From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:04:15 GMT

yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>On the other hand, you have situations where the nation-state has
>>completely broken down, like in the Sudan and Somalia.  There are no
>>real factions with motivated and disciplined forces.
>
>There are factions in Somalia.  What do you think those "warlords" are?
>There are about seven groups, each of which has several thousand armed men,
>with personal weapons and in some cases armored personnel carriers and
>artillery.  I would imagine none of these forces has thorough discipline, but
>still there are leaders who are clearly in control.
>

But I think the important question is the discipline of these troops. Will
they lay down their arms if their leaders tell them to?  My impression so
far has been that of free lancers and bandits.  Certainly, each warlord
would have a core group of loyal troops (or else they would not be
warlords), but what portion of their forces are only under nominal
control?  How many would take up arms again if negotiations bring about a
peace that is not advantageous to these individuals? Peace talks may not
matter in this case.  The only thing that may end the fighting (if that is
your goal) would be a show of real police force, not UN coordinated
negotiations and blue helmets sitting between rival armies while these
talks occur.

>>  Shows of
>>strength may clear the streets in this case.  This is why I'm arguing
>>for a somewhat more muscular UN: 100 Pakistani troops won't put the
>>fear of god into potential adversaries, though helicopter gunships
>>may.
>
>We already know that even helicopter gunships will not work for intimidation;
>some Somalians shot at one of ours.  Of course now that those particular
>Somalians were obliterated, the rest may be more respectful.  But in general
>it is risky to try to intimidate without having any real capability to back
>it up.

True.  I'm not saying we should just have gunships, but that whatever
groups troops there are should be backed up with more than the supposed
authority of the UN.

>In other words, you would have the UN try to achieve enough of a balance of
>power so that the war stops.  This would work, in the sense that they could
>achieve a balance of power in the short term.  But it would be a major
>operation without a fixed ending point.  Our military has shied away from
>such things ever since Vietnam, and for good reason.  The US simply does not
>have the political will to sustain a long war.  Our opponents know this,
>too; it was proven in Vietnam, where the military stalemate which was
>reached was not acceptable to us.  The Serbians would know that if they
>called our bluff by keeping the war going, eventually we would pull out.
>
>(It might seem that arming the Bosnians would not be a major operation.  But
>if we were to supply weapons we would also have to supply a constant stream
>of ammunition and spare parts.  If we stopped the flow they would be in the
>position of the Nationalist Chinese army or the South Vietnamese army.  We
>would also have to make sure we were not giving them weapons that would
>enable them to be the aggressor; this would take some very dangerous
>intelligence work, for we certainly could not trust their own figures.)

Actually, the present situation has been an arms boycott for both Serbs
and Bosnians.  I'm arguing for a lifting of the boycott on the Bosnian
side.  Supplying a stream of weapons may or may not be a major operation,
even including munitions and spare parts.  We have large armories in
Europe, with arms already paid for.  We kept up a stream of arms to
Afganistan for the better part of the decade without serious problems (in
this case, the weapons would not be used to wear down the resources of a
super-power, so the quantities would presumably be smaller).  The
Europeans would contribute if we take the lead (taking some time to
politically bludgeon them, of course), so it would not be solely a US
operation. Also, the Bosnians would have more incentive to fight than the
Kuomintang or the ARVN.  In the latter cases, the wars were ambiguous.
Vietnam was a war of national independence.  China, similarly, was a civil
war. In the case of the Bosnians, they are defending their own homes
against foreign aggressors ("we're fighting you 'cause you're here"). A
more analogous situation may be Afganistan.

Further regarding European contributions, if Serbia finishes with Bosnia,
it will likely turn south towards Kosovo and Macedonia, the war may
involve Turkey, a NATO country.  Greece, too, for that matter, if Turkey
gets into it.  Such a war, of course, would be a much, much larger
Balkan conflagration, and would draw in the Western Alliance, if only
to stem a much greater flood of refugees.





_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush