More On Liberia

[DanS]

The other thread was getting a little long in the tooth, so I decided to start another.

Here is a good article by Cheney Morris about why we should not send troops to Liberia.

http://www.thehill.com/morris/070903.aspx

Right now, I am more inclined than he is to take a favorable view of a deployment. If we could time-limit it to a year or so, that would be helpful.

He makes the very valid and useful point that 35% of the US population is isolationist, so any long-term deployments are tough to perpetuate.

[Whaleboy]

I have been brought round to the view thus far that it would be a good idea for the US to send troops, although I would prefer the UN, Liberia asked for the US.

[SlowwHand]

It doesn't matter.
I know, I know. I harp on it, but the fact remains that someone, somewhere is going to get all pissy no matter what we do.

So let's go. Roust the guy, on to the next bad guy.

[C0ckney]

i think he misses the point. this is going to be a very low key deployment, 500-1000 combat troops (with a similar number of other troops), to oversee the transition to a new government, train a new army, protect the capital and foriegn nationals, that sort of thing. i also think he fails to take account of the successful british intervention in sierra leone which any action looks likey to be modeled upon.

[DanS]

C0ckney: As much as I respect what the Brits are doing in Sierra Leone, it has absolutely no political currency here in the States.

this is going to be a very low key deployment, 500-1000 combat troops (with a similar number of other troops), to oversee the transition to a new government, train a new army, protect the capital and foriegn nationals, that sort of thing

I think Americans would be more concerned about doing it right, if we are going to do it. 500-1000 makes it appear like our boys are being given insufficient resources to do the job (whatever the job is). They'll need some Bradleys, for instance, if we are to avoid another Somalia.

[SlowwHand]

I agree, Dan.
If something's to be done, no half-stepping.

[C0ckney]

I think Americans would be more concerned about doing it right, if we are going to do it. 500-1000 makes it appear like our boys are being given insufficient resources to do the job (whatever the job is). They'll need some Bradleys, for instance, if we are to avoid another Somalia.

well i don't think the situation there is at all like somalia. we're talking about overseeing the handover of power from one government to another (which admittedly needs to be worked out), rather than the general anarchy in somalia.

i would imagine the plan is to send any US troops alongside a larger UN force, which would keep an eye on the provinces?

[DanS]

I also think that no American deployment is low key. Al Qaeda has been able to call us pussies for the last decade for what happened in Somalia.

rather than the general anarchy in somalia

Liberia is only slightly less anarchic.

[SlowwHand]

Liberians Storm Airport in Plea for U.S. Peace Force
13 minutes ago

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030709/ts_nm/liberia_dc

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by DanS
I also think that no American deployment is low key. Al Qaeda has been able to call us pussies for the last decade for what happened in Somalia.

rather than the general anarchy in somalia

Liberia is only slightly less anarchic.

well yes, i can certainly understand the american desire not to go in understrength.

the main difference i see regarding liberia and somalia, is that in liberia, all sides want the same thing. they want taylor to go (one of taylor's own ministers was on radio 4 last week, saying that he (and everyone else) wanted taylor to go), and they want a new government formed which includes elements from the existing government and rebel groups. now of course the details need to be hammered out, but i really can't see this turning into somalia II.

[DanS]

the main difference i see regarding liberia and somalia, is that in liberia, all sides want the same thing.

That is fickle. We should not rely on that situation lasting more than a minute after our troops arrive.

[C0ckney]

well of course, nothing is certain, but i haven't seen any indication that either side would try and break the agreement, because it would lead to massive bloodshed.

[DanS]

The US isn't going to deploy into a situation that we couldn't control, if push came to shove. What happens if Taylor decides he doesn't want to leave the country after all, for instance?

[Jac de Molay]

What exactly are we supposed to be doing over there?

There seems to be no end result or goal aside from keeping people from each other throats. Let the europeans, who are so interested in multilateralism, handle this. We're already in one quagmire too many.

[cinch]

So let's go. Roust the guy, on to the next bad guy.

There seems to be no end result or goal aside from keeping people from each other throats.

Please, PLEASE, read the articles on this.

There is no one guy we have to roust, and there is an end result.

It's even mentioned in this thread:

The American troop force (which I feel should be greater than 500-1000, just so there's no chance of disaster) will oversee transition of power from Taylor to the rebel allies, who are now the de facto 'official' governing body. With Big Brother America in town, it will be less likely that a renegade warlord will try to disrupt the transition. The U.S. just needs to maintain the peace (which is already there, mind you), diplomatically aid the formation of a new government, and perhaps train a new Liberian army that will keep things in tip-top shape after America pulls out. That's all.

This isn't sending your boys into an inflammatory situation; this is sending in your boys to *prevent* that situation. You know, that 'pre-emptive action' we're all so fond of.