WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 1983 (UPI) -- Excerpts from President Reagan's statement and answers to questions at a meeting with a group of journalists Monday at the White House: Yesterday's acts of terrorism in Beirut that killed so many young American and French servicemen were a horrifying reminder of the type of enemy we face in many critical areas of the world today -- vicious, cowardly and ruthless.
Many Americans are wondering why we must keep our forces in Lebanon. Well, the reason they must stay there until the situation is under control is quite clear: We have vital interests in Lebanon and our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace.
With our allies England, France and Italy, we're part of a multinational peace-keeping force seeking a withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and from the Beirut area and a new Lebanese government undertakes to restore sovereignty throughout that country.
We must not allow international criminals and thugs such as these to undermine the peace in Lebanon. ... We cannot pick and choose where we will support freedom. We can only determine how. If it's lost in one place, all of us lose. ... The United States will not be intimidated by terrorists.
We have strong circumstantial evidence linking the perpetrators of this latest atrocity to others that have occurred against us in the recent past including the bombing of our embassy in Beirut last April. Every effort will be made to find the criminals responsible for this act of terrorism so this dispicable act will not go unpunished.
On the source of Lebanon's troubles:
The tragedy is coming not really from the warring forces. It is coming from little bands of individuals, literally criminal-minded, who now see in the disorder that's going on an opportunity to do what they want to do.
On U.S. options in Lebanon:
The option that we cannot consider is withdrawing while their (the Marines') mission still remains, and they do have a mission, contrary to what some people have intimated in the last 24 hours or so.
On helping the Lebanese army:
We have helped very definitely with the training of the Lebanese army and they proved the quality of that training recently in the fighting in the hills. ... We think that they don't have the size yet to where they could take over ... the policing of that area and at the airport, and still have enough manpower to go out and restore order as they're supposed to. So that mission remains.
The American mission:
I wish it could be without hazard. But the alternative is ... it would be a disaster if a force took over the Middle East. And a force is ready to do that, as witness what has taken place in Yemen, in Ethiopia, and now the forces, some several thousand, that are there in Syria. The free world cannot stand by and see that happen.
On adopting a more aggressive defense:
We would then be engaged in the combat. We would be the combat force. We would be fighting against Arab states. And that is not the road to peace. ... Enlarging the forces, if it would help with the mission they're performing, would be one thing. But to join into the combat and become a part of the combative force, actually all we would really be doing would be increasing the number of targets and risking really the start of overall conflict and world war.
On the size of the U.S. force:
If (enlarging the forces) were recommended on the basis that their mission could be furthered by some difference in the size of the mission, I would certainly take seriously the recommendation of the man (who is) the commandant of the entire Marine Corps.
