Liberia: What should we do

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not really wasted beyond repair, but it would take more resources than are typically given to African countries. Too bad the international community is gutless about giving the rope to the *******s who kidnap, "train" and lead these kids.

[DanS]

Well, I thought you Americans might get mad if I kept saying that it was only the U.S.'s responsibility.

I thought we dealt with this earlier in the thread. This isn't the responsibility of the US (nor the "West" for that matter).

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.

Why would the US need to be involved in this? If the rebels are strong enough to take over, then they should take over. If they aren't strong enough to take over, then we are supposed to aid them in taking it over?

Again, the story doesn't make as much sense as it should.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Why would the US need to be involved in this? If the rebels are strong enough to take over, then they should take over. If they aren't strong enough to take over, then we are supposed to aid them in taking it over?

The rebels are strong enough to take over. They aren't strong enough to reestablish stability in this mess, alone.

[TCO]

So our purpose is to restrain the rebels? Just trying to pin you down, here. I would give anything to hear the breifings that the CAT team is sending to the J-3 OPCON at Stuttgart now.

[cinch]

So our purpose is to restrain the rebels? Just trying to pin you down, here. I would give anything to hear the breifings that the CAT team is sending to the J-3 OPCON at Stuttgart now.

No, 'our' purpose is to allow the 'rebels' (who are really representing everyone in the country by now) to make a smooth transition into a multi-party democracy. Since there are warlords and such in the mix, trusting the new republic to form itself properly is a very risky proposition.

What Spiffor said is exactly right, the new regime will need help to stabilise and establish a working system to govern the nation.

Just a peacekeeping and diplomatic force are required. We're not really restraining or attacking, just... maintaining.

[DanS]

They aren't strong enough to reestablish stability in this mess, alone.

Why not? If they are incapable of ruling, then the US won't be able to make them so. Further, Liberia hasn't seen stability in two decades. Lastly, even if you think they are capable, but could use some help, why would the US be a necessary part of this with boots on the ground?

[Ted Striker]

"Die Statue of Liberty ist Kaputt"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
So our purpose is to restrain the rebels?

Your purpose would be to restrain any trouble from happening, wherever that trouble comes from. At least, that's what a peacekeeping mission looks like.

The recent transitional operations in Western Africa also shown that force wasn't the only, even not the most important, tool to achieve stability. It is a vital tool nonetheless.

You ask me from the beginning who are the baddies you should kill. And I'm telling you from the beginning the baddies are yet unknown, it is not even known whether there will be at all. So far, the factions officially tolerate your presence, and the population is likely to cheer it for a time. I.e, there is no mainstream group of hostiles.

[cinch]

Why not? If they are incapable of ruling, then the US won't be able to make them so. Further, Liberia hasn't seen stability in two decades.

If the West pulled out all support from Afghanistan, would Karzai be able to hold things together all by his lonesome? No. Does that mean Afghans are inherently incapable of governing themselves? No. It just means that they need some time to sort things out and make the whole acountry a little less volatile.

Same situation here. The rebels can take over the capital military, but they can't necessarily make the change from sorting things out with guns to sorting things out with legislation without some snags coming up (warlords---> civil war---> cycle continues). It would just help things immensely if there was a stable force to aid and guide the transition. And that's all.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Your purpose would be to restrain any trouble from happening, wherever that trouble comes from. At least, that's what a peacekeeping mission looks like.

The recent transitional operations in Western Africa also shown that force wasn't the only, even not the most important, tool to achieve stability. It is a vital tool nonetheless.

You ask me from the beginning who are the baddies you should kill. And I'm telling you from the beginning the baddies are yet unknown, it is not even known whether there will be at all. So far, the factions officially tolerate your presence, and the population is likely to cheer it for a time. I.e, there is no mainstream group of hostiles.

I need more. It doesn't add up. If you need the biggest baddest ass on the block, you must have at least suspicions of who will give trouble. I hope the CAT is well selected.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
They aren't strong enough to reestablish stability in this mess, alone.

Why not?

The country is in shambles. The end of Taylor is also likely to bring the end of the Rebel unity. The power vacuum is likely to create new shortages and pillages. the dire infrastructure, and lack of political communication makes unsure whether the leaders established in Monrovia will have control over the rest of the country. There are overwhelming odds against the ability from the Rebels to restore stability in Liberia. That would need cohesion and skills. Warlors aren't well known for that.

If they are incapable of ruling, then the US won't be able to make them so.

Yes the US (or any other power having a real weight there) can. It can force the new leaders to discuss rather than kill each other to solve their differences (hint: Ivory Coast). With the help of other African armies, it can maintain civil order and as such keep the population's sympathy high. That can buy enough time for specialists to be brought into the government, making it more stable. In short, the US intervention can hamper trouble from emerging, and can buy time for a solid government to emerge. Two things the Rebels alone don't have the resources for.

Further, Liberia hasn't seen stability in two decades.

So what ? Is Liberia doomed never to know stability until the end of the times ?

Lastly, even if you think they are capable, but could use some help, why would the US be a necessary part of this with boots on the ground?

I assume you mean the military involvement ? Simply for the American negociators to have leverage in Liberia. To avoid major trouble (despite most of the grunt work should be made by other African armies). To make potential rogue generals thinking twice before starting their very own guerilla. All these things they couldn't do without force. Basically, without boots on the ground, the US mission would be about as powerless as any UN mission.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
I need more. It doesn't add up. If you need the biggest baddest ass on the block, you must have at least suspicions of who will give trouble. I hope the CAT is well selected.

Doesn't it have to do with the fact that the combat area will be ill suited for mass operations, and that the allegiances may change daily, hence requiring soldiers with huge internal resources ?

[TCO]

That's fine. I still want a great briefing from the CAT. And none of this has satisfied me that we have any national interest here. Some sort of "nice-nice" for our allies that we disagreed with over Iraq doesn't make it for me. Have we decided that it is our role to police Africa? Do they have any minerals or anything? Terrorist support? Threaten neighbors with minerals?

[DanS]

There are overwhelming odds against the ability from the Rebels to restore stability in Liberia. That would need cohesion and skills. Warlors aren't well known for that.

Sure they are. Even warlords (or especially warlords) have organizational skills. Or maybe these guys don't. But if they don't, then there's no hope for them at the national level. And nobody can really help them in this very much.

Yes the US (or any other power having a real weight there) can. It can force the new leaders to discuss rather than kill each other to solve their differences

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. If they don't have the political and organizational capability to take over the capital, then you will just be rolling in your troops to bless an incapable regime. You might think that's better than nothing, but damn dude, that bites as an outcome if the US is to risk its troops for this.

So what ? Is Liberia doomed never to know stability until the end of the times ?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them and the rest of the Africans?

Simply for the American negociators to have leverage in Liberia.

I don't think that the American negotiators are leading the negotiation effort.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP
That's fine. I still want a great briefing from the CAT. And none of this has satisfied me that we have any national interest here. Some sort of "nice-nice" for our allies that we disagreed with over Iraq doesn't make it for me. Have we decided that it is our role to police Africa? Do they have any minerals or anything? Terrorist support? Threaten neighbors with minerals?

They have a large Islamic population and a nice location if things go to **** in Nigeria.