From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:10:57 GMT

In article 9u8@news.iastate.edu, geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood) writes:
>...I'm sure that everyone will agree that it would be good
>to get the guns away from the murderers and thieves, but just grabbing
>guns from anybody you can reach is quite different.  My fear is that,
>just as it happened in our own nation's capitol, disarmament will hit
>the innocent far more than the guilty.

I see a problem in comparing our nation's capital to Somalia, which
is currently in a state of anarchy.  (OK, maybe there are some similarities :-)
The UN-backed US troops in Somalia represent the only real chance for political
stability at present.  It isn't a question of guilt or innocence, but of
establishing a government of *some* kind.  The warlords do not really represent
civil authorities.  No more than the mafia would if our own civil government were
to collapse.  We are not talking so much about individuals as about packs of
bandits who prey off the weak.  Disarming people is not depriving them of their
legal right to own guns.  In a state of anarchy there is no "legal" right to any-
thing.  The person with the gun rules.  In a civilized society, people who don't
carry arms have the same rights as those who do.  Right now, there are no law-abiding
gun owners for the NRA to fret over in Somalia.  There are no laws.

>Taking guns away from innocent people is, in the best possible case,
>pointless.  If the guilty still have their guns, disarming the innocent
>is signing their death warrants.

Who judges guilt or innocence in an anarchy?  One good reason for disarming the
Somali technicals is that they have organized to steal food and attack food
convoys.  They also represent a clear danger to our troops, who have already been
shot at.

>>>Food for guns?  The people with guns have not had a problem getting food.
>>
>>I thought this was the problem.
>
>Not precisely -- the problem is that some people are starving, not that
>others aren't.  A nit, perhaps, but I do tend to read things literally.

Is your point that only people who have guns should have the right to be fed?
Why do you feel compelled to pick this particular nit?  The point is that everyone
should be allowed access to food, not just those who have weapons.

>There is another reason for us not to try to disarm Somalia.  If we let
>others expand our mission, when will the mission end?  We shouldn't have
>sent troops in the first place, not without public debate; adding
>another task only compounds the error.

I find this to be the most incomprehensible argument of all.  Bush hardly rushed
those troops into Somalia.  There was a lengthy public debate, and Somalia 
became part of our electoral politics.  Bush sent the troops in as a *result* of
the public debate.  Unfortunately, he did it in such a way that we can never 
withdraw them.  If all you do is escort food convoys, leaving the armed looters
and murderers alone, then the food convoys will always need armed escorts.  Is
this really so difficult to understand?  What is the problem? 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex