When the gunmen of the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS) recently left the Lebanese district of Arsal, the Lebanese congratulated themselves. Their army, they thought, had achieved a commendable victory. Evicting hardened fighters from a strategic area, covering as much as four per cent of the country's territory, had been no mean accomplishment. But the picture that has emerged since is more complex than was initially thought and the initial elation has given way to a sense of foreboding. Lebanese Interior Minister Nehad Al-Mashnuq, a member of the Future Current, has not hidden his concern. Although he is known for his support of the uprising in neighbouring Syria, he now says that the militants who fought in Syria pose an imminent threat to Lebanon. The situation is not an easy one, partly because politics are mixed up with humanitarian considerations. Arsal, originally home to 35,000 Lebanese, is now a refugee camp for more than 120,000 Syrian refugees. Reports from Arsal indicate that gunmen are still in the town and have been “arresting” people suspected of collaboration with Lebanon's security services. As is the case in many Arab countries, the truth often comes laced with political prejudice and one-upmanship. But even setting sectarian prejudices aside, it is clear that the situation in Arsal involves more than a straightforward showdown between a country's army and foreign militants. The quick retreat of the Al-Nusra Front and IS fighters from Arsal was partly due to differences between the two armed groups. While the former is still focused on fighting the Syrian regime and Hezbollah, IS has been setting its sights higher and is prepared to fight anyone who challenges their goals. It has also on occasion fought against Al-Nusra. The differences between the two groups accelerated their withdrawal, as their goals clash as much with each other as they do with those poised to challenge them. When the subject of the abducted Lebanese servicemen came up in talks preceding the withdrawal, Al-Nusra immediately released five of them while IS threatened to cut their throats. There is also the military aspect of the situation, which features guerrilla fighters, fresh from the battlefield and heavily armed, caught between the Syrian and Lebanese armies and camping out in inhospitable terrain. If pushed too hard, the gunmen are likely to fight back with ferocity, but if left alone to secure supplies from IS they may pose an even greater threat. Facing them on the Lebanese side is an army that has almost no air power, is limited in its troop numbers, and generally under-equipped. More effective regular armies, the Israeli and Syrian among them, have had trouble containing determined militants. The chances of the Lebanese army doing so are slim. Many Lebanese army recruits are from the impoverished and predominantly Sunni area of Akkar, which adds another layer to any possible confrontation. Worried communities in various parts of Lebanon are on the verge of carrying arms for their own protection. Once the guns proliferate, other parts of the country may not be safe. According to recent estimates, 1.5 million poor and marginalised Syrians have now taken refuge in Lebanon. It will not be too difficult for an armed movement of any sectarian or political affiliation to lure the younger members of this community to its cause. As the nightmare of IS casts its shadow over Lebanon, politicians and community leaders continue to weigh their options. Much of the initial optimism seems to have evaporated.
