This Is Why General Heikal Will Keep the Army Rooted in Its National Identity
By Latifa Al-Housseini
All eyes are on the Lebanese Army and its leadership today. Hopes and expectations are pinned on its role at one of the most sensitive junctures Lebanon has faced since the civil war, after the Cabinet decided to place it at the forefront of implementing measures to control weapons—especially those belonging to the resistance. While external pressure on the official authorities is at an all-time high, the situation within the military institution appears, for now, to be under control.
The signals emerging from Yarzeh raise no cause for concern. In his public statements, Army Commander General Rudolf Heikal has been careful not to provoke any of the country’s major political forces. He conveyed this same message to Speaker Nabih Berri during their August 12 meeting, which took place immediately after Heikal’s return from an official mission to Britain.
General Heikal, who was absent from the government’s much-discussed August 5 session due to his travels, also went to the Grand Serail, where he met with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on August 15 to discuss the developments and the new responsibilities assigned to the military institution.
The Army’s leadership is maintaining strict media silence at this stage—a mode of conduct that has characterized it from the beginning. Only what is necessary is announced, and then solely through clear and firm statements. As for the public, General Heikal’s style remains somewhat unfamiliar; after all, it has only been a few months since his appointment, on March 13, 2025.
From here, one of General Heikal’s companions—who had previously served with him in the Commando Regiment and knew him closely for many years—reassures that the Army Commander demonstrates great transparency in his work and performance. He always strives to make his unit the best, whether at the level of a company or a battalion. He strictly follows orders and never hesitated to carry out any task entrusted to him before his appointment as Commander of the institution.
According to this seasoned soldier and comrade-in-arms, building on the national dimension in General Heikal’s character is both effective and entirely sound. When he assumed responsibility for leading the South Litani Sector, he succeeded in weaving strong ties with the region’s residents, political parties, municipalities and social figures, while maintaining full communication with its political leaderships—Hezbollah and the Amal Movement—in order to facilitate operations. This was especially significant given that he did not have combat troops directly under his command in that sector but rather oversaw a formation known as the South Litani Sector, where his contact was more frequent with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon [UNIFIL].
The military companion recalls that General Heikal was among those who endured the ordeal of the army’s division during the civil war, when brigades split between the eastern and western regions. It can be said that he was deeply influenced by the doctrine established and reinforced by former Army Commander General Emile Lahoud during his tenure—particularly the integration of brigades to reflect the country’s true national composition, meaning a mix of sects within brigades and battalions. More importantly, he was shaped by the combat doctrine that General Lahoud introduced in the 1990s for the first time in the history of the Lebanese state, when he enshrined hostility toward “Israel” as a fundamental principle in the army’s unified manual. Unlike the earlier period—when reference was made simply to the “Zionist army” as the enemy—Lahoud’s doctrine explicitly named “the ‘Israeli’ enemy”, a designation that has since become a permanent approach applied across all operational orders, missions, trainings, and official statements of the army.
The internalization of this doctrine was clearly evident in General Heikal’s speeches, particularly in the approach he presented during the Cabinet session on April 17, when he spoke in detailed and precise terms about the enemy’s violations and the security measures taken following arrangements related to the cessation of hostilities. At that time, he noted the cooperation of the forces present on the ground with him, as well as the residents, explicitly naming Hezbollah and all the parties with political presence in the villages south of the river. In this briefing, General Heikal did not alter the designation of the “Israeli” enemy, remaining consistent in its use—something that provoked the discontent of certain ministers known for their conciliatory stances toward the Zionists. He also upheld this terminology in a meeting with US envoy Morgan Ortagus.
Accordingly, General Lahoud’s experience had restored cohesion and unity to the army after the devastating ordeal it endured during Lebanon’s internal war and bloody conflicts of the 1970s and 1980s. In the assessment of his comrade-in-arms, General Heikal will not compromise on this deeply rooted national principle. Based on his ethics, principles, and military commitment, he does not accept placing the institution in confrontation with any component of the country, as he is among those who advocate protecting the army from looming dangers.
Our interlocutor believes that General Heikal will, in accordance with the law, abide by the decisions of the political authority, while retaining a margin of maneuver in his capacity as head of the military institution. Thus, he may pursue a scenario whereby he responds to the government by stating that it is the political leadership’s responsibility to define the objective—since that task falls within its mandate—while execution rests with the institution, contingent on the resources available to it, including in the South. All prevailing sentiment in Yarzeh affirms and settles the matter: the army will not clash with the people, nor with any sect.
