From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:53:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.222021.20433@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
>This is a more detailed rebuttal to those who are trying to
>claim that the US was justified in what it did in the
>Gulf "war" just under two years ago, and what it is doing
>now, the military occupation of Somalia.
>
>Yes, I do think that war is profoundly immoral. However, I do believe
>that people have the right to defend themselves against an aggressor,
>and perhaps you agree with this also. So the basic disagreement
>we have is: was the US defending itself against a dangerous
>aggressor in the gulf war (and in Somalia), or was
>(and is) something else going on?
>
>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East....

	Lessee, Iraq attacked Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait.  Yes,
	the actions of a peace-loving regime.  The fact that
	they were beaten so badly by such a large force has more
	to do with incompetence in understanding the world beyond
	the Middle East than weakness in comparison to their neighbours

>
>  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do have
>plenty of questions:
>
>(1) Bush originally claimed that they were fighting
>this "war" to get rid of Hussein, but he is still in power
>even after the US declared "victory". So just what were
>Bush's true motivations then?

	Maybe he made an error of judgement.  There are certainly
	those who claim that the ground offensive was stopped
	too early.  The early cease-fire allowed a very large
	part of the Republican Guard to escape and bolster
	SH's survival.  If they had benn properly bottled up as the
	commanders wished, things could have been different.
>
>(2)  Hussein was an ally
>of the US for about 10 years prior to the Gulf "war,"
>receiving all kinds of trade credits and bank loans
>(on a very large scale- billions of dollars worth)
>to buy military hardware and other stuff from the US.
>Both Reagan and Bush fought Congress hard to allow Hussein
>to do this from 1980-90. Given this, don't the Reagan
>and Bush administrations bare at least some responsibility
>for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?

	Arming of the military, yes.  Encouraging the invasion of
	Kuwait, no.
>
>(3)  There is apparently one other thing we disagree on. You
>say the majority of people in the US supported US actions
>in the Gulf "war".  But this support was very very thin.
>There were polls taken that said that if a thousand or more
>US military personel were killed, people would no longer
>support the action. In addition, opposition to the war

	Support dropped off as the possible number of casualties rose.
	It did not dissappear at the magical threshold of 1000.


>was very strong and obvious before the bombing started
>(Dec.90 to early Jan. 91). But even if most people did
>support it, that doesn't justify it. If people are
>profoundly misinformed, they can be made to support just
>about anything. One thing we probably agree on is that
>you can't trust the mass media because of its bias. So
>why should we trust the mass media when it was so

	Spelling flame: "media" is a plural.
	Logic flame: The U.S. media aren't the only ones in the world.
	You should have tried reading German or Japanese reports, or
	you could have gone to a publication like L'Humanite'.  If you
	can't read other languages, there are short wave radios...
	It is up to the individual to keep themselves informed.  If
	you don't like what's most convenient, go somewhere else. Why
	do you think I read British and German news magazines?


>obviously in favor of the Gulf "war"?  And since the
>mass media was so obviously biased in favor of the gulf
>war, it must follow that they were consciously misinforming
>the public to get them to support it also.
>
>(4)  I read recently that US troops in Somalia have been
>ordered to "shoot at anything they want to."  This
>is certainly not consistent with a supposed humanitarian
>mission. And just how much food aid was the US sending
>to Somalia since the famine began many months ago? Very

	The rules of engagement allow them to shoot back at anything
	that shoots at them and do anything necessary to ensure their
	own safety.  That is very different from your understanding.
	Have you tried Debrox?

>little, in fact. Why does Bush only become concerned
>about humanitarian causes when he decides to deploy
>troops?  Why didn't he start a big campaign to send
>food aid over there a long time ago? And is he
>really sending large amounts food now? And why should

	Have you checked how much U.S. aid has gone through
	U.N. channels?

>a foreign occupying army (the US army) be able to
>more effectively distribute food, when the main

	They have then equipment, manpower, and organization to
	do it.  They can also fend off the armed gangs that are
	extorting or robbing convoys.  Southern Somalia is not simply
	a country with a shortage of food, it is sump of armed
	anarchy.

>effect of sending troops there is to greatly
>escalate the military conflict? There's no question

	It's not so much a military conflict, more gang warfare.
	There is no Somali military or government to invite or oppose them.

>that whatever local military forces are already in
>Somalia are going to react to the newly arriving US
>troops in a hostile way, escalating the
>conflict. And even if more fighting doesn't take
>place, the presence of a large foreign army certainly
>increases tensions to an extreme degree. All of
>this makes it even MORE difficult to distribute
>food. And as a long term solution, the Somalians
>need a situation in which they can feed themselves,
>and escalating the military confrontation makes
>this even more impossible.
>
	You appear to be basing your argument on the premise
	that the force is sent there to fight, which it is not,
	it is sent as an organization that has the manpower, equipment,
	and organization to do that job and to defend itself as
	necessary.

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush