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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:05:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.010125.7179@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.222054.22934@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>Now, in the case of Somalia, I tend to agree with the application of
>>the military (I'd like a better articluation of long-range goals, a
>>structural reform of the UN, and the creation of a real UN army.  Hey,
>							^^^^^^^^
>I would think that would mean a drastic overhaul.  Technically (;-) the
>UN is a peace keeping organization.   They are supposed to enter a country
>only when all parties of a conflict or whatever have agreed to comply with
>what the UN has prescribed (Ex., Cambodia).  Now in the case of the Gulfwar,
>the UN was bringing "peace" into a country rather than trying to maintain
>it: the UN declared war on one its members :).

Yeah, but the UN so far has not had the means to do peacekeeping in,
say, Angola: the guys in the blue hats didn't have the means to disarm
one of the rival factions.  When they left, and the elections went
against this faction, it simply re-armed.  Similarly, the UN doesn't
have the strength to keep the Khmer Rouge from straying from its
agreements in Cambodia.  Same thing may happen in Somalia in 6 months
or so, once the US leaves.  The UN's peacekeeping mission is simply
hindered by the fact that, whenever it needs troops, it has to go
around and beg.  These troops usually come lightly armed, and weaker
than the factions in the countries they are supposed to be
peacekeeping in.  As long as the UN's military power relies this
hand-to-mouth method, I can't see how it can consistently fulfill it's
mission.

From the US's standpoint, it may be cheaper for us to support such a
force.  The US wouldn't have to be cavalry as in Somalia, when the
situation has more or less gotten out of hand because the UN's forces
aren't strong enough to clear the streets of technicals.  Preventive
cures may be cheaper than emergency surgery.  The US may not bear the
brunt of the financial and military cost, especially if we give
Germany and Japan permanent seats, with the requisite maintenance fees
and troop contributions (of course, this would require fundamental
changes in the German and Japanese constitutions, but, hey, we're
fantasizing, aren't we? :-)

>
>>it's X-mas!  What better time for wish lists!).  Certainly, it's a
>>better use for the DOD than the support of some 2nd-rate authoritarian
>>who claims his country is being overrun by Communist insurgents.  The
>>military has to redefine itself for the post-Cold War era, after all.
>>Can you think of anything more constructive?
>
>Interesting to speculate whether this was the real reason for going into
>Somalia.  The Scenario is that the military realizes that with the new
>administration it is going made more lean (and mean ?).  There are a large
>number of jobs at stake.  There's pressure on the top military brass because
>of this.  They put pressure on Bush to use the miliary in an altruistic mode
>(... in line with the Democratic parties idealogies).  The next phase will
>be that there will be tremendous pressure on Clinton not to cut back the
>miliary. (Hmmm. and he has so many things lined up to use all that "extra"
>money on other things...)

Actually, there's an interesting article in the January issue of the
Atlantic Monthly.  The Pentagon is of two minds about its future
missions.  One is to keep the funds flowing in by taking on more
altruistic, non-military missions.  The other fears that it's primary
mission, the profession of arms, will be eroded by such civilianish
endeavors.  I tend to agree with the latter view: the main function of
the military is to fight wars, to implement that part of foreign
policy.  It is not to help in hurricane relief or riot control.  This,
of course, implies creating strong civilian organizations to perform
these "paramilitary" roles that the Pentagon has taken on of late.  A
real disaster relief agency instead of what is now a cushy place to
put political appointees, for instance.  Better organization for the
state militias (the National Guard), so they won't forget where they
put their ammo, as in the case of LA.  The UN army for the foreign
missions, etc.



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

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia