From: nyt@nyxfer.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Behind Pentagon's Move Into Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:07:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:75qyVB14w165w@nyxfer.uucp:-2027472290:000:6468
Nf-From: nyxfer.uucp!nyt    Dec 17 22:07:00 1992


Subject: Behind Pentagon's Move Into Somalia
From: nyxfer!nyt (NY Transfer News)

Via The NY Transfer News Service * All the News that Doesn't Fit


BEHIND THE PENTAGON'S MOVE INTO AFRICA

By Brian Becker

What's the real reason the Bush administration suddenly decided,
just before leaving office, to reverse its do-nothing policy on
Somalia? Why opt for a massive occupation of this country in the
Horn of Africa now?

Bush says U.S. troops were urgently needed because Somalia was
slipping into total "anarchy." The famine was supposedly spreading
and could kill millions. Both assertions are false.

Because the media have repeatedly broadcast images of starving
people and non-uniformed armed units,  many  accept Bush's
arguments at face value. Recent polls, if they are to be believed,
show the president's action has a high approval rating.

But this is no "humanitarian mission." It is a military operation
to establish imperialist domination in a region of strategic
importance.

THE FAMINE EASES

At the famine's height, during the last two years, the Bush
administration did virtually nothing to come to Somalia's aid. In
recent months the famine-related death rate has declined
dramatically.

Today, according to former Africa Watch Director Rakiya Omaar, "the
famine and the war are limited to the southwest region. ... The
famine is waning. Markets in all the main towns are awash with
cheap food because of the looting.  Acute malnutrition exists in
scattered rural pockets." (The Guardian of Britain, Dec. 5)

The New York Times reported Dec. 14, "The rains in the past months,
unlike the arid seasons of the previous two years, have been good
in the grain-growing central and southern regions of Somalia,
leading to hopes of some crops early in the new year."

The Times' Jane Perlez reported: "A plan for the 200 marines at
[an] airstrip to give 30 bags of rice to community elders in the
nearby town in exchange for weapons fizzled. The elders turned up
without the weapons and asked for jobs instead of food. They seemed
uninterested in the rice, which is inexpensive in the markets now."
(Dec. 14)

How can rice be cheap in Somalia? Supply must be plentiful enough
to exceed demand.

Perlez also reported Somali farmers have stopped planting corn and
other basic foods "because there was no market because of all the
rice in the kitchens and the dry food distributions by the
humanitarian agencies in Mogadishu."

WHAT `ANARCHY'?

Somalia has been without an effective central government since the
1991 ouster of the U.S.-backed regime of Mohammed Siad Barre. But
what of Bush's claim the country had slipped into total "anarchy"?

Omaar, who is Somali, says: "This is false. About three-quarters of
the country is relatively peaceful, with civil structures in place
to a greater or lesser extent. ... Clan elders play a critical role
in facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance and in
negotiating peace agreements throughout much of the country.

"Most of the food is not looted.  [The] Save the Children Fund has
distributed 4,000 tons in Mogadishu without losing a single bag.
Other agencies that work closely with Somalis suffer [loss] rates
of 2 percent to 10 percent because they consult with Somali elders
and humanitarian workers; working with Somalis is the key to
success."

The UN agency CARE is looted because of its unwillingness to deal
with Somali institutions.

The Real Deal

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Colin Powell said at a recent
Somalia briefing that this operation is a "paid political
advertisement" of U.S. military prowess.

Last March, a Pentagon White Paper that outlined a plan to maintain
U.S. world domination in a post-Cold War era was leaked to
reporters. The plan was directed both against Third World countries
and U.S. imperialist rivals in Europe and Asia.

As outlined, the Pentagon planned to step into any power vacuum. No
opportunity to prove the U.S. was the number-one military power
would be overlooked.

Powell undoubtedly had this Pentagon doctrine in mind at the news
briefing about the invasion of Somalia.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark believes the U.S. wants
to establish a military presence in Somalia. The nation is located
at the mouth of the Red Sea.

Clark says Bush put the "Marines in there to give them time to form
a government that will be subservient" to the United States. He
also believes the Bush administration and the Pentagon are trying
to dominate the new Clinton administration's foreign policy agenda
by making a series of long-term commitments now.

Others, such as Village Voice writer Doug Ireland, note that Bush
aides say the president wants to exit office in glory. But would
the hugely powerful Pentagon establishment approve a vast military
commitment just to make a lame-duck president feel good?

Pentagon Looks Ahead

The Pentagon doesn't just serve the far-flung interests of the
imperialist ruling class as a whole. It also jealously guards its
own pre-eminent political and economic standing as a
semi-independent institutional power.

Presidents come and go but the Pentagon establishment remains. The
Pentagon brass control a $300 billion annual budget. And they are
tied to 70,000 military contractors and subcontractors.

The military-industrial complex is resisting any significant
reduction in its bloated budget now that the so-called Cold War is
over. The brass are certainly aware of the growing clamor that
money be spent on jobs, education, health care, and housing rather
than more high-tech weapons of mass destruction.

Without a world power adversary like the Soviet Union, the Pentagon
apparatus seeks new missions and new enemies to justify its
existence. In this sense, the U.S. invasion of Somalia may be only
a prelude to even greater adventures.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainer recently wrote a
syndicated column entitled "Bush sends Yugoslavia a message via
Somalia." In it, he argued the Pentagon's "willingness to intervene
in Somalia is an oblique warning to the Serbs that the United
States can do the same thing in the Balkans."

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if
source is cited. For more info contact Workers World, 46 W. 21
St., New York, NY 10010; email: ww%nyxfer@igc.apc.org; "workers"
on PeaceNet; on Internet: "workers@mcimail.com".)


 NY Transfer News Service * All the News that Doesn't Fit
 Modem: 718-448-2358  *  Internet: nytransfer@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african