"We remember Vietnam" Until recently the slogan was heard from protest groups with varying degrees of intensity on college campuses and by other marching in many American cities. Their voices have been quiet in recent weeks, distracted by tragic events taking place in other regions of the world America's involvement in EI Salvador and other Central American nations torn by strife and the political philosophies of East and West, set off alarms from coast to coast that the United States, under the Reagan Administration, was about to step into another bloody quagmire.

Just at the time when the old anti-Vietnam Wat coalitions were being rejuvenated another war came along that stole the headlines, dominated the evening news and captured out attention. This one in Lebanon, the country that has been called a killing ground.

There are less than 40 American soldiers in EI Salvador. They are non-combat troops serving as military instructors for the EI Salvadoran army. Not a man has fired a pistol in battle, no causalities have been taken, and our involvement there, at least in manpower, appears to be as large as it's going to get. We have 1200 U.S. Marines in Lebanon Nearly forty of them have been wounded. Four have been killed. They have been ordered by the President to fire in response to attack. The admirals and captains commanding the ships that make up the American Sixth Fleet have been give the go ahead to protect American forces, the forces of the General government and those of Italy and France, who along with the United States, make up the international peace keeping force.

It's all very odd. Little has been heard from traditional protest groups concerned with war and peace. Perhaps the situation is completely different. In Central America we have had a long and at best a muddied history. Perhaps we protest for those to the South because we Americans have great compassion for the wretchedly poor of the region and war is no resolution for poverty. Perhaps it is because we are involved in a region where indigenous revolutionary forces will eventually work their will, as they did in Indochina, regardless of the role and the power of the United States.

Lebanon appears to be less of a bargain. While civil wars in Central. America are tragedies of modern history, the melting pot that is Lebanon has been at it for nearly fifteen centuries.

There are many warring factions, many political and military chieftains. The Christian military forces of President Amin Gemayel represent the parliament and national government and control only the territory of East and West Beirut and the airport, thanks in large part to the presence of the Marines, the French and the Italians. Gemayel's father. Pierie, is the commander of the predominantly Christian Phlange militia and his forces control a strip of land that runs about forty miles from Beirut to the Bekaa Valley. There is little trust between father and son

The Senni, who total more than 50 percent of the population, don't trust the Christians and the Moslem Druze forces, representing eight percent of the population, have carried the battle against the national government until a ceasefire went into effect less than two weeks ago

On top of all this we have two other major participants stirring the pot the Syrians, who control the Bekaa Valley, and the PLO, which controls Tripoli to the north. To the south, Israel occupies southern Lebanon

If the cease fire is broken and one or more of the warring factions attacks the Marines, as they have shown a willingness to do in the past, we are faced with this decision: Do we fight on land and from the sea and air? Do we beef up our forces and send in an additional 10,000 or 20,000 Marines? Or do we simply throw up our hands and leave, allowing the various sides to continue what they have been unable to resolve since the days of Attila the Hun? It is difficult to imagine the United States pulling out under those circumstances, losing more prestige, power and influence abroad. This, it appears, is the quagmire.

Let's throw another issue into the brew. If we are so desperately concerned wit the social conditions in Central America, demanding that our military aid be converted to greater economic and humanitarian assistance, why are we silent regarding the wretched conditions of the impoverished in Lebanon, and they are many

Can we rationalize these questions and concerns with the explanation that the Middle East is the world's tinder box the one area that could ignite a global war and that our involvement there is essential to prevent it's Certainly, the Soviets can't be overjoyed with our presence. They too have interests in the region--devious though they are.

Some would argue that our military presence in Lebanon not only enhances the possibility of another Vietnam-type involvement, but also brings the world closer to a shooting confrontation with the Soviets. If it appears that the dangers are much greater in the Middle East than they are in Central America, why is there virtual silence from the voices of peace, sell appointed as they might be?

Or have we as a people come to it national consensus that our military presence in Lebanon is in the best interests of the United states and the world--as honest attempt to establish calm in this region of the world which has historically chosen war and bigotry and hatred rather than peace, brotherhood and community.

Peter Teeley is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government