From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.234025.4181@mogate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.025244.9038@news.columbia.edu>  
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>No problem......I hadn't figured that this would go through five  
>generations of replies, but i guess I should have known better!  :-)

Yeah, this is a politics newsgroup, after all :-)

>
>we're getting majorly off of the intended subject here...What I'm  
>saying is that our government is concerned about a stable, pro-US  
>government on the cheap-oil shipping route. I agree that (while the  
>US would probably *like* a military base in Somalia), they do not  
>currently have the resources to build one.

This is true in the sense that we don't want our ships interdicted.
However, Somalia is unlikely to have a hostile government, or any
government for that matter, any time soon.

>
>Again: **the point is**, if somalia were not strategically located,  
>the US would not be involved there.  If this is not true, then why  
>did the US not help any of the other starving African nations when  
>*they* were plagued by unstable governments and warring factions,  
>even after the cold war and before the election??  Bush *could* have  
>helped out the starving masses after desert storm, or anytime before  
>the Democratic convention...that would have allowed him to continue  
>on his wave of popularity and to divert attention from our own  
>domestic situation.....

Well, after the Gulf War, all the CNN cameramen were busy in Kuwait...

This is one of the main reasons for intervention here and not
elsewhere, I think.  CNN happened to in Somalia and not the Sudan.
Also, the most recent New Republic (the issue devoted to Africa, I
don't recall the date) has an article by Fred Barnes saying how Bush's
decision to intervene was because of a letter from the UN General
Secretary asking him to intervene.

A foreign adventure during the election would have been damned
instantly as a diversion from the domestic side.  It would have cost
Bush politically to do this (and Bush is a creature of the polls,
after all).  At most, it may have budget Perot from the front pages
(though this may have been unlikely :-).

>> Famine is not a pleasant thing, especially if it is partially  
>caused
>> by political calculation on part of local warlords. 
>
>and two superpowers (only one of them still in existance) passing out  
>guns several years ago in order to extend spheres of inflouence.    
>Again, where do you think the warlords got all those M-16s from??  

I know full well where all the guns came from, and I believe I've
consistently argued against realpolitik (This of course draws the
random flame from a right-winger invariably yelling out, "What about
Afghanistan?!"  Sigh.)

>
>I read this as "we shouldn't intervene when there's a problem, but we  
>have to help out when there's a problem."   there's a lot of famine  
>and genocide in the world, as there has been for many years (SE Asia,  
>many african nations, many south american nations...)  And in fact  
>the US caused a large portion of it.  
>
>Where do you draw the line??  We help Somalia today....we help  
>ethiopia tomorrow...we help bosnia the day after that....and the  
>sudan the day after that....meanwhile, homelessness in this nation is  
>at an all-time high.  We need to stop being the world's  
>policeman/landlord.

I know, I know.  These are difficult questions, and I don't have
answers.  I perhaps have tried to "fudge" the answer a little before,
by arguing for a real UN army, realistic UN financing, etc.  Let the
Japanese and Germans into the Security Council Old Timer's Club, and
let them put in money and troops.  We may be better served by letting
the UN do its job as peacekeeper, but these are long-term solutions,
and would require tinkering in the basic structure of the UN.

>
>
>> To do otherwise would be the
>> moral equivalent of locking up the lifevests while people are
>> drowning.
>
>but we don't need to jump out of our own boat to deliver the lifevest  
>to them.  maybe we should have stopped passing out warships a couple  
>of years ago, and then we wouldn't have so many sinking boats???

See above on realpolitik, and on the UN.  These are proposals for
discussion, after all.

>
>> The 12/28 New Republic, which I just got today, puts forth the case
>> far more eloquently and persuasively than I can.  Take a gander.
>
>Aw geez, now i have to take off work and go to the library.  :-)
>
>I will try to check out the article, however

You should subscribe :-)

The Barnes article is in this issue.  There is also (I've read most of
it by now) a good article on why intervention in Somalia is Not A Good
Idea, along with another one calling Somalia a cheap way out and a bad
precedent for intervention (the author favors going into Bosnia).

>
>An american defense contractor with an eye on the future??  
>
>that's a new one!  ;-)

Hey, Grumman tried to make a bus in the '80s (even with the Reagan
arms build-up going on).  It sucked, though.

>
>I couldn't have said it better myself.  but they can't justify  
>continuing military expenditures if the military isn't being used.

Quite true.  That's why I think (and hope) the budget will shrink
drastically in the next few years.  We need the money elsewhere.
However, I don't favor ruling out military options simply because they
are military options, as some other liberals do.  Doing that simply
cuts us off from possible viable courses of action.

>
>> French troops are involved (after all, it was French legionaires,  
>with
>> US Marines, that took first blood in Somalia), as are British (in
>> fact, RAF pilots will be in Somalia for the long haul, or so the  
>NYT
>> tells me).  A third of the foreign troops to be deployed in Somalia
>                                            ^^^^^
>> are not American.  
>
>So the US does the combat, and then the rest of the world comes in  
>after the dirty work is done.  OK, so the French foreign legion is  
>involved.  The fact of the matter is, the US has committed 50,000  
>troops, plus air support, leadership, and artillery.  A couple of RAF  
>jets and a few token forces from other nations do not make this  
>anything less than a US, not a UN,  endeavor.

The NYT reported today that about 13,000 to 25,000 (I forget the exact
numbers) allied troops will be in Somalia in the coming weeks.  Yes,
this is still a US-led operation.

Actually, I think the dirty work will be after the US leaves.  These
foreign troops will be more lightly armed than the US marines are, and
will not quite get the same respect.  These will also be the troops
that will have to rebuild Somalia, mostly from the ground up.  I
wouldn't envy them.

>
>and the US has no choice but to play miliary policeman in *all* these  
>locations?? damn, I wish we could go back to detante when at least we  
>didn't have the marines running all over the world.....

See the TNR article.  Bosnia would involve NATO to a large degree, so
the US, even if it has a leadership role, may not have the grunt work.



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia