From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:00:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.230509.15328@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.010125.7179@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.222054.22934@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>structural reform of the UN, and the creation of a real UN army.  Hey,
>>							^^^^^^^^
>>[..]
>>I would think that would mean a drastic overhaul.  Technically (;-) the
>[..]
>Yeah, but the UN so far has not had the means to do peacekeeping in,
>say, Angola: the guys in the blue hats didn't have the means to disarm
>one of the rival factions.  When they left, and the elections went
>against this faction, it simply re-armed.  Similarly, the UN doesn't
>have the strength to keep the Khmer Rouge from straying from its
>agreements in Cambodia.  Same thing may happen in Somalia in 6 months
			             ^^^^^^^^^^
>or so, once the US leaves.

In fact the same thing _will_ happen in Somalia if the UN presence isn't
strong enough.  If there's no true motivation for peace between the
parties of a conflict, probably its best for the UN to stay out.  It just
can't help, unless one foresees a single super super power in place.
I don't think that would be particularly desirable.  The ageold problem 
basically is not that the UN isn't strong enough, but that the large 
majority of people are dumb enough to find it easier to make war than peace.

>From the US's standpoint, it may be cheaper for us to support such a
>force.  The US wouldn't have to be cavalry as in Somalia, when the
>situation has more or less gotten out of hand because the UN's forces
>aren't strong enough to clear the streets of technicals.  Preventive
>cures may be cheaper than emergency surgery.  The US may not bear the
>brunt of the financial and military cost, especially if we give
>Germany and Japan permanent seats, with the requisite maintenance fees
>and troop contributions (of course, this would require fundamental
>changes in the German and Japanese constitutions, but, hey, we're
>fantasizing, aren't we? :-)

In the case of Somalia, the problem isn't that the Somalies aren't smart
enough to grow crops but simply war.  Its just that popular media doesn't
focus attention on problems before they arise (forget the CIA supplying
high levels of intelligence to the policy makers :-).  Political pressure
from a large and powerful country like the US goes long ways towards bringing
warring factions to the negotiating table (Ex., South Africa).

>>Interesting to speculate whether this was the real reason for going into
>>Somalia.  The Scenario is that the military realizes that with the new
>>administration it is going made more lean (and mean ?).  There are a large
>[...]
>Actually, there's an interesting article in the January issue of the
>Atlantic Monthly.  The Pentagon is of two minds about its future
>[...]

The semi-conspiracy makes even more sense when one considers that Bush
acted only after having lost the election!  Needless to say, Clinton
will have some decision making to do :-(.