From: carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: sps
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:47:13 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> Unlikely: Somalia has no ports worth squat (the main one handles at
> most two ships at once), and only 2 airports capable of receiving
> large cargo planes. 

Yet....But if our government were to establish a hegemonic state in Somalia,  
maybe they would let us build our own sea and air ports??

Somalia is on the main shipping path for cheap oil.  Since Reagan/Bush policies  
made it financially undesireable to use American oil serveral years ago, the  
oil companies will stop at no end to make sure that they control all access to  
the oil fields in the middle east.  

> [Of course, this is an argument for the post-Cold War world.  Back
> during the CW, anyplace, no matter how insignificant, that the Soviets
> showed interest in would draw instant US attention.  Somalia was such
> a place during the '80s, of course, which is one reason why there are
> all these guns, both AK-47s and M-16s.  Hell, probably the best way to
> get foreign aid for your country would be to announce to the US
> ambassador that there were Communist insurgents wandering around in
> the jungle.]

Or that you wanted to set up a military dictatorship (see also:  idi amin,  
pinochet, duvalier, polpot, or pre-bush Noriega, all of which came into power  
with US economic and military support.)

> More likely, the US is there for humanitarian reasons.  The reason the
> Administration didn't act early was probably because there was not
> much pressure to act.  TV images of starving Somalis created this
> pressure.  

Sally Struthers has been showing us TV images of starving kids in Africa for  
20+ years, and warlords have been stealing food from starving africans for 20+  
years.  Why is it that the problem only now requires military intervention??


**some stuff deleted about other african nations**

> Also, Bush probably wants to
> leave on a positive note ("Gonna save some lil' brown ones.  Wouldn't
> be prudent na ta."), and this is an excellent opportunity for this.
> Bosnia would not be a good candidate.  As I believe a policy guy in
> D.C. said, Somalia is easy, Bosnia isn't.

This I mildly agree with....but if Bush is so concerned about his image, why  
didn't he invade three months ago when he was so far behind in the election  
polls??  If he is trying to build popularity, why didn't he do it when it could  
have gotten him reelected??   Could he be deliberately leaving Clinton with a  
Vietnam for the 90s??  Nah, he wouldn't do that.......
 
> Now, this perhaps creates an interesting precedent.  I'm all for using
> the US military for humanitarian reasons.  

Wait a minute here!!  what kind of orwellian double-speak is this when we can  
send in 50,000 trained killers armed with automatic weapons and with the  
support of heavy artillery and advanced combat aircraft to fight off a bunch of  
Somalian hillbillies carrying shotguns and riding around in pickup trucks while  
calling the action "humanitarian"??!?!?!?  I don't get it!

> This shows a broader, more
> sympathetic foreign policy than the cold calculations of realpolitik.
> I'm not happy about _how_ Somalia was chosen.  Surely, there are
> better, more philosophically grounded criteria than the whim of CNN.
> We'll see what happens with Clinton.

This brings up an interesting point:  Clinton has this thing handed to him by  
no choice of his own.  He *will* have to deal with American troops stationed  
overseas, even though he didn't place them there.  So what are his options??   
He can leave the troops there for years until a puppet hegemonic government is  
established, which would make him look bad....or, he can pull the troops out  
early and let the warlords come back, which would make him look bad.  No matter  
what happens, Clinton cannot win from this situation.

> Also, the judgement of policy accomplishments through TV perhaps tends
> towards short-term, shallow solutions.  Somalia's problems don't go
> away once CNN is able to broadcast the smiling faces of well-fed
> children.  I worry about the possible lack of followthrough.  All of
> this will be for nothing if the UN forces get overwhelmed once the US
> leaves.  TV, I don't think, conveys any urgency to come up with long
> term structural solutions to policy problems.  We will have to see
> what happens.

I agree that american public policy should not be dictated by CNN's marketing  
department, but this brings up another interesting point:  what exactly is our  
mission in somalia??  Feed the people and leave so that they can starve next  
month??  Open the roads and leave so that the warlords can come back next  
month??  Kill the warlords and leave??  If our purpose is to open the roads and  
then leave so the UN can handle the warlords, then why didn't the UN just do  
the job themselves in the first place??  Our purpose in somalia is american  
hegemony, pure and simple.   It's just a different flavor of the same old New  
World Order, and it still tastes like bullshit.

--brett

_______________________________________________________________________________
Brett Carlson		    |	Have you read the morning papers?
carlson@viking.sps.mot.com  |	War is coming back in style!
NeXTmail encouraged.        |	There's generals here, advisors there
       			    |	And warlords (sic) nibbling everywhere!
			    |	The chessboards filling up with red.
Motorola SPS		    |	We make more profit when we blow off their  
Tempe, AZ		    |		heads!
602/897-4091		    |	          --Jello Biafra, "When Ya Get Drafted"
____________________________|__________________________________________________
      Disclaimer:  My employer almost certainly disagrees with whatever
                   is written above.  Blame me instead.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism