Critics of the current deployment strategy express deep skepticism regarding the Lebanese army's ability to act as an independent force in the south. The primary concern is that the military remains deeply intertwined with the country's fractured political system, which could prevent it from taking decisive action against entrenched interests. Skeptics argue that without a fundamental shift in the political balance of power, the army may simply act as a symbolic presence rather than a functional security force.
There is also the risk of the military becoming a target. By moving into zones that have been dominated by other groups for decades, the army faces the danger of being drawn into local skirmishes or being forced to choose sides in internal disputes. This could lead to a loss of public trust if the military is perceived as being unable to protect the population or if it is seen as serving the interests of one political faction over another. The financial strain on the military, which is already operating on a shoestring budget, further complicates the feasibility of this mission.
Furthermore, some analysts warn that relying on the army to solve what is essentially a political problem is a mistake. They argue that unless there is a broader national consensus on the role of the state and the disarmament of non-state groups, the military will be set up for failure. The danger is that this deployment could create a false sense of security that masks the underlying issues, ultimately leading to a more volatile situation if the army is forced to retreat or is overwhelmed.
Accountability remains a major issue as well. Without clear rules of engagement and transparent oversight, there is a fear that the deployment could lead to human rights concerns or further alienation of local communities. Critics urge the government to prioritize political dialogue and institutional reform alongside the military rollout to ensure that the security strategy is actually sustainable.