From: barnhart@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: IPS:SOMALIA: Pentagon does not expect to go in ''guns blazing''
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:35:28 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Reference: North America
Title: SOMALIA: Pentagon does not expect to go in ''guns blazing''

/relate/

att editors: please relate the foll. to 'somalia: growing doubts
about wisdom of proposed u.s. deployment', moved from washington

washington, dec 3 (ips) -- the pentagon, preparing to send as many
as 30,000 u.s. troops into somalia to clear the way for relief
supplies to get to some two million starving civilians, does not
expect to ''go in with guns blazing'', a spokesperson said here
thursday.

''we don't see this as a big invasion force,'' spokesperson
pete williams told reporters. ''this is a force to go in and
secure the roads, get the ports, get things moving again.''

his remarks came amid growing speculation and concern about the
precise mandate and timetable for the operation, which could begin
almost immediately after the anticipated vote by the u.n. security
council thursday afternoon.

almost 2,000 u.s. marines, equipped with helicopters and tanks,
are already stationed off the somali coast in the indian ocean as
part of a task force which is expected to be rapidly supplemented
by airlifts of light infantry troops stationed in the united
states.

in addition, a naval supply ship equipped with 600 tractors,
trailers, trucks, and other supplies, is steaming towards somalia,
according to pentagon officials who told reporters thursday the
force could eventually number close to 30,000 troops.

white house spokesperson marlin fitzwater said earlier thursday
that president george bush has been calling world leaders
soliciting their support and participation in the operation which
is designed to gain rapid control of somalia's transportation
infrastructure so that relief supplies can be distributed to needy
civilians.

fitzwater repeated earlier comments that washington hopes to
withdraw its troops by jan. 20 when president-elect bill clinton
takes power. clinton has endorsed the mission in general terms.

fitzwater also stressed that bush had no interest in using the
force to help ''establish a new government or resolve the decades-
long conflict there or set up a protectorate or anything like
that''.

''we want to make it clear that this u.n. force would be
designed to get humanitarian supplies in,'' he said -- point
echoed a few hours later by williams and state department
spokesperson richard boucher. (more/ips)

somalia: pentagon does not expect to go in ''guns blazing'' /rela(2-e)

somalia: pentagon (2)

he also said bush himself is likely to lay out the scope and
purpose of the operation after the u.n. vote. white house sources
told ips bush may address the nation about the operation by
television thursday night.

williams told reporters the operation was a ''complete
contrast'' to last year's mobilisation for the gulf war.  ''i
think it points up the versatility of the u.s. military,'' it
said, adding that its only purpose was ''humanitarian''.

williams and boucher also said they expected other countries
will take part. but some critics continued thursday to raise
questions about the operation.

rep. john murtha, the powerful chair of the defence
appropriations sub-committee in the house of representatives noted
that the operation represented a ''dramatic change in the
fundamental way we deploy troops.

''we're talking about humanitarian aid, going into a country
without a government. we've not been asked in, and it could end up
being an extremely expensive operation,'' he said.  ''we don't
know the parameters of what we're doing,'' he told interviewers on
national television networks.

''there's no clear national interest, and if we're going to do
this, we have to know what the cost is,'' he added, complaining
that congress has not been fully consulted.

''everybody's moved by the fact that people are starving. (in)
sarajevo, people are getting killed every day. in other countries,
there is fighting that is going on continually. should we
intercede at every one of these operations?'' he went on.

''there's a limit to the amount that we can do.  we just can't
afford to be the policeman of the world.''

'washington post' columnist jim hoagland also raised new
questions thursday, asking why the intervention was taking place
now when ''the case for intervention has been (clear) for
months''.

''somalia could be a turning point in the pentagon's search for
vital new missions'' now that the cold war is over, hoagland
wrote.

the reasoning by the bush administration appears to be that
intervention is ''being done because it can be done. somalia
presents none of the daunting challenges of bosnia and all of the
operational advantages of operation desert storm''.

bush needs to ''lay the foundation for an american deployment
in somalia by explaining more clearly why (he seems) to be using
different criteria for (his) non-intervention in bosnia,''
hoagland wrote. (end/ips/jl/yjc/92)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african