From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: A pacifist's call for conditional support for US action in Somalia
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:22:39 GMT

I'm going to do something terrible, and repost an entire article.  Mr.
Foxvog has some wonderfully written words for anyone who didn't catch them
the first time.

In article <1992Dec18.202245.6709@mont.cs.missouri.edu> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>I am a pacifist US citizen who has been appalled at US military
>interventions around the world since I became politically aware in the 
>1960s.  I know of the terrible things that my government has done and
>all the ways they try to sugar coat their reasons for taking their
>actions.  So in no way am i disposed to favor US military actions.

>However, i find the US intervention in Somalia to be different.  There
>are hundreds of thousands of people starving to death because small
>groups of armed men block the provision of food to them (after stealing
>their livestock and preventing their farming during a drought).  I
>support the protection of food convoys to the starving people.  

>Why did Bush do this?  I would guess to look good in the history books.

>Do i have some complaints about the implementation of this program?
>Certainly.  I would want the US troops to put on the blue helmets and be
>under UN, not US control.  I greatly oppose the US demanding and the UN
>Security Council granting the right to use "any means necessary."

>I would support the replacement of the US troops by troops under UN
>control as soon as possible.  When the food convoys are travelling 
>regularly in an undisturbed fashion and UN troops come in to guard
>them, the US should get out.  The US does not have the responsibility 
>or right to install a government of its choosing.  

>It is true that Somalia has a strategic location at the entrance to the
>Red Sea, the sea route to/from Europe.  It is well located near Saudi
>Arabia and other oil producing states.  It has former US (previously
>Soviet) air and naval bases which could be easily restored.  I would
>oppose the US rebuilding these bases or attempting to achieve ANY
>permanent military presence.  

>The publicly announced objectives and reasons for the action DO make
>sense and are appropriate.  I support them while opposing any hidden
>agenda for a permanent US presence in the area.  I would urge all others
>who have a fully justified opposition to US military actions to take
>similar positions.  

>By opposing this because of what might later occur, you loose strength.
>Support this action while linking your support to a reasoned opposition
>to expansion to the activities you fear and you will greatly gain
>credibility for your positions.

>I understand and sympathise with those posters who oppose this action
>for what may be behind it or what it may be converted into (although not
>with those who oppose it because they don't want to spend money to feed
>people).  But i ask them to look a little further and to conditionally
>support this for what it officially is, while opposing
>any expansion.

>-- 
>doug foxvog     
>dfo@tko.vtt.fi   

Bravo!  A voice of reason (and probably the majority, American and other)!!

Doug, let me personally thank you for summarizing the whole complex
situation in such a calm and reasonable fashion, my own internal fires can
get a little over-stoked at times.

Please, folks, print this out and read it a few times.  Object to bad
things, promote good; work with us, people.  Please?

-chris blask