Liberia: What should we do

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

really, would there be any hate in the world after that? how could dictators be cruel to their people after having sex with them? How could people hate their neighbors after getting it on? peace on earth (OMG! i cant believe i sincerely used that smilie... you bastards! im becoming too liberal)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
You've got 10 year old government soldiers fighting while high on coke. This won't be a lovefest.

That's for sure. However, if Taylor actually holds his promise this time, the loyalist adults may take back the weapons of the children, and stop giving them coke afterwards. That should reduce the danger factor enormously.
Besides, I didn't know they still continued to use children even in Monrovia. Furthermore, I thought it was more a feat of the rebels.

[Spiffor]

Kramerman:
You should use the smilie more often. His beard looks like yours

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Not only that. The UK was asked to act in Sierra Leone. France was asked to act in Ivory Coast. France was also asked to act in Congo.
If the US is called this time, despite Africa not being its usual playground, is because the ties between the US and Liberia aren't only historic. The US is the most likely power to have a few "Mr. Liberia" with power, people who have big informal relation networks within the country, and who have an understanding of the Liberian particulars.
Had it happened in Ghana or Togo, the US wouldn't have been called in, because these countries do not belong to the irtraditional sphere of influence, and as such the US doesn't have the most dense networks and informations there.

I was involved in a minor way with our Liberia JTF in 1996. I guess if it is our turn to do a NEO, that is one thing. Not sure we want to land a battalion or two. ortake sides. At least figure out which side we will favor...ok?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Kramerman:
You should use the smilie more often. His beard looks like yours

NOOOOO! calling me a hippie, no matter how subtle, is my kryptonite!

[Kramerman]

say i look like masterchief (my avatar), or any of my avatars for that matter, and I'll love you forever...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
At least figure out which side we will favor...ok?

Most probably the Rebels, as they have power everywhere in the country but Monrovia, and as Taylor seems to be fighting a losing battle.
However, Bush puts Taylor's departure as a condition for intervention. This means the loyalist faction is supposed not to be in full hostility mode when the soldiers arrive. As such, you are likely not to have any strictly defined enemy. Most of your job should be to maintain order, and prevent any trouble to be made (troublemakers will most likely be designed on the fly by politicians as they sketch the transition process)

[Shi Huangdi]

The warlords(Taylor's opposition and the rebels), while probably an improvement over Taylor, are still hardly the nicest people.

[DanS]

This doesn't make much sense. We favor the warlords, who don't control Monrovia, while our forces would be set up in Monrovia?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The warlords(Taylor's opposition and the rebels), while probably an improvement over Taylor, are still hardly the nicest people.

That's for sure. Actually, the main danger comes from the power vacuum once Taylor falls. Various rebellion leaders may want a too big part of the pie, and the remaining loyalists may want to add to the chaos (I suppose the upcoming chaos is the very reason why a US interventions gets so much talk).

The role of the US as a peacekeeper will be to instituate a status quo, with a balance of power within the new leadership. As such, the 'bad guys' will probably be redifined every now and then, as negociations advance. The role of the US army is first to be impressive enough so that Rebellious factions keep quiet; it will also be to prevent any interfaction fight to bring chaos in Monrovia.

That's the problem and the subtelty with peacekkeping. You just don't send soldiers by telling them : "your enemy until the end of the war is X". It changes every day. The onyl thing that does not change is that every threatening person gets killed really quick, whatever the faction he's from.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
This doesn't make much sense. We favor the warlords, who don't control Monrovia, while our forces would be set up in Monrovia?

Don't forget Bush made Taylor's departure as a condition for the intervention. Taylor's departure assumes the loyalists will generally give up fighting except for some splinter groups. Save for a few possible ambushes, Monrovia is not to look like an hostile city by the time the US army comes in.

[cinch]

This doesn't make much sense. We favor the warlords, who don't control Monrovia, while our forces would be set up in Monrovia?

The warlords don't control Monrovia only because they signed the ceasefire with Taylor when they were on the edges of the city. Once Taylor leaves, the rebels will move in and set up a new government. If there is no external guidance, chances are that some warlord will sneak his way into some dictatorial position and plunge the nation into an even bigger pile of crap. But maybe, if America or the UN (or, preferably, both) get involved to maintain peace and regulate the transition, Liberia can have a new lease on life.

Of course, it still won't be a sure thing, but it's better than doing nothing.

[DanS]

I don't know, guys. Sounds sort of sketchy to me. Are the rebels to use US forces just to strengthen their own hold on power, when their power was insufficient to take Monrovia in the first place? Is that a wise use of American power?

[cinch]

I don't know, guys. Sounds sort of sketchy to me. Are the rebels to use US forces just to strengthen their own hold on power, when their power was insufficient to take Monrovia in the first place? Is that a wise use of American power?

I understand your reservations, and I have some of my own. I'm not 100% sure of the correctness of anything at the moment, but I do think U.S. intervention would be a bonus.

I mean, now, the rebels ARE the government. Taylor is essentially all but gone. It's a non-issue. He's either going to asylum himself away or he's dead. Since the rebels have pretty much won, if the West wants to attempt to 'fix' the situation, we have no choice but to work with whoever's in power. That will now be the rebels, who, I suppose, won't really be 'rebels' anymore.

I think there are basically 2 main options:

-West does nothing. A new Sam Doe takes over and Liberians are screwed 'til the end of the next civil war, and probably beyond.
-West intervenes. Formidable (and it'll have to be formidable, no one wants another Mogadishu) military presence prevents more civil war, and U.N./U.S./whatever specialists aid in the formation of a government that will be as fair and functional as possible.

But hey, I could be wrong.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know, guys. Sounds sort of sketchy to me. Are the rebels to use US forces just to strengthen their own hold on power? Is that a wise use of American power?

The rebels will not use the American power, except if the American command is stupid enough to trust their soldiers to the rebel command (ain't gonna happen).
The hostility towards taylor is nearly universal in Liberia, which makes things simple, at least until he's gone. The rebels will not have trouble with the population when establishing the government, at first, but other problems may arise :
1. some ambitious rebel leader wants to be the big chief and starts his own mini-rebellion, starting the chaos again.
2. some organized loyalists wreak havoc in Monrovia to demoralize the population
3. the rebel government becomes quickly worse than Taylor was, and the population becomes hostile, creating a new rebellion and starting the whole mess again.

Sending a peacekeeping force along a diplomatic team will help resolve these problems since :
1. The diplomats will try to build a consensus between rebel leaders, and the presence of the army will motive them not to take any chances.
2. The US troops (as well as Nigerian troops or reorganized government troops) will considerably lower the guerilla/terrorist threat.
3. Diplomats monitoring the transition will attempt to limit the potential blunders of the new ruling elite. Besides, by helping maintain order, it will help the population not to feel the need to revolt again.

Besides, by helping to set up a new government, the diplomatic team will help making semi-efficient communications between Monrovia and the rest of the country. This to avoid any local underpotentate to feel he's the boss.