From: gnoer1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Geoff Noer)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.150816.17860@news.columbia.edu>,
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
Is there no good left in this world? Why must you automatically condemn a
humanitarian operation like this one just because it involves the military.
Don't forget that, regardless of motives, peoples' lives will be saved.
maybe you should think about that next time you sit down to eat and debate.
Foof is food is food, and I don't think the Somailians give a shit where
the food is coming from as long as it is coming. By the way, if you havn't
noticed, the U.S.A is the only country in the world with a collective
conscience. If it wasn't for the United States, nothing would ever get done
in this world. So before you condemn the U.S. government , why don't you
look at the governments in Gerrmany, Japan, Britain, France, etc. These
people NEED food. 
> 
> --
> The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
> arms of despotism.
> 			-- Tocqueville, 1852
> 
>