Proponents of the Lebanese army's deployment argue that this is the most viable path toward reclaiming national sovereignty. By placing the military in the south, the state is finally asserting its right to control its own territory, which is a fundamental requirement for any functioning nation. Supporters emphasize that a professional, state-led military is the only entity capable of providing long-term security for civilians who have been caught in the crossfire of regional power struggles.
From a diplomatic standpoint, this deployment is seen as a necessary fulfillment of international obligations. By demonstrating a commitment to securing the border, the Lebanese government is signaling to the international community that it is a reliable partner. This, in turn, makes it easier for foreign allies to justify providing the financial and material aid that the Lebanese military desperately needs to modernize its equipment and improve its operational readiness.
Furthermore, the presence of the national army serves as a stabilizing force that can help facilitate the return of displaced families. When the state is visible and active, it provides a sense of legitimacy that non-state actors cannot replicate. Supporters believe that if the international community continues to back the army, the military will be able to effectively manage the border and prevent the region from being used as a staging ground for future conflicts.
Ultimately, this move is about building a future where the Lebanese state, rather than outside factions, determines the security policy of the country. While the process is difficult, the long-term benefits of a unified, state-controlled security apparatus are considered essential for the country's economic recovery and political stability.