From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: u.s. in somalia
Date: 20 Dec 1992 14:14:11 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
 
>I think the problem is that the rest of the member countries have been
>sitting on their asses, waiting on the US.  Eventually, if we hadn't
>done anything, they might have asked us to help out in Iraq and
>Somalia.  They'll probably ask us to help in Bosnia, when they get
>around to it.
 
The trouble is that the countries that could aid in the restoration of
Somalia (either to peaceful government or just plain peace) are
restricted from doing so by their constitutions (although Germany is
contravening this at the moment by sending troops outside of NATO
territory).
 
At the moment you can forget about any of the former territories of
the Soviet Union helping, they have too much on their plate already.
You can likewise forget about China - they only seem to like to supply
wars not stop them. Japan/Germany cannot do anything. Britain, Canada,
Pakistan, France are. (Where's India?) Even my country is sending 1000
more troops to Somalia even though we are committed to Cambodia and
troubles in our direct region. In all honesty, it doesn't leave many
other countries and so with the USAs armed forces size, they are
expected (rightly or wrongly) to put in their share. After all, we
keep getting told how they are the only superpower left.
 
 
>It's rather obvious as to why we're not in Bosnia right now.  There's
>a significantly higher risk to our own troops' lives, and it's really
>the responsibility of the European countries (just as Somalia is more
>the responsibility of the African countiries -- but they didn't do
>anything to help).  If people start dying on the scale that they are
>in Somalia and Europe continues to look the other way then we'll
>probably go.
 
Yes I agree that Europe is seeming to do little, but I certainly don't
envy them the decision. Who the hell do you support in such a
conflict? You can't go for all out disarmament unless you get some
support, so the only thing is to pick a side and go in shooting.
 
If you take your conclusion that we should only help countries in our
own geographical area, then the situation would clearly become
untenable. Saddam would still have Kuwait, Israel would be besieged
and, hey, countries like Australia could become isolationists and
forget about all you poor people. :-)
 
>I would support the US enforcing the no-fly zone right now, as well as
>escorting relief flights.  I'd even support them taking out the missle
>and artillery batteries using air-launched weapons.  However, I don't
>think we should send _any_ land forces there.  If it's deemed
>necessary, then the European countries should send them.  Why should
>we have to come from halfway around the world and incur the kind of
>heavy casualties that can be expected in a European land war?
 
But by enforcing a no-fly-zone in Bosnia, you put those on the ground
- British, French, UN etc troops in a compromised position. They could
become targets, means of stopping the enforcement of a non-fly-zone.
The situation is very tenuous, and may stay like that for years. The
best bet is to do as much evacuating of innocent citizens as are
possible and then let the warring parties slug it out between
themselves.
 
 
>>I don't denounce the need for troops but surely out of all the member
>>countries of the U.N., enough troops could be obtained to do the job. Then
>>the U.S.A would not be seen as the "instigators" (perhaps not the best word
>>in this instance), but rather as just part of the overall contingent.
>
>This is just my personal opinion, but it seems like most of the rest
>of the member countries look to the USA to do this sort of work,
>practically expecting us to take care of the world for them.  Well,
>most police forces and security guards get _paid_ for their work.
>Relative to other countries we may be rich, but that doesn't mean we
>don't have our own money problems.
 
The USA has set itself up as the world policeman knowing fair well
that it would be a dirty job and low paid, but nonetheless it took
it on to spread the "good news" of "democracy". If you ask me, the
solution to the USAs perceived problems with being a world policeman
is easily found. They could withdraw from the Security Council and
practice an isolationist policy and keep all your ships and troops
at home. I am sure that very soon your own economy would suffer from
a stagnation in defence spending, but I digress. So perhaps being
world policeman does benefit the USA economy. It certainly helps the
collective ego. :-)
 
>Look at what the UN Secretary General is saying now: That US forces
>should do much more than just provide airlift and defense for the
>relief operation.  He wants us to disarm he Somalis, among other
>things.  I disagree that we should be disarming them at all (other
>than the confiscations that are currently being done for the security
>of our own forces), and I certainly don't think it's a job for the US
>military.
 
So unless there is some benefit to the USA, they should abstain from
any interventionist policies? Surely this does not correlate with
their intervention in Kuwait if indeed this was done to help a
troubled country rather than to secure oil reserves.
 
Perhaps the USA should openly push for the Japanese and Germans to
change their constitution to enable them to maintain forward defence
forces.
 
>We're trying to re-arrange our finances to help feed our own people
>right now.  Part of that is going to come in military cuts, including
>the pulling out of forces in Europe and the rest of the world.
>Remember, we fought the Cold War while everyone else sat nervously by.
>That was extremely expensive.
 
I am not willing to debate the pros and cons of the cold war suffice
to say that nothing compelled the USA to participate in this cold war
other than its own survival. Hell, you northern hemisphere people can
blow yourselves to kingdom-come and it won't worry us too much. <only
joking>
 
>>The U.S.A is big enough and old enough to look after itself. But in
the event
>>that some terrible tragedy should befall the U.S.A then I would
>>guarantee you that aid would be given.
>
>By whom?  We're the major provider of financial aid to the rest of the
>world.
 
It was a hypothetical question and I am not going to get into a debate
about what might or might not happen other than to state that the USA
is not the sole source of good in the world and if need be other
countries would come to the USAs aid. To think otherwise is to wallow
in self-aggrandisement.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.president.clinton