From: gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Reply-To: gr2a@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:16:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.194038.3557@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> montas@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Hubert J Montas) writes:
>      As usual, the government is using the 'threat' of anarchy and famine
>to justify their unjustifiable operation in Somalia. What are they really
>trying to do? Do they want to counter a potential rise in left-wing politics
>in the horn of Africa? Do they want to restore an old order in which they can
>reap more profits from a wretched land? Do they want to show off their military
>power in a dry climate so as to scare the Middle East again and sell more wea-
>pons next year? Do they want to intervene before muslims get organized and do
>it themselves (apparently a factor in ex-Yugo.)? Just what is the meaning of
>'operation restore hope'?
>
>       Hubert.
	
Having some excuse to maintain an army, IMO, even though there's nobody
left on the planet willing to play enemy. For the last forty years the
US Gov't has relied on the military to propel the US economy (contracts,
R&D, "national security" as an excuse to do as they please and keep it all
a secret..), and now that the Soviets are gone they're going to either
have to actually fight wars with someone - which is expensive and gets
the public upset when lots of Americans get killed - or come up with
something else for the military to do. (The Gulf War was an exception: how
often are they going to have an easy win like that *and* rich oil sheiks
to pay for the whole thing?) 

I was already seeing this a couple years ago in Madagascar; dozens of US
Marines showed up at one point in this small town I was staying in to 
build a hospital as part of a US aid program - as if bricks and 
bricklayers weren't one of the few things Madagascar *didn't*  have a 
shortage of. If you really want to give people a bad image of your country,
I couldn't think of anyone better to send on an aid mission than Marines,
but that's who they sent.

Actually, while I'm on the subject, there's been a drought in the south of
Madagascar too for as long as the one in Somalia but the UN got food in
and nobody starved, and partly *because* of the anarchy in the country: since
there was a general strike going on at the time, and the government was
basically not functioning at all, the UN agents went straight to the local
village councils and left it up to them to handle the storage and
distribution of the food -  which they were perfectly capable of doing
themselves without bureaucrats to do for them. (It helped of course that
Madagascar was never a Cold War pawn like Somalia, so the superpowers
never filled it full of weopons.)

As long as I'm writing this, I might remark that the person had a point
who was talking about dictionary definitions of "anarchy". I guess a lot
of people think "anarchism" sounds old-fashioned and "anarchy" sounds
more exciting and subversive, but I find it hard to understand why people
who want to use "anarchy" rather than "anarchism" for this reason then
go on to complain that their friends think they're in favor of a situation
like that in Somalia. I guess you gotta make up your mind whether you're
more interested in shocking people (which admittedly is fun) or winning
them over. 

Just a thought.

	David Graeber