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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:40:43 GMT

In article <1gjhr2INNkeo@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>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?
>
>The following is a quote of a posting to sci.military, which should clarify
>that somewhat.  Since the groups are organized along clan lines, I find it 
>plausible that the soldiers would obey orders from the clan leader.

[informative list deleted]

You see, part of my problem with clan leaders exerting more than
nominal control over their troops is the talk of "subclans" and other
subdivisions.  Would troops have greater allegiance to the local clan
leader than a more visible warlord?  Is the situation somewhat feudal,
with chieftans pledging nominal support to a warlord, while mostly
galavanting about on their own?  Also, this list accounts for about half
of the 70K or so Somalis under arms.  What of the rest?

>
>
>>
>>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.
>
>You are right that just sending weapons need not be a major operation.  But
>it also might not work.  Serbia is a larger country than Bosnia.  I would
>think the Serbians can field a larger force.  Furthermore the war seems to
>have degenerated into a static affair, with two Bosnian enclaves remaining
>under siege.  The Bosnians were defeated by the Serbs in open warfare, but
>when their fighters became packed together (relatively speaking) in these
>two areas, and could entrench, they started being able to hold off the
>Serbs.

I'd question popular support of the war in Serbia itself.  Milosevic's
political support is iffy.  He has managed to hold his regime together
in part becase the West has given it legitimacy (by negotiating with
him, so he can argue that his government is recognized in
international circles; by imposing the arms embargo on Bosnia also, so
he can say that the Bosnians are the real bad guys.  A few other
things that I don't recall.  Anthony Lewis had an interesting column
on this a few days back in the NYT.)  The West may be able to
undermine his regime by changing its relationship to both Serbia and
Bosnia.  This may be a tricky course of action, as Milosevic may be
able to argue that the whole world is out to get Serbia.

>
>Presumably we could give the Bosnians enough aid so that they could assume
>the offensive.  But then we would have a great difficulty limiting that
>offensive, especially if they wanted to trick us, and stockpiled ammunition
>without telling us.

True.  As said, Bosnia is a tricky situation, much more so than Somalia.

>
>> 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.
>
>Ambiguous?  Communist rule is devastating; many conquests by a foreign
>aggressor have been far less injurious to the invaded country than a
>communist revolution.  Even today there are boat people fleeing communist
>Vietnam.

I was refering more towards how Vietnam was more of a war of national
independence, and not an invasion by a foreign power.  You can look at
references in Neil Shennan's _A Bright Shining Lie_.  A more original
source would be the Pentagon Papers, which chronicles the devopment of
the Ho Chi Minh regime, and the US's relationship to it after WW2.  We
misjudged Vietnam badly, because of our Cold War assumptions on
Communism.  Domino Theory, etc.






--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia