Liberia: What should we do

[TCO]

If we are on the side of the rebels, what are we going to do? Why not just endorse the rebels and cheer them on as they kill Taylor? Just curious? What are we after?

[Spiffor]

I'd like to point out that force should not be the main tool for the operation to succeed. Diplomacy and bureacracy will be the real things at work, while the military makes sure nobody fecks with the agreements.

If the US goes to Liberia all guns blazing, after having defined somebody as a villain that must get eliminated, then it'll be a new Mogadishu. If the US takes inspiration at the tedious yet successful processes in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, then there will be success.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
If we are on the side of the rebels, what are we going to do? Why not just endorse the rebels and cheer them on as they kill Taylor? Just curious? What are we after?

Stability. Avoiding the potential trouble that will emerge in the future. Making sure the diplomats can do their work with actually some weight.

Besides, it would be a bad idea to kill Taylor. It's always useless to angry his sympathizers, even though they are very few.

[TCO]

Stability? ok. What do we want. We want the rebels to form a government? Will we help them out? And I thought there were 2 competing rebels. Which one do we help and which do we ****?

[DanS]

I mean, now, the rebels ARE the government.

What are they governing? Not the capital, for sure. Best I can tell, there is no government in the capital.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
I thought there were 2 competing rebels.

That's what may happen in the future. Currently, the rebels seem united behind defeating Taylor. Besides, we don't know much about their internal organization.
A military presence has the benefit to reduce the odds of one rebel leader to stir trouble. Passive intimidation's the word for that: your mere presence will make any potential troublemaker to think twice before raising ****.

Which one do we help and which do we ****?

The one who will not behave properly in the negociations, and who will begin to use force for his personal gain. The diplomats are to make everyone agree and make concessions. The military is here to make sure these people don't wipe their ass with the agreement and take the power by force.

Yes, we are talking about prevention rather than punishment. Strikingly suprising concept don't you think ?

[DanS]

Spiffor, this is the kind of **** our troops would encounter.

A child soldier wearing a teddy bear backpack points his gun at a photographer in a street of Monrovia. Under mounting pressure pressure to lead an international peacekeeping force for Liberia the US administration left the door open to the possibility following a closed door White House meeting(AFP/File/Georges Gobet)

July 2.

[Spiffor]

I stand corrected, I didn't know the loyalists were still using them in Monrovia.

It is very likely these children will be killed on sight if the loyalists don't take back their weapons at the surrendrance. heck, it's very likely they'll be killed on sight by the rebels when they enter the city. Or maybe even by the loyalists themselves who wouldn't want to take any risk taking back the kids' weapons.

[cinch]

Spiffor, this is the kind of **** our troops would encounter.

Quite right. And if the West intervenes now, we may have a chance to stop the vicious cycle that will continually produce these kinds of horrible images.

[DanS]

And if the West intervenes now

Oh, now it's the "West"?

Where are the Canadian troops?

I have a healthy skepticism about whether we could produce a good outcome here, or that there aren't others in the region with more to gain by stability and up to the task. Might be better to do as GP says and cheer on the rebels.

[cinch]

Originally posted by DanS
I mean, now, the rebels ARE the government.

What are they governing? Not the capital, for sure. Best I can tell, there is no government in the capital.

Taylor is 'governing' the capital right now, if you want to get technical, but as I said, that is only because of the armistice that stopped the rebels on the outskirts of the city. Once Taylor leaves for Nigeria, then the rebels will move in and either screw things up royally or begin to reform the country into a new democracy. The latter is much more likely to happen if American/UN troops and a diplomatic team come in to set things on the right track.

All I meant was that, since Taylor is all but done, we have no choice but to deal with the revolutionaries. They control 90% of the country, and they will be running the whole show when Charlie's finally out of the picture. I say we try our best to make sure this doesn't devolve into an even more gruesome murderfest than it already is.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Might be better to do as GP says and cheer on the rebels.

And let the cycle of violence begin anew

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I stand corrected, I didn't know the loyalists were still using them in Monrovia.

It is very likely these children will be killed on sight if the loyalists don't take back their weapons at the surrendrance. heck, it's very likely they'll be killed on sight by the rebels when they enter the city. Or maybe even by the loyalists themselves who wouldn't want to take any risk taking back the kids' weapons.

I wouldn't take any risks disarming them, would you?

It's "put the ****ing weapond down NOW kid" or else waste him. Most will eventually get the hint.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Most will eventually get the hint.

I think most kids will eventually get the bullet. They were the dispensable tissue paper of this conflict.
Not that I am really sad at them being killed: they are wasted beyond repair, and they are most likely only to create further death and suffering.

[cinch]

Oh, now it's the "West"?

Well, I thought you Americans might get mad if I kept saying that it was only the U.S.'s responsibility. A U.S.-led U.N. force would be ideal for me. Not that the U.N. would be absolutely necessary (the French didn't go through it for Cote D'Ivoire), seeing as there are relevant historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. But it would still be nice.

Where are the Canadian troops?

Afghanistan or Yugoslavia (oh, and we've got a few support people in... wait for it... IRAQ). We only have about 25 000 active for cryin' out loud... We're stretched to our limit! I would not object to Chretien upping defence spending quite a bit. Not at all.

I have a healthy skepticism about whether we could produce a good outcome here. Might be better to do as GP says and cheer on the rebels.

What are we cheering for them to do, exactly? They've already won the war. Taylor's leaving, they get to move in and set up a government with whatever's left of the old republic.

I suppose we could cheer them on to not screw it up and devolve into warlord-rule, but how effective would that be?