From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:31:33 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Dec16.011312.19839@mogate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com 
writes:

> In article <1992Dec15.055159.25224@news.columbia.edu>  
> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> > In article <1992Dec15.014713.13065@mogate.sps.mot.com>  
> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
> > >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> > 
> > [Dieogo Garcia is better, already built.  Saudi bases are better than 
> > building a new one(s) in Somalia]
 
> Admittedly, that is true.  But we wouldn't *need* a base there if the 
> Somalian government (oxymoron??  at this point anyway...) were a hegemonic 
> wing of the US State Department.

  Well, now that depends on what the base is *for*.  To protect oil tankers 
moving through the Red Sea?  Egypt could still put the kibosh on the Suez
Canal anytime it felt like it.  Who else would attack them?  The Libyans?  They 
would an instant pounding from carriers in the Mediterranean(sp) or bases in
Italy (if the Libyans were to do something so blatant, I doubt anyone would
complain much).  Then there's the question of flying across Egypt or the
Sudan just to get in range...Jordan has little to gain and much to lose from 
such an action.  That's oil from Saudi Arabia in those tankers, no motives 
there.  Iraq would have to fly over SA or Jordan, and that might not be
easy, not to mention the quick retribution to be expected via Tomahawk missiles
or Turkish bases or Saudi bases or carriers in the Indian Ocean/Gulf...

>  The point is, Somalia is *on* the main shipping route for  
> cheap oil en route to the US and Europe.  If it were not, the Marines would 
> not be involved in their internal unrest.

  Well, why now, and not earlier?  Who's the threat?  If this were *purely* for
cold-blooded advantage, it would have been done a long time ago, would it not?

>>>[why now and not earlier if humanitarian]
> > Partially the end of the Cold War.  We can put the military where we
> > want to, because we're no longer afraid of noises from the Russians.
> 
> so we get to be the world's policeman now??  And the Somalian (and Iraqi, 
> btw) populations get to be Rodney King??  

  You're getting a little hysterical here.  Ms. Levy points out, quite 
correctly, that now that the US and USSR conflict is history, this sort of
mission is possible.  There is no more (or less, at least) opposition to
someone taking an action "just because" of who they are (read: the US).

> > Someone proposed that the military is seeking new missions, also,
> > and perhaps petitioned for this operation.  This is plausible.
> 
> This is very plausible, and also very frightening.  There are a lot of 
> people making a lot of money off of the war industry in this country;  if we 
> just let our military sit idle, their profit margins are in jeopardy.

  Not too mention the jobs of the workers at those plants.  Always more than
one side to an issue.  The issue of military cuts is a forgone conclusion.  The
only question is the size of them.  It is no surprise the brass hats would like
them to be as small as possible, that's human nature.

[Bush wanting to leave on a good note, would this have served to divert atten-
 tion from domestic affairs, and would that have worked for him?]

> This is a moot point, but do you think bush *wanted* to emphasize domestic  
> issues??  A popular war over feeding the starving masses in Somalia might 
> have been just the diversion that George Bush would have needed to get  
> reelected..... 
> I'm sure that some would have seen it as a political move (which it is -- 
> even coming after the election).  But I think that Bush's popularity ratings
>  needed a diversion from economic issues, which Somalia would have provided. 

  Except that the press would have reported it as just that, and people would
have seen it as just that, a cynical political diversion.  There was NO WAY
a foreign adventure in Somalia would have helped Bush in the election.  The
focus was on "family values" and a "return to the homefront".  Even Bush
made a point of saying that now that the war on communism was won, we could
devote more effort to domestic problems...

[is this a trap set for Clinton by Bush.  If things go wrong, who gets the 
 blame?]

  I'll try and deal with this later.

> I'm inclined to agree.   If we *are* going to invade Somalia, why aren't the  
> french, british, and chinese armies involved??  Isn't that the idea of a UN  
> action??  
> 
> but the fact that the operation *is* strictly a US sort of thing (with a few  
> token forces from other nations, granted) tells me that we are protecting US  
> interests, not the interests of the UN or the human race.

  Hmm, the UN asked for this sort of intervention once it became apparent that
the Peacekeepers were being ineffective.  It has yet to be demonstrated to me
that there are any US interests in Somalia woth sending troops in for.  All 
that the US needs from Somalia is for it to leave alone those tankers everybody
likes to talk about.  We already have that situation without doing a damn 
thing.

  Really, there are few precedents for this sort of thing.  Korea and Iraq are
about it for real combat forces on a (at least nominally) UN mission.  I sup-
pose we could try to determine the sizes of the various contingents being
sent by other nations, the French are there in unknown numbers, and around
1,000 Canadians are expected, according to a canuck poster.  Of course, if the
US sends 30,000, most countries will not that they aren't really needed, and
only maybe a half-dozen or countries could manage a comparable feat.

  But I do find it amusing that if someone else had gone in to Somalia, Mr. 
Carlson would be willing to say it was a humanitarian operation, but the
mere fact that US troops are the primary ones involved makes it an Evil
American Imperialist Self-Serving Manuever(sp).

[some deletions related to Bosnia]

> > He perhaps can go along with the UN General Secretary's proposal, and
> > begin to disarm the factions.  This perhaps would be the best case.
> 
> Merely taking away the guns is not going to stop factions who have been  
> fighting for years from killing each other.  The only permanent solution to 
> the Somalian problem is a stable government.  Does the US want to stick 
> around that long??  Do we have any choice??

  Actually, it's not quite that awful.  If the factions were largely disarmed,
the more traditional UN peacekeepers, or smaller forces from other nations 
could keep a lid on things while a government was created under UN mandate.
The trick is making it VERY obvious that playing with guns will serve to
hurt your own interests in the long and short run.

> That's a big part of why this operation scares me.  If the US pulls out 
> before real stability is established, the Clinton administration will be 
> criticized for abandoning the Somali people.  But establishing a government 
> could take *years*, and the Clinton admistration will be criticized for not 
> getting this thing settled.....

  See above.

> > What this probably is is an example of the dominance of the media
> > in the post-Cold War world, with perhaps a touch of Pentagon
> > mission-seeking.
> 
> So you agree, then, that the cause of the war is something other than  
> humanitarianism??  That to me is enough reason to oppose the action right  
> there!

  This may get me into trouble, but...

  First off, I do not think it is appropriate to call this operation a "war". I
believe it deserves the term "police action" far more than did Korea or Vietnam
(and if people like Noam Chomsky can say the Gulf War was not a war, then this
thing ain't either).  Certainly a civil war existed and still exists in
Somalia, but so far the US troops have only acted to protect themselves and the
relief workers.  These are not actions normally considered "warlike".  I will
go on record to say that events may cause me change my opinion, but *so far*
events do not justify casting this as a US "war" against Somalia (with all
the negative connotational baggage that comes with it).

  Secondly, media spotlights and the desire of the Pentagon to find something
to do with all its gear in the twilight of the Cold War are not in and of
themselves evil, and do not in and of themselves make a cogent argument for
opposing US involvement in Somalia.  Is the desire of the brass hats to do
something nice to justify a higher budget a valid counter-argument to starving
people and general anarchy?  I think not.

  I think a more valid source for disagreement with American (or any country,
for that matter) involvement in Somalia is not the question of whys (regard-
less of why, people *are* being helped), but rather, what, if any strings are
attached to the aid?  There have been attempts at this last, but so far none
have been all that convincing.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia