From: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: somalia
Keywords: no reply
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:47:39 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, 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? 
	
	Who ever said the US was defending itself, I always
	understood the US position to be that of defending
	the over Gulf States ( eg. Saudi Arabia ).

	Not that I believed that anyway. It was obvious
	that the US only entered in to the Gulf because
	Iraq threatened ( massively ) the stability of
	several very important, oil-producing nations.
	The US was more than content to let Iran and Iraq
	fight each other.
>
>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a 
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East.

	Dangerous to whom? To the combined UN forces who  
	had been given nearly 6 months to prepare and had massive
	superiority, numerically in the air if not on land.

	I think that the Iraqi Armed forces could have been
	more than a match for any defence which Saudi Arabia
	could have mounted.

>	 There are two facts on which I'm 
>sure we both agree that bare on this assumption: 
>(1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
>weeks; and (2) very few US military personnel were killed. 
>Moreover, Schwartzkopt himself characterised the action
>as a "Turkey Shoot," apparently referring to the ease with
>which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous, 
>as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
>then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq?

	Easy, massive, massive technical advantage and air
	superiority.

	Plus Iraqs seemingly undisciplined and unmotivated
	forces.

>					 It took the 
>combined powers of the US Britain and Soviet Union 4 years
>to defeat Nazi Germany, not six weeks!

	WHAT, What happened to your history books?
	start of WWII = 1939
	End of WWII = 1945

	That equals 6 years. And I know the US and the USSR,
	didnt fight for the first several years, but for the British,
	WWII lasted for a lot longer than 4 years.


>
>  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? 

	To stop further destabilisation of the mid-east,
	Hussien is merely the leader of Iraq. And I cannot
	believe that Bush's priority was to stop the suffering
	of the Kurds, etc.

>
>(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?

	Only because Iran was the enemy. And only because
	Iran was the USSR's ally. But certainly the US
	has some responsibility for the invasion, as does
	France, Britain and the many other weapons exporters.

	
>
>(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 personnel were killed, people would no longer
>support the action. In addition, opposition to the war
>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
>obviously in favour of the Gulf "war"?  And since the
>mass media was so obviously biased in favour of the gulf
>war, it must follow that they were consciously misinforming
>the public to get them to support it also.
>

	I dont necessarily think that it was the media
	manipulation public opinion. IU think that Public
	Opinion had more to do with Schwartzkopt's daily
	briefings. Eg. remember the "luckiest man in Iraq" 
	film. Well, they never showed the similar Unluckiest
	man in Iraq film.

	
>(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
>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?

	Two very good questions. Any one have any
	answers?

>					 And is he
>really sending large amounts food now? And why should

	No, but its more than before, so its better.

>a foreign occupying army (the US army) be able to
>more effectively distribute food, when the main
>effect of sending troops there is to greatly
>escalate the military conflict? There's no question

	Why is that the main effect. Remember Somalia
	isn't just in a was, or evan a civil war, its
	in total anarchy. Sending in troops will merely
	leave the extortionists and 'protection' bandits
	out of a job.


>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.

	Well, so far that hasnt happened. Every one,
	it seems is lying low.

 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

	Why would a large, WELL DISCIPLINED AND BEHAVED,
	army increase tension when they a replacing squads
	of extortionist, gun toting bandits and children.
	
	I think stability and order is the degree most lacking 
	in Somalia at the present time.

>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.
>

	True, they do need a way to feed themselves.
	But using troops to distribute food means that
	it is easer as virtually NO food was getting 
	through before.

	And so far, God willing, there hasnt been an
	escalation or confrontation yet. 

	Dave 


-- 
	 _________________________________________________
	|  // /||\/| | / ` /| ||       Dave Ford.	  |
	|\X/ /^||  | | \_7/^| ||py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk |
	 -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia