From: carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:16:42 GMT

Elizabeth G. Levy writes
> In article <1992Dec17.003952.22847@newsgate.sps.mot.com>  
carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec16.030250.9427@news.columbia.edu>  
> >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> >furthermore, I think that invading a small nation on the other  
side  
> >of the globe in order to stop a few good ol' boys and feed the  
hungry  
> >(so that the good ol' boys can come back next year) is not  
justified.
> 
> This is your position then.  Fine (Though I'd argue we should go  
ahead
> to some extent with the UN's request, and disarm the "good ol'  
boys".
> As said, this whole operation is pointless if that is not done.)

Agreed.  And I hope that that is the outcome, i really do.  But I  
reference several other posters' comments that the situation in  
Somalia will not be fixed for real until a stable government is  
established.  Just about everyone agrees that this could take years.

I hope that the US can leave by the end of January and the UN can  
stick around long enough to set up a government, if that is what is  
to be done.  But I don't think that's realistic without abandoning  
the people of Somalia.  There has been very little actual combat in  
Somalia (i'm not complaining here, i'm just stating a fact).  The  
warlords are still there -- *some* force will have to stick around  
and curtail them when the US leaves.  If the people who support this  
operation are correct, then the UN failed miserably at this before  
the marines arrived;  why can we assume that they will be more  
successful in the future??  

and i don't think it's realistic to think that we can totally disarm  
the warlords.  I hope that we can, but i just don't think it will  
happen.  Only time will tell.

> >I'm not disagreeing with this just because it is a military  
action.   
> >I'm disagreeing with it because it's pointless.  Read on....
> 
> That wasn't apparent when we started this thread.  My impression  
was
> that you disagreed because it was a military action.

A moot point, but I have never stated that i oppose *all* military  
action.  I have said that I oppose playing policeman to the world,  
and that I oppose the action in Somalia, but I have never made a  
sweeping generalization like "i oppose all military action, anywhere,  
by anyone, for any purpose."

> I have this
> fuzzy memory of some line that implied I was a  
militarist/war-monger,
> which I don't believe I am.  Perhaps you didn't write that line:
> Usenet makes swiss cheese out of cranial matter.  Apologies in that
> case.

Not to sound like Oliver North or anything, but I don't remember  
stating or implying such a thing.  I'm sure that someone will point  
it out to me if I did.... 

> >So you must believe that our policy goal is to feed the hungry in  
> >Somalia.  Well, we killed the hungry in Uganda, and we imported  
the  
> >hungry in Southeast Asia, so I guess that would be an improvement  
> >over the past....
> >
> >But i still don't buy it.  I don't think our government is  
concerned  
> >about individuals in Somalia.  If they were concerned, they  
wouldn't  
> >have sent the guns there in the first place.
> 
> The arming of Somalia was a Cold War exercise in realpolitik.
> Hopefully, we're beyond that now (though the build up of Iraq by  
past
> administrations leaves me queasy).

amen!  btw, if the US is so concerned about humanitarianism, how come  
they let Saddam Hussein slaughter thousands of Kurdish citizens  
without batting an eye right after we supposedly crippled his  
military???  (incidently, since we were in Iraq anyway that is a  
military action that I would have supported.)  "because we couldn't  
interfere with domestic affairs."  well, why can we interfere in  
Somalia???

> 
> They may not be concerned about individual Somalians, but they may  
be
> concerned about their image for the history books.  Military action  
is
> not worth a favorable footnote. 

you took the words out of my mouth!

> However, this action is not solely
> benefiting posterity.  We have an opportunity to use our resources
> towards humanitarian ends, which may be worth deploying troops for.   
I
> think so (though I'd rather have alternative organizations do this.
> No such agencies exist right now, though.), and that is essentially  
my
> argument.

so the government decides that they need a war/police action/  
whatever, and then they set about justifying it.  They can't justify  
a war in eastern Europe, so they set about finding a police  
action/war somewhere else.  Somalia seems ripe for the conquering, so  
they start hyping the pictures of starving babies there.  soon, even  
the birkenstocks and tie dye crowd is supporting Operation  
Sweepsweek.  

I'm glad that the people are being fed.  I'm glad that American lives  
are not being lost.  But i think the whole situation reeks of  
ulterior motives, and I hope that the people of Somalia aren't the  
ones neglected when the public opinion shifts to some other issue.

After we couldn't hate the Soviets anymore, we had the war on  
illiteracy.  then we had the war on drugs.  then Noriega became the  
most evil man in history.  then we had the war on flag burning.  then  
we had the war on Iraq.  then we had the election/war on the economy.   
now we have a war on world hunger.  

soon that will fade away and we'll have a war on something else.   
George Bush is a puppet of the opinion polls, but he will be sunning  
himself in Florida in another month....I just hope that Clinton does  
not find himself playing clean-up boy to George's ratings-booster.

--brett, no clever .sig yet
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush