From: barnhart@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: IPS:SOMALIA: Growing doubts about wisdom of proposed U.S. deployment
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:33:51 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Reference: North America
Title: SOMALIA: Growing doubts about wisdom of proposed U.S. deployment


washington, dec 3 (ips/jim lobe) -- even as the united nations
security council moves closer to authorising the intervention of
up to 30,000 u.s. troops in somalia, many analysts are expressing
increasing doubts about the wisdom of the proposed operation.

last week u.s. president george bush offered to send the troops
to secure key ports, airfields and highways in the southern part
of the war-torn country in a bid to ensure the delivery of
desperately needed relief supplies to some two million starving
somalians.

but analysts are raising questions about the planned operation,
like how quickly can u.s. forces be expected to accomplish their
mission? how much will it cost? and whether it will be used as a
precedent for other interventions in global hotspots.

''once they go in, how do you get them out?'' asked carol
lancaster, an africa specialist at georgetown university who
served in the administration of former president jimmy carter.
''if you haven't got a way out, you're taking a hell of a
chance,'' she added.

her sentiments were echoed wednesday by the chair of a key
congressional defense committee. ''i don't think we will be able
to extricate ourselves,'' rep. john murtha, a powerful democratic
lawmaker, told defence reporters.

murtha said he agreed with senior pentagon officials who have
argued that, if u.s. troops are sent in to somalia, they must go
in with sufficient force to be able to crush any possible threat.

but such a force will require ''tremendous resources'' which
washington can ill afford, he said, suggesting that president
bush ask u.s. allies in europe, east asia, and the middle east to
underwrite the operation, as he did in the case of the gulf war.

meanwhile, other analysts expressed concern that u.s.
intervention in somalia will be used by domestic lobby groups and
foreign governments as a precedent for similar action elsewhere
around the world.

''if somalia, why not liberia or mozambique or haiti?'' asked
one congressional aide.  ''where do you draw the line? what is the
basic principle here that distinguishes somalia from other
countries destroyed by civil conflict and war?''

at separate press briefings wednesday, both state department
spokesperson richard boucher and george stephanopoulos, president-
elect bill clinton's communications director, were peppered with
questions about why the situation in somalia should be given being
given a higher priority than bosnia-hercegovina.(more/ips)

somalia: growing doubts about wisdom of proposed u.s. deployment(2-e)

somalia: growing (2)

the most pressing issue is what exactly will be the mandate of
the u.s. force and how long will it take to achieve.

the stated intention is that having achieved the first objective
of securing the key ports, airfields, and highways, the u.s.
troops -- advance elements of which have already arrived off the
somali coast in the indian ocean -- would then be withdrawn to be
replaced by a smaller, u.n. peacekeeping force.

it is optimistically predicted that the u.s. part of the
operation could be finished within four to six weeks -- or by
about jan 20 when clinton is inaugurated.

but many critics and pentagon planners believe this schedule is
unrealistic. paul simon, head of the senate africa subcommittee
and a strong supporter of the operation, said wednesday he
believes the initial operation will take from four to six months
at least.

but, even then, the big question is what happens after the u.s.
force leaves.

''you could have a narrow mission of establishing a zone for
peace and distributing food,'' said pauline baker, an african
specialist widely believed to be in line for a senior policymaking
position in the clinton administration.

''but that would leave a political vacuum, and the warlords
would just step in again as soon as you left. then you're back to
square one, which is anarchy and chaos and stealing food,'' she
added in an interview with the 'los angeles times' wednesday.

the problem with bush's calculation, according to critics, is
that the political dimension is missing, and that the operation is
now conceived too narrowly as military. ''how much can be resolved
if you're just in and out quickly?'' asked lancaster. ''it doesn't
sound like they really thought this through very far.''

a quick withdrawal could actually strengthen the position of a
warlord like gen. farah aideed, according to sharon pauling, an
analyst at the relief group, bread for the world. she noted that
aideed has already welcomed the u.s. proposal.

''the idea of a quick fix in this situation will not help build
a structure that could ensure lasting peace,'' she said. the
latter will depend on a ''peace process that includes clan elders,
community leaders, and militia leaders that then lays the
groundwork for developing governing structures''.

if the u.s. and the u.n. want to get out quickly, they may give
too much emphasis to the militias and thus undermine the forces
which have been working for peace, according to pauling.

but if the militias are excluded, ''they may start shooting,
and then you become a target,'' as in lebanon, lancaster said.
''and then what do you do?'' (end/ips/ip/jl/cpg/92)