From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:27:51 CST
Originator: mccullou@sun-20.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Dec17.003952.22847@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Dec16.030250.9427@news.columbia.edu>  
|> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> > Just noticed something as I was waiting for the message to send....
|> > 
|> > In article <1992Dec16.011312.19839@mogate.sps.mot.com>  
|> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
|> > >
|> > >So you agree, then, that the cause of the war is something other  
|> than  
|> > >humanitarianism??  That to me is enough reason to oppose the  
|> action right  
|> > >there!
|> > 
|> > Hang on for a sec: deployment of troops does not a war make.  
|> 
|> But deployment of 50,000 heavily armed combat troops with air support  
|> and heavy artillery in a nation halfway around the world *does* a war  
|> make.....or a military action, or a police action, or whatever.   
|> Choose your favorite Newspeak term....


Here I go.  A war is a full military conflict with no holds barred.
A military action is a limited conflict with major holds.
A police action is where soldiers do a job they aren't trained for,
to be a policeman.  

Next, no M109s were sent.  (You did say heavy artillery?  That is the
current US heavy artillery piece.)

|> > Lemme get one thing straight:
|> > 
|> > Policy and the instruments of policy cannot be considered  
|> separately.
|> 
|> The means does not justify the end??  I agree totally!

|> furthermore, I think that invading a small nation on the other side  
|> of the globe in order to stop a few good ol' boys and feed the hungry  
|> (so that the good ol' boys can come back next year) is not justified.


Explain, justify, and elaborate.  Unclear.

|> > The Right has tended to concentrate only on the goals, the policy  
|> of
|> > containment for instance, and ignore the implications of the  
|> actions
|> > needed to achieve these goals.  Stamping out Communist insurgents
|> > whereever they can be found without regard to human rights is  
|> clearly
|> > wrong, no matter the patriotic rhetoric they may wrap themselves up
|> > in. 
|> 
|> Agreed.
|> 
|> > Similarly, the automatic condemnation of any military action on
|> > the part of some liberals is just as short-sighted.  
|> 
|> I'm not disagreeing with this just because it is a military action.   
|> I'm disagreeing with it because it's pointless.  Read on....

That isn't what your previous statement said.  Please be consistent,
it is so annoying to read insonsistent posts.  You very clearly 
indicated that you believe that any use of military is war.
 You are against war.
 Therefore you are against any use of military.  

|> > I follow Clausewitz's notion
|> > that war is the continuation of policy by other means, and the army
|> > may the instrument of these policy goals, for good or ill.  "What  
|> are
|> > our policy goals, and are they worth using the tools available?"   
|> That
|> > is a better question to ask than, "Is the Pentagon involved?"
|> 
|> Ok.  What are our policy goals in Somalia??  To heighten american  
|> jingoism??  To throw a monkey wrench into the Clinton  
|> administration??  To let the boys in the Pentagon stretch their  
|> muscles a little bit??  To protect the defense industry's profit  
|> margin???  Are any of these worth using the military tools  
|> available??  I would argue no.

What about to stop a famine that is killing more than one third of a
nations population?  
|> So you must believe that our policy goal is to feed the hungry in  
|> Somalia.  Well, we killed the hungry in Uganda, and we imported the  
|> hungry in Southeast Asia, so I guess that would be an improvement  
|> over the past....

Regardless of past actions, a humanitarian deed by a group has merit.

|> But i still don't buy it.  I don't think our government is concerned  
|> about individuals in Somalia.  If they were concerned, they wouldn't  
|> have sent the guns there in the first place.  George Bush likes  
|> military operations.  Maybe he's just having one last fling before he  
|> retires to the golf course.  I don't know, but I refuse to believe  
|> that the Bush administration is so concerned about the lives of the  
|> starving individuals in Somalia that it would mobilize thousands of  
|> US servicemen and women.  I just don't buy it.

The reason that firearms were sent is because the basic reason there
exists a problem is widespread possession of firearms, primarily
clones of the AK-74 (No that is not a typo, I meant the AK-74 which
is a more recent model, but not the latest).  Soldiers sent to a region
with firearms must be permitted to defend themselves, or a disaster
occurs.  (See Beruit, Vietnam).  The US military has the best
logistical system in the world, making it logical to use that system.
The role of the infantry units there is simple, provide a clear
show of force to protect the food.  A clear show of force means lots
of men, and the ability to make good on their capability immediately.
As has already happened, any person in Somalia who attacks a US soldier,
does so at extreeme risk.  Since you have so much of a problem with
the military, move to a nation with no real army besides a police
force at all, say Iceland.  When you are talking about literally 
hundreds of thousands of lives at risk, a few thousand soldiers who
can't spend a holiday at home is a small cost.
:)M^2
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64052 ca.politics:10315 ba.politics:7698 misc.legal:21309 soc.motss:52132