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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:52:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.011312.19839@mogate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.055159.25224@news.columbia.edu>  
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> 
>> Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, is a much better (already built) base.
>> We do not have the financial resources to build military out of whole
>> cloth any more.  Also, bases in Saudia Arabia would serve interdiction
>> purposes much better.

Brett, can you limit yourself to around 70 characters/line?  It makes follow-ups neater.  Thanks.

>
>Admittedly, that is true.  But we wouldn't *need* a base there if the Somalian  
>government (oxymoron??  at this point anyway...) were a hegemonic wing of the  
>US State Department.  The point is, Somalia is *on* the main shipping route for  
>cheap oil en route to the US and Europe.  If it were not, the Marines would not  
>be involved in their internal unrest.

Er, what do you mean we wouldn't need a base "there" if Somalia was
controlled by the US?  If "there" means Somalia, certainly we would
need a base to interdict shipping lanes.  After all, where would the
ships park?  If you mean Diego Garcia, you might be right: one reason
DG was chosen was because Somalia was not available, Somalia having
Soviet leanings at the time.  Of course, the Soviets never developed
the ports there....

> 
>> Partially the end of the Cold War.  We can put the military where we
>> want to, because we're no longer afraid of noises from the Russians.
>
>so we get to be the world's policeman now??  And the Somalian (and Iraqi, btw)  
>populations get to be Rodney King??  

Famine is not a pleasant thing, especially if it is partially caused
by political calculation on part of local warlords.  I'm not arguing
that we should be the world's policeman, intervening everywhere there
might be a problem.  I do say, however, that we cannot simply just sit
back and watch the spectacle of famine and genocide each and every
time it happens.  We may be the only nation with the logistical
capability to intervene in this case.  To do otherwise would be the
moral equivalent of locking up the lifevests while people are
drowning.

The 12/28 New Republic, which I just got today, puts forth the case
far more eloquently and persuasively than I can.  Take a gander.

>
>> Someone proposed that the military is seeking new missions, also,
>> and perhaps petitioned for this operation.  This is plausible.
>
>This is very plausible, and also very frightening.  There are a lot of people  
>making a lot of money off of the war industry in this country;  if we just let  
>our military sit idle, their profit margins are in jeopardy.

Re: profit margins.  Iffy: it may be more profitable in the long-run
to go into the civil sector.  The main problem is that change and
retooling will be painful, to say the least.  In the short-run,
continuing military expenditures is more comfortable.

>
>> If Bush had sent in the troops a couple of months ago (when the famine
>> was worse, in terms of daily body count), it would have been seen as a
>> politically calculated move.  Also, the campaign emphasized domestic
>> issues.  A new foreign adventure wouldn't be, uh, prudent.
>
>This is a moot point, but do you think bush *wanted* to emphasize domestic  
>issues??  A popular war over feeding the starving masses in Somalia might have  
>been just the diversion that George Bush would have needed to get  
>reelected..... 

Yes, I feel he wanted to emphasize domestic issues, but didn't know
how.  Bush is a creature of the opinion polls.  Look at how GOP
strategy shifted weekly, as focus groups came back and said they
didn't like the smear-du-jour.  Glancing at the polls, he (and his
handlers) would have noticed that the voters would not have tolerated
a foreign adventure.

>
>I'm sure that some would have seen it as a political move (which it is -- even  
>coming after the election).  But I think that Bush's popularity ratings needed  
>a diversion from economic issues, which Somalia would have provided. 

Again, consider that he'd watch the polls for a way out of his mess.
The risk in Somalia would be that people would perceive it to be just
a diversion, and also asking the question, "if we can do that over
there, why can't we do that here?" more strenuously than they are now.

>
>> I don't think Bush is leaving Clinton with a mess, politically.  If
>> disaster strikes, and US troops are in Somalia for years, Clinton can
>> say that Bush started it.
>
>And Bush will be blamed just like Eisenhower was blamed for Vietnam, right??  
>The thing that scares me is that Somalia is so popular right now;  American  
>jingoism is at its highest since the gulf war.  If this whole operation ends  
>badly, which i think it will (read on...), Clinton gets to take the blame for  
>ruining a supposedly perfect situation that Bush set up for him....

LBJ, not JFK, not Eisenhower, is the one who authorized main line
combat troops to go to Vietnam.  The main troop commitment in Somalia
will be completed by 1/21.  The main problem will be peole blaming
Clinton for bungling a successful operation.  We'll see what happens.

>
>> I sympathsize with this position, since I tend to be somewhat leary
>> about exercising military options.  Sending in troops should be a last
>> resort, after all.  It's just that I favor a human rights-based
>> foreign policy, as opposed to the bloodless calculus of realpolitik.
>> At this time, however, we do not have the organizations to accomplish
>> policy goals.  That's why I've argued for a somewhat more muscular UN,
>> since the UN peacekeeping forces in Somalia have failed miserably so
>> far.
>
>I'm inclined to agree.   If we *are* going to invade Somalia, why aren't the  
>french, british, and chinese armies involved??  Isn't that the idea of a UN  
>action??  

French troops are involved (after all, it was French legionaires, with
US Marines, that took first blood in Somalia), as are British (in
fact, RAF pilots will be in Somalia for the long haul, or so the NYT
tells me).  A third of the foreign troops to be deployed in Somalia
are not American.  The UN General Secretary has proposed a broader
mandate, the disarmament of the Somali clans, than the US is willing
to consider at this time.

>
>but the fact that the operation *is* strictly a US sort of thing (with a few  
>token forces from other nations, granted) tells me that we are protecting US  
>interests, not the interests of the UN or the human race.

See above.  I'll still argue that there are no real US strategic
interests in the country, especially with the Cold War over, and the
Gulf War securing US influence in the Middle East.  The US may be
interested, in part, on a PR coup, along with possible mission-seeking
on part of the Pentagon.  These reasons aside, it does not rule out
that this mission may be primarily humanitarian, may be primarily
based on moral considerations.

>
>
>> He (Clinton) would have had to deal with troops overseas, no matter what.  
>
>Yes, but he wouldn't have had to deal with overseas troops in a combat  
>situation had bush not handed him the "opportunity".

No.  He would have had to deal with either Somalia or the Sudan sooner
or later.  CNN happened to arrive at the former first, so we're there
now.  He will have to deal eventually with Serbia, especially if
Milosevic turns south towards Kosovo.  This may draw Turkey into a
general Balkan war, which in turn would draw in Western Europe, if
only to control the refugee flow, NATO be damned.

>> He perhaps can go along with the UN General Secretary's proposal, and
>> begin to disarm the factions.  This perhaps would be the best case.
>
>Merely taking away the guns is not going to stop factions who have been  
>fighting for years from killing each other.  The only permanent solution to the  
>Somalian problem is a stable government.  Does the US want to stick around that  
>long??  Do we have any choice??

Taking away the guns, or at least the heavy vehicles, will allow the
UN peacekeeping forces a chance to cope with the bandits.  It will
then be up to the UN to see what happens.

>
>That's a big part of why this operation scares me.  If the US pulls out before  
>real stability is established, the Clinton administration will be criticized  
>for abandoning the Somali people.  But establishing a government could take  
>*years*, and the Clinton admistration will be criticized for not getting this  
>thing settled.....

See above.

>
>I hope I'm wrong.  I hope that this thing ends in the next few months, and all  
>the Somalians drop their shotguns and go home.  But I don't think that will  
>happen.

We'll see what happens.

>
>> What this probably is is an example of the dominance of the media
>> in the post-Cold War world, with perhaps a touch of Pentagon
>> mission-seeking.
>
>So you agree, then, that the cause of the war is something other than  
>humanitarianism??  That to me is enough reason to oppose the action right  
>there!

Oy.  As said, some of the motivations for this action does not change
its primary character.  Ultimately, the US is in a place without
strategic significance, doing something other than installing an
authoritarian regime.



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