Liberia: What should we do

[cinch]

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?

LAMCO and AmLib seem to be doing quite well with regard to minerals, although I don't know how well they've done during the civil war, but...

An excerpt from AmLib's site:

"Liberia is one the least explored and most highly prospective countries for minerals in the world. Its geological setting is one of pre-Cambrian schist belt granite-gneiss craton terrain, with Archaean rocks in the west of the country, and Birmian rocks in the east. Liberia has economic concentrations of iron ore, diamonds, gold, and barite, and is highly prospective for platinum, palladium, nickel, manganese, and uranium. A recent offshore seismic study indicated the possibility of significant oil reserves. AmLib United Minerals leads the way in the responsible development of Liberia’s mineral resources."

http://www.am-lib.com/

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
Have we decided that it is our role to police Africa?

No, it's the usual role of the former colonial powers, because of the influence and information networks they have kept in their former colonies. In the one and only case of Liberia, the 'colonial power' is the US.

Do they have any minerals or anything?

Plenty.

Terrorist support?

Potentially, if the mineral resources, and the money associated, is in the wrong hands.

Threaten neighbors with minerals?

An unchecked instability somewhere in western Africa may have a domino effect on the whole region, and lead this important mineral producer to instability. Nobody wants it.

[DanS]

The only real thing that we can hang our hat on is Taylor and Co. working with al Qaeda in diamond-laundering pre 9/11.

[TCO]

Well...I really can't argue about it since I'm so ignorant.

Just out of interest, I can tell you that I created the first ever Dial-up, SIPRNET (and GEECS), using a Med Squadron, INMARSAT (at 25 bucks a minute) a PC and a couple of STU-3 phones. Stole all the equipment off people's desks and shipped it out on an airplane. The N-6 loved it. So did EUCOM. If they had gone to the Air Force, they would have never gotten anything without a budget for it. But when the JTF is a battalion of marines and an offshore ship, you treat it like your baby...

[TCO]

This was for the JTF in Monrovia in 1996.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
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.

When I meant "cohesion", I meant cohesion between potentially rivalling warlords. The chances that they all remain buddy-buddy after the fall of Taylor is very small, except if they are forced to discussed and to make concessions in negociations deciding the new power structure. Basically, the aim is to establish a new power structure peacefully. When I wrote "skills", I meant economic and juridic skills, the kind of things you need to build a country.

they don't have the political and organizational capability to take over the capital

They have taken over the whoel rest of the country ! It's not like the loyalists gave it on a silver plate. The Rebels have the military means to take Monrovia, but it would be a bloody battle, very bloody for the rebel camp. Having Monrovia handed out on a silverplate thanks to the ceasefire is much less costly.

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

They will mediate the negociations (more accurately, the elaboration of the new power structure between potential rivals), and will make sure the environment for these engociations are satisfying. The Americans will probably not lead the negociations, but they're the only ones to make them possible.

[johncmcleod]

Have we decided that it is our role to police Africa?

The UN's mission statement is to bring peace to the world, so yeah.

Maybe I just can't understand some of the arguments. Why can't a UN peacekeeping force and a team of negotiators go into Liberia? The rebel factions are forced to talk things out and with the help of the UN a democratic, stable government is set up. The peacekeeping troops will be there to stop the ambitious rebel leaders from trying to fight and take control of the country.

If we don't go in, the warlords go at it, each trying to take over the country, but none strong enough to actually do it and the whole country is engulfed in civil war. It would be Lebanon style anarchy, and lots of people would die.

It seems to me that the first option is the best. But maybe I'm just stupid and I am not understanding what the other people are saying.