From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Dec15.014713.13065@mogate.sps.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:44:42 GMT

<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:

<Yet....But if our government were to establish a hegemonic state in Somalia,  
<maybe they would let us build our own sea and air ports??

<Somalia is on the main shipping path for cheap oil.  Since Reagan/Bush policies  
<made it financially undesireable to use American oil serveral years
ago, 

	Please spell out these policies. Perhaps you have confused
	"policies" with "economics"?

<the  
<   oil companies will stop at no end to make sure that they control all access to  
<   the oil fields in the middle east.  


<Or that you wanted to set up a military dictatorship (see also:  idi amin,  
<pinochet, duvalier, polpot, or pre-bush Noriega, all of which came into power  
   with US economic and military support.)

	Please document the US military and/or economic support 
	which Idi Amin Dada received. 
	
	When you've finished that, provide the same documentation
	for Pol Pot: even Noam Chomsky hasn't asserted that the
	U.S. military *supported* that bloody dictator.

<
<   > More likely, the US is there for humanitarian reasons.  The reason the
<   > Administration didn't act early was probably because there was not
<   > much pressure to act.  TV images of starving Somalis created this
<   > pressure.  

<Sally Struthers has been showing us TV images of starving kids in Africa for  
<20+ years, and warlords have been stealing food from starving africans for 20+  
<   years. 

	In 1972, Struthers was busy with a TV career, not Africa.
	The second assertion, while superficially true, is in
	fact false; the breakdown of the Somalian society didn't
	reach the current critical situation until less than 5 years
	ago.

< Why is it that the problem only now requires military intervention??

	Because *now* the problem has become much, much worse.

<This I mildly agree with....but if Bush is so concerned about his image, why  
<didn't he invade three months ago when he was so far behind in the election  
<polls??  

	Possibly he was busy with the election? Possibly he
	didn't want people such as yourself protesting in front
	of the White House?

<If he is trying to build popularity, why didn't he do it when it could  
<have gotten him reelected??   

	Maybe he's not trying to build popularity, but to save lives?

<Could he be deliberately leaving Clinton with a  
<Vietnam for the 90s??  Nah, he wouldn't do that.......

	Could it be that those who oppose this operation
	just don't care if black people live or die?

	Nah, it couldn't be *racism*....

<> Now, this perhaps creates an interesting precedent.  I'm all for using
<> the US military for humanitarian reasons.  

<Wait a minute here!!  what kind of orwellian double-speak is this when we can  
<send in 50,000 trained killers armed with automatic weapons and with the  
<support of heavy artillery and advanced combat aircraft to fight off a bunch of  
<Somalian hillbillies carrying shotguns and riding around in pickup trucks while  
<calling the action "humanitarian"??!?!?!?  I don't get it!

	The Somalian "hillbillies" are carrying automatic weapons
	themselves; CNN showed quite a few with Kalashnikov rifles,
	for example, as well as DSK machineguns. 

	These "hillbillies" are the reason that starvation is
	occuring, you see, because when farmers are killed in
	the fields the don't farm..when food is stolen from
	people's mouths, they cannot eat.

	But I'm sure you "don't get it"...

<   > This shows a broader, more
<   > sympathetic foreign policy than the cold calculations of realpolitik.
<   > I'm not happy about _how_ Somalia was chosen.  Surely, there are
<   > better, more philosophically grounded criteria than the whim of CNN.
<   > We'll see what happens with Clinton.

<This brings up an interesting point:  Clinton has this thing handed to him by  
<no choice of his own.  He *will* have to deal with American troops stationed  
<overseas, even though he didn't place them there.  So what are his options??   
<He can leave the troops there for years until a puppet hegemonic government is  
<established, which would make him look bad....or, he can pull the troops out  
<early and let the warlords come back, which would make him look bad.  No matter  
<what happens, Clinton cannot win from this situation.

	Gosh, maybe being President of the US is a tough job?

	I reckon that Clinton is a big boy who can figure it out...
	but then, he doesn't post to Internet from Motorola, either.

<   > Also, the judgement of policy accomplishments through TV perhaps tends
<   > towards short-term, shallow solutions.  Somalia's problems don't go
<   > away once CNN is able to broadcast the smiling faces of well-fed
<   > children.  I worry about the possible lack of followthrough.  All of
<   > this will be for nothing if the UN forces get overwhelmed once the US
<   > leaves.  TV, I don't think, conveys any urgency to come up with long
<   > term structural solutions to policy problems.  We will have to see
<   > what happens.

<I agree that american public policy should not be dictated by CNN's marketing  
<department, but this brings up another interesting point:  what exactly is our  
<mission in somalia??  

	1. Restore civil order.
	2. Assist the international aid community in distributing
	   emergency food supplies.
	3. Assist the international aid community in longer-term
	   food aid.
	4. Assist the Somalian people in their efforts to create
	   a stable government. 

	1, 2 and 3 are relatively easy.
	4 will probably require the UN to take over.

<Feed the people and leave so that they can starve next  
<month??  

	No, obviously not.

<Open the roads and leave so that the warlords can come back next  
<month??  

	No, obviously not.

<Kill the warlords and leave??  

	No, obviously not.
	
<If our purpose is to open the roads and  
<then leave so the UN can handle the warlords, then why didn't the UN just do  
<the job themselves in the first place?? 

	Since that isn't the purpose, the question is moot.

< Our purpose in somalia is american hegemony, pure and simple. 
<  It's just a different flavor of the same old New  
<   World Order, and it still tastes like bullshit.

	Wonderful; such a display of caring and kindness, not
	to mention intelligence. 
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia