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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.021624.5375@newsgate.sps.mot.com> carlson@viking.sps.mot.com (Brett Carlson) writes:
>Elizabeth G. Levy writes
>
>Agreed.  And I hope that that is the outcome, i really do.  But I  
>reference several other posters' comments that the situation in  
>Somalia will not be fixed for real until a stable government is  
>established.  Just about everyone agrees that this could take years.
>
>I hope that the US can leave by the end of January and the UN can  
>stick around long enough to set up a government, if that is what is  
>to be done.  But I don't think that's realistic without abandoning  
>the people of Somalia.  There has been very little actual combat in  
>Somalia (i'm not complaining here, i'm just stating a fact).  The  
>warlords are still there -- *some* force will have to stick around  
>and curtail them when the US leaves.  If the people who support this  
>operation are correct, then the UN failed miserably at this before  
>the marines arrived;  why can we assume that they will be more  
>successful in the future??  

The UN contingent that will be deployed in Somalia will be stronger than
the 100 Pakistani there before the Marines landed.  The US commitment
has spurred other nations to chip in about 13K - 22K troops.  I don't
expect all of them to stay there, but what will remain should be
considerably more powerful than the warlords.

>
>and i don't think it's realistic to think that we can totally disarm  
>the warlords.  I hope that we can, but i just don't think it will  
>happen.  Only time will tell.

You're right, and I wouldn't recommend disarming every Somali you see.
The country has a gun culture there worse than the US.  The US,
however, can remove most of the heavier weapons (the technicals),
which will ease up the UN's duties considerably, and perhaps also give
incentives (money and food) so that the guns on the street are reduced
to a manageable level.  As noted, only time will tell.

>

>> fuzzy memory of some line that implied I was a  
>militarist/war-monger,
>> which I don't believe I am.  Perhaps you didn't write that line:
>> Usenet makes swiss cheese out of cranial matter.  Apologies in that
>> case.
>
>Not to sound like Oliver North or anything, but I don't remember  
>stating or implying such a thing.  I'm sure that someone will point  
>it out to me if I did.... 

Apologies, then.  I'm carrying too many different threads
simultaneously, and am perhaps overreacting to an innocent
phrase.

>
>> The arming of Somalia was a Cold War exercise in realpolitik.
>> Hopefully, we're beyond that now (though the build up of Iraq by  
>past
>> administrations leaves me queasy).
>
>amen!  btw, if the US is so concerned about humanitarianism, how come  
>they let Saddam Hussein slaughter thousands of Kurdish citizens  
>without batting an eye right after we supposedly crippled his  
>military???  (incidently, since we were in Iraq anyway that is a  
>military action that I would have supported.)  "because we couldn't  
>interfere with domestic affairs."  well, why can we interfere in  
>Somalia???

Because Bush is an asshole, to put it bluntly.  The Kurds were killed
in part because of an exercise in realpolitik ("balance of power" and
all that), and in part because of Pentagon oversight (Schwarzkopf, I
believe, reported that he trusted the Iraqis too much).  A Kurdish
safety zone was established some time after the war, in response to
public (and Turkish) pressure.

>
>> However, this action is not solely
>> benefiting posterity.  We have an opportunity to use our resources
>> towards humanitarian ends, which may be worth deploying troops for.   
>I
>> think so (though I'd rather have alternative organizations do this.
>> No such agencies exist right now, though.), and that is essentially  
>my
>> argument.
>
>so the government decides that they need a war/police action/  
>whatever, and then they set about justifying it.  They can't justify  
>a war in eastern Europe, so they set about finding a police  
>action/war somewhere else.  Somalia seems ripe for the conquering, so  
>they start hyping the pictures of starving babies there.  soon, even  
>the birkenstocks and tie dye crowd is supporting Operation  
>Sweepsweek.  

Hmmm.  Perhaps I should have been clearer.  I don't think Bush got it
into his mind to intervene some place in the world to restore his
reputation, and then looked for an opportunity.  I think he was
actually looking forward to quietly retire, go out in Presidential
dignity.  Fred Barnes argues that the UN Secretary General convinced
the US to go in, and perhaps Bush later realized it would be a great way
to get a footnote, so why not?

Oh, the Pentagon isn't trying to justify a war in the Balkans.  As
noted, Powell explicitly ordered the planning staff not to draft
intervention plans, fearing that they might be used.  The military is
extremely leary of getting into an apparent quagmire, (Which may be
bad, in the sense that we would shy away from interventions that may
be messy but necessary.) prefering "easy" interventions like Somalia
seems to be.

>
>I'm glad that the people are being fed.  I'm glad that American lives  
>are not being lost.  But i think the whole situation reeks of  
>ulterior motives, and I hope that the people of Somalia aren't the  
>ones neglected when the public opinion shifts to some other issue.
>
>After we couldn't hate the Soviets anymore, we had the war on  
>illiteracy.  then we had the war on drugs.  then Noriega became the  
>most evil man in history.  then we had the war on flag burning.  then  
>we had the war on Iraq.  then we had the election/war on the economy.   
>now we have a war on world hunger.  

You forgot gays, who seem to be the new Red Menace.

>
>soon that will fade away and we'll have a war on something else.   
>George Bush is a puppet of the opinion polls, but he will be sunning  
>himself in Florida in another month....I just hope that Clinton does  
>not find himself playing clean-up boy to George's ratings-booster.

Amen.



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