From: barnhart@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: IPS:SOMALIA: Deployment makes some nervous
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:51:25 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Reference: North America
Title: SOMALIA: Deployment makes some nervous


an inter press service feature

by jim lobe

washington, dec 5 (ips) -- as 2,000 u.s. marines prepare to hit
the beach in somalia in the first stages of 'operation restore
hope', u.s. lawmakers and analysts are raising serious questions
about whether this is going to turn out as well as president
george bush or president-elect bill clinton now assume.

questions range from whether the action is a legal deployment
under the terms of the u.s. constitution to whether the operation
itself is misconceived and could actually worsen the situation on
the ground in somalia.

few have so far been willing to openly criticise what is
largely seen here as a generous humanitarian gesture to an african
country where 300,000 are believed to have died of starvation,
violence, and disease in the past few months and two million more
may be at risk.

and the prospective scenes of u.s. troops offering desperately
needed food to starving somali children -- particularly around
christmas despite the muslim beliefs of the recipients -- are
almost too heart-warming for many to resist.

but indications of nervousness and concern have mounted
steadily over the past week.

the greatest fear is that u.s. troops may once more be marching
into harm's way, much as they did in beirut at the end of 1982
when they were sent in as part of a multinational peacekeeping
force after israel's invasion.

despite good intentions, u.s. marines found themselves
increasingly involved in lebanon's civil war which they only dimly
understood. and, as they became involved, they became targets for
shi'a militias.

in oct. 1983, the main u.s. barracks were blown up, killing
almost 250 marines. it was the worst attack on a u.s. military
installation since world war ii.

a few months later, u.s. troops, leaving the european
components of the multinational force behind, unilaterally
withdrew from lebanon in a humiliating retreat which resulted
shortly afterward in the abrogation of a u.s.-brokered peace
treaty between israel and lebanon. (more/ips)

somalia: deployment makes some nervous(2-e)

somalia: deployment (2)

like lebanon, argue some analysts, somalia is a place whose
conflicts are simply not well understood by washington which may
yet find itself in the middle of a shooting war from which it will
be difficult to withdraw.

the second question is whether the deployment might not improve
the situation on the ground.  while there is unquestionably a
humanitarian emergency, any prospects for a longer-term solution
depend on negotiations and reconciliation among the different
somali clans and factions.

but the intervention of such a large u.s. force may actually
undermine recent local initiatives in this direction and possibly
''legitimise the warlords, the very men whose policies created the
catastrophe,'' warns rakiya omaar, a somali human rights activist
who was fired earlier this week as director of the u.s. group,
africa watch, for opposing the u.s. deployment.

and even if the militias do not challenge the u.s. force, what
is to stop them from ''only wait(ing) until the marines withdraw
(before) resuming hijacking food, waging clan warfare and preying
murderously on relief agencies,'' the 'new york times' asked
friday.

the lack of a political strategy which engages the somalis
themselves that can supplement this military/humanitarian
operation may make it very difficult to define success or when the
mission is satisfactorily completed.

a third area stirring considerable anxiety here is the so-
called ''new world order'' -- or precedential aspect -- of the
operation.

''if somalia, why not liberia or mozambique or haiti,'' asked
one congressional aide during an interview with ips this week.
''where do you draw the line?  what is the basic principle here
that distinguishes somalia from disasters in other countries?''

''liberians ask why u.s. avoided their war?'' read one headline
in friday's 'washington post', which noted that 2,000 u.s.
marines, deployed for months in a task force off liberia's coast,
failed to move in two years ago when a civil war in liberia had
reduced the country to a state of anarchy.

''why are 28,000 troops warranted in somalia but not in
bosnia?'' asked the 'times'.

''there's a limit to what we can do.  we just can't afford to
the policeman of the world,'' said brown earlier this week.

and, to the extent, 'operation restore hope' becomes a
precedent, congress must have an opportunity to debate its wisdom
and cost, according to brown and other lawmakers who are already
moving to schedule hearings beginning next week.

under the war powers act, congress must act within 60 days on
any deployment of u.s. troops anywhere ''where hostilities are
occurring or are imminent''.  but the legislative branch has not
yet been given the time or opportunity to consider the issues,
many lawmakers complain. (end/ips/jl/yjc/92)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african