From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 1992 14:23:40 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Dec15.014713.13065@mogate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com writes:

> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
> > Unlikely: Somalia has no ports worth squat (the main one handles at
> > most two ships at once), and only 2 airports capable of receiving
> > large cargo planes. 
> 
> Yet....But if our government were to establish a hegemonic state in Somalia,  
> maybe they would let us build our own sea and air ports??

  Will Clinton spend the $$?  Be hard to justify that one.

> > [Of course, this is an argument for the post-Cold War world.  Back
> > during the CW, anyplace, no matter how insignificant, that the Soviets
> > showed interest in would draw instant US attention.  Somalia was such
> > a place during the '80s, of course, which is one reason why there are
> > all these guns, both AK-47s and M-16s.  Hell, probably the best way to
> > get foreign aid for your country would be to announce to the US
> > ambassador that there were Communist insurgents wandering around in
> > the jungle.]
> 
> Or that you wanted to set up a military dictatorship (see also:  idi amin,  
> pinochet, duvalier, polpot, or pre-bush Noriega, all of which came into power  
> with US economic and military support.)

  As I recall, most of these leaders (I don't know about Idi Amin) were given
power in the name of anti-communism.  Right wing dictators were not set up
just for the fun of setting up right-wing dictators.  Good idea (anti-communism)
rotten execution (dictatorships).

> > More likely, the US is there for humanitarian reasons.  The reason the
> > Administration didn't act early was probably because there was not
> > much pressure to act.  TV images of starving Somalis created this
> > pressure.  
> 
> Sally Struthers has been showing us TV images of starving kids in Africa for  
> 20+ years, and warlords have been stealing food from starving africans for 
> 20+ years.  Why is it that the problem only now requires military intervention??

  Most of Ms. Struther's kids, while in or near war zones, apparently do not
have it stolen fromn them by the local gunmen.  For most of the past 20 years,
US troops have had other fish to fry (propping up the odd dictator, for 
example).  Now, the USSR is defunct and the US can pretty much do what it 
wants.

> **some stuff deleted about other african nations**
> 
> > Also, Bush probably wants to
> > leave on a positive note ("Gonna save some lil' brown ones.  Wouldn't
> > be prudent na ta."), and this is an excellent opportunity for this.
> > Bosnia would not be a good candidate.  As I believe a policy guy in
> > D.C. said, Somalia is easy, Bosnia isn't.
> 
> This I mildly agree with....but if Bush is so concerned about his image, why  
> didn't he invade three months ago when he was so far behind in the election  
> polls??  If he is trying to build popularity, why didn't he do it when it 
> could have gotten him reelected??   Could he be deliberately leaving Clinton 
> with a Vietnam for the 90s??  Nah, he wouldn't do that.......

  This action, 3 months ago, would have killed whatever chance he had at winn-
ing the election.  People like yourself would have called it a cynical move to
gain popularity.  Now, he has no ulterior motives.  Give Clinton a Vietnam?
Please.  All Clinton need do is say "Bush started it."

  Bush is a calculating bastard, like every politician ever born.  But this is
a bit much.

> > Now, this perhaps creates an interesting precedent.  I'm all for using
> > the US military for humanitarian reasons.  
> 
> Wait a minute here!!  what kind of orwellian double-speak is this when we 
> can send in 50,000 trained killers armed with automatic weapons and with the  
> support of heavy artillery and advanced combat aircraft to fight off a bunch 
> of Somalian hillbillies carrying shotguns and riding around in pickup trucks
> while calling the action "humanitarian"??!?!?!?  I don't get it!

  Well, first off, hillbillies do not tool around with .50 cal machine guns,
recoilless rifles, and rocket launchers strapped to thier vehicles.  Second,
these hillbillies have been terrorizing the general populace and occasionally
shooting at each other, stealing food and basically ruining the country.  Just
what would you propose be done?  Send in the Peace Corps?

  The US has little or no vested ionterest in Somalia now that the USSR has 
gone bye-bye.  I suspect the relief workers who don't have to worry about gett-
ing shot at by those hillbillies after thier grain would be willing to call
the presence of armed troops guarding them so they can feed the starving pretty
damn humanitarian.

  BTW, what would you call the presence of the Guard and regular Army troops in 
Florida after the hurricane besides humanitarian?  They had guns and were will-
ing to use them on looters, too.

[Clinton is in a no-win position]

  You forgot at least one other possibility.  The US and other national forces 
succeed in largely disarming the clans and go home, while a UN Peackeeping 
force, now able to function provides security until a government is set up.
I doubt the Americans want any kind of hegemony -- it would be way too expen-
sive.

> I agree that american public policy should not be dictated by CNN's marketing  
> department, but this brings up another interesting point:  what exactly is our  
> mission in somalia??  Feed the people and leave so that they can starve next  
> month??  Open the roads and leave so that the warlords can come back next  
> month??  Kill the warlords and leave??

>  If our purpose is to open the roads and  
> then leave so the UN can handle the warlords, then why didn't the UN just do  
> the job themselves in the first place??

  Because UN Peacekeeping forces, for whatever reason, always seem under-
equipped and singularly unwilling to fight.  And if you'd been paying attention,
the UN has been asking for a real combat force to come in and do what the US is
now doing for some time now.  In that sense, the UN is doing it, via its member
nations.  The UN is not some sort of monolithic entity, you know. 

>  Our purpose in somalia is american hegemony, pure and simple.  It's just a 
>  different flavor of the same old New World Order, and it still tastes like 
>  bullshit.
> --brett

   Yeah, those Americans.  Always out to throw up puppet regimes for no reason.
They must enjoy it.  C'mon pal, the US doens't want a puppet state in Somalia
because it doesn't want to pay for it!  Thats a lot more expensive than sending
a division or so over there for a few months.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton