties away from any division or political bidding, expressing that the statement may be a response to the campaign to which the army is being exposed, or an attempt to put it, according to their statement, in the face of a Lebanese component.
He also clarified that there is no official entity within the army bearing the name “National Officers,” pointing out that any statements are issued exclusively by the association, stressing that the Lebanese army remains the guarantor of civil peace and stability in the country, considering that any positions issued by retired officers cannot affect the military or security reality.
For his part, retired Brigadier General Bassam Yassin confirmed to “Lebanon Debate” that there is no official gathering within the Lebanese army bearing the name “National Officers,” whether among active or retired officers.
Yassin explained that every officer in the army, whether serving or retired, is of course a “national officer,” noting that if there had been any gathering of this kind, it would have been known and announced within the military frameworks.
He considered that the circulating statement appears to be fabricated in terms of the way it was worded, pointing out that the army is a disciplined institution with a clear structure, and there is no such thing as a “national officer” or a group bearing this name within its official structure.
He added that any gatherings or meetings between retired officers remain individual initiatives that do not represent the army or its current leadership, and do not establish any official activity within the military institution.
Yassin concluded by stressing that the unity of the Lebanese Army is cohesive, and that there are no entities or designations of this kind that could affect its stability or its national role in protecting the country.
