Battle: For most of the last 18 years, this embassy offered no visa services. For the last five or six years, we offered very limited visa services to some students or emergency cases or to some business people.
In May of this year, we reopened full, non-immigrant visa services. And we've been interviewing hundreds of people every week. Prior to that the bulk of Lebanese seeking non-immigrant visas had to go either to Damascus or to Nicosia. This was an important step forward. It's a signal of our commitment to be here and to work with the government of Lebanon. It was a very popular move. Visa services are often the face of an embassy in a country, and the Lebanese are a traveling people, so they've cottoned on to the positive nature of this move.
We do not yet do immigrant visa services here. Immigrant visa services over the past decade have been increasingly centralized in Damascus. We have not given up on the hope of getting immigrant visa services back to Beirut, but we're not there yet. So for Lebanese hoping to immigrate to the United States, there's still the option of Damascus.
reason: One claim that you hear frequently in Lebanon is that the United States is happy with Syria's heavy presence in Lebanon, because it keeps Lebanon quiet. Almost as frequently, Lebanese claim that the U.S. is content with Hezbullah's de facto control of southern Lebanon, because Hezbullah is an effective guarantor of Israel's border against Palestinian attacks.
Battle: What you also hear a lot is that U.S. policy supports the territorial integrity and the independence of Lebanon, and that is a serious statement of U.S. policy. One of the elements of the Taif agreement, which effectively ushered in the postwar era in Lebanon, is a call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. Clearly the Syrians have moved toward a withdrawal of their forces. Certainly in the two and a half years I've been here as ambassador, the number of Syrian troops in Lebanon has been diminishing significantly; in many parts of the country the troops have disappeared.
Part of our dialogue with the government of Lebanon is the issue of the continuing presence of Syrian troops; we hear from the Lebanese their rationale for why the Syrians need to stay in certain places. They really have to work out their relationship with Syria. We continue to support the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. One of our strong policy elements is the expansion of the authority of the Lebanese state to all parts of Lebanon, including the south. We believe that's a commitment made by the Lebanese under Security Council Resolution 520. We have called for an expansion of Lebanese forces to the border. It is our view that the Lebanese armed forces are the institutions that are responsible for the security of Lebanon's international borders. You know very well the U.S. view of Hezbullah; I don't need to repeat it here. We believe the relevant authority for securing the border is the Lebanese state.
reason: So why not take a stronger stand against the Syrian occupation? I have to admit it gives me pause when people say, "Hey, if the U.S. really wanted the Syrians out they'd be gone in a week."
Battle: People like to imagine that there's omnipotence on every subject in every place. I think the reality of international relations is much more complex.
reason: There's a widespread impression in the U.S. of a philosophical split between the State Department and the Defense Department, where State is generally comfortable with the current lineup of regimes in the Middle East and Defense has a sort of missionary zeal to change regimes and spread democracy. You've been at the State Department throughout your career. What do you make of that?
Battle: I think I'll leave that comment to the people who are in Washington. I haven't been in Washington for two and a half years, so I'm not really in position to comment on that.
reason: How about another impression, popular both here and in the U.S., that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and that regardless of the situation, the mission itself is breeding hatred of the United States throughout the Muslim world?
Battle: I'm not really in the best place to respond to issues on Iraq. One of the problems that we confront is very rudimentary communications with Iraq. So we, like others, are dependent on the news media for our information about Iraq. And as I said before, the news media, in its selection of stories or headlines or photographs, is trying to put forward a specific point of view. What we're hearing from Americans and Iraqis working with the Coalition and the Governing Council is that a great deal is going right in Iraq. Social services, schools, universities, courts, transportation systems and so forth are in fact getting better. The infrastructure was in a state of absolute shambles not because of the war but because of 20 years of neglect and lack of investment. We hear that in areas of Iraq life has a significant degree of normalcy. What we see in the press is a focus on the security issue, and clearly, anybody looking at the casualty figures, both American and Iraqi, would not minimize the security situation, which is extremely difficult.
There are those who are already oriented to being anti-American and will use anything they can to fuel the fire of their anti-Americanism. So some people will view the work of the Coalition Provisional Authority in that negative fashion. I think what has to happen here is that the Arabs and the Muslim world need to recognize what's going on here: With all its warts and its difficulties, this is an effort by the Iraqi people to achieve a national aspiration that has been blocked, forbidden to them for decades. And forbidden in the most brutal way. So is it easy, is it instant success, is it unilinear success? None of the above. But does it represent a hope of the Iraqi people for a life different and better than what existed under the former regime? I think the answer is yes.
reason: As you said, the U.S. position on Hezbullah is well known. But here it is a political party with representation in the parliament. What does that mean for your dealings with this organization?
Battle: We see this as a terrorist organization with a unitary command structure. Hezbullah is and has been for a very long time on our list of terrorist organizations. Hezbullah itself doesn't see a split in its command structure.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.