From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.003952.22847@newsgate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.030250.9427@news.columbia.edu>  
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> 
>> Hang on for a sec: deployment of troops does not a war make.  
>
>But deployment of 50,000 heavily armed combat troops with air support  
>and heavy artillery in a nation halfway around the world *does* a war  
>make.....or a military action, or a police action, or whatever.   
>Choose your favorite Newspeak term....

Er, it'd depend on what they're doing there.  Certainly, we have about
150K very heavily armed troops in Germany, with air support, etc., for
instance.  War is a struggle between nations (however you may define a
nation), and that isn't apparent in this case.

>
>furthermore, I think that invading a small nation on the other side  
>of the globe in order to stop a few good ol' boys and feed the hungry  
>(so that the good ol' boys can come back next year) is not justified.

This is your position then.  Fine (Though I'd argue we should go ahead
to some extent with the UN's request, and disarm the "good ol' boys".
As said, this whole operation is pointless if that is not done.)

>> Similarly, the automatic condemnation of any military action on
>> the part of some liberals is just as short-sighted.  
>
>I'm not disagreeing with this just because it is a military action.   
>I'm disagreeing with it because it's pointless.  Read on....

That wasn't apparent when we started this thread.  My impression was
that you disagreed because it was a military action.  I have this
fuzzy memory of some line that implied I was a militarist/war-monger,
which I don't believe I am.  Perhaps you didn't write that line:
Usenet makes swiss cheese out of cranial matter.  Apologies in that
case.

>
>> You are judging
>> the tools without regard to the goals.
>
>Didn't you just say that the policy and the instruments of that  
>policy cannot be considered separately??!?!?

Right, but I'd argue that policy goals should not be dropped because
of some categorical dismissal of policy tools.  As said, I was under
the impression you disagreed because it was a military action.

>
>> I follow Clausewitz's notion
>> that war is the continuation of policy by other means, and the army
>> may the instrument of these policy goals, for good or ill.  "What  
>are
>> our policy goals, and are they worth using the tools available?"   
>That
>> is a better question to ask than, "Is the Pentagon involved?"
>
>Ok.  What are our policy goals in Somalia??  To heighten american  
>jingoism??  To throw a monkey wrench into the Clinton  
>administration??  To let the boys in the Pentagon stretch their  
>muscles a little bit??  To protect the defense industry's profit  
>margin???  Are any of these worth using the military tools  
>available??  I would argue no.

No, these goals are not worth it.  I agree.

>
>So you must believe that our policy goal is to feed the hungry in  
>Somalia.  Well, we killed the hungry in Uganda, and we imported the  
>hungry in Southeast Asia, so I guess that would be an improvement  
>over the past....
>
>But i still don't buy it.  I don't think our government is concerned  
>about individuals in Somalia.  If they were concerned, they wouldn't  
>have sent the guns there in the first place.

The arming of Somalia was a Cold War exercise in realpolitik.
Hopefully, we're beyond that now (though the build up of Iraq by past
administrations leaves me queasy).

>George Bush likes  
>military operations.  Maybe he's just having one last fling before he  
>retires to the golf course.  I don't know, but I refuse to believe  
>that the Bush administration is so concerned about the lives of the  
>starving individuals in Somalia that it would mobilize thousands of  
>US servicemen and women.  I just don't buy it.

They may not be concerned about individual Somalians, but they may be
concerned about their image for the history books.  Military action is
not worth a favorable footnote.  However, this action is not solely
benefiting posterity.  We have an opportunity to use our resources
towards humanitarian ends, which may be worth deploying troops for.  I
think so (though I'd rather have alternative organizations do this.
No such agencies exist right now, though.), and that is essentially my
argument.



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush