From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Is Not Going to War in Somalia for any Good Reasons
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:29:23 GMT

In article <1ggi67INNhog@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>Yeah, but the UN so far has not had the means to do peacekeeping in,
>>say, Angola: the guys in the blue hats didn't have the means to disarm
>>one of the rival factions.  When they left, and the elections went
>>against this faction, it simply re-armed.
>
>Not to disparage your point, but rearming is in such cases not particularly
>simple.  Unless you have just hidden your weapons rather than getting rid of
>them.  The former is presumably what happened.  (We are not talking about
>people with a lot of cash, or with easy means of importing purchased
>weapons.)

Actually, the Angolan faction I was talking about simply hid their
weapons.  They did not have to buy any new once (Angola, like Somalia,
was a Cold War battleground, with the usual superpower armaments lying
around).  I should have made my point more clearly.

>
>"Peacekeeping" missions are of extremely marginal utility.  Mostly they
>amount to having UN soldiers sit around in the demilitarized zone.  On the
>rare occasions when one party decides to break the peace, the UN soldiers
>run for cover.

On the other hand, you have situations where the nation-state has
completely broken down, like in the Sudan and Somalia.  There are no
real factions with motivated and disciplined forces.  Shows of
strength may clear the streets in this case.  This is why I'm arguing
for a somewhat more muscular UN: 100 Pakistani troops won't put the
fear of god into potential adversaries, though helicopter gunships
may.

>
>The scenario I gather they are trying to prevent is one in which, say, a
>sentry on one side decides to shoot his counterpart, and successively larger
>groups of soldiers on either side become involved until it becomes a general
>war.  But this scenario assumes extreme insubordination on the part of
>commanders on both sides, and naivete of both commanders-in-chief.  Which is
>almost never going to be the case.

This may approximately be the case in Somalia and the Sudan.  There
are no organized sides, etc.  Situations will differ, of course, and a
solution that works in Somalia won't work in, say, Bosnia.  I'm
arguing for giving the UN the means to implement more imaginative
solutions than simply having soldiers stand there to be fired upon.
Bosnia, for instance, would perhaps call for using air power against
the Serbs, arming the Bosnians so their negotiating position won't be
so disadvantageous (The Serbs won't stop fighting unless they can gain
nothing further by continuing hostilities.  An armed adversary would
certainly bring them to the table somewhat more quickly.), etc.  I
certainly would not advocate putting ground troops into the region,
since that would most certainly be "of extremely marginal utility."
The UN, of course, cannot do this, in part from the lack of means and
political will.

>So what is the use of the UN
>peacekeeping missions?  Propaganda of course.  The governments who send them
>like to be seen "keeping the peace" while incurring relatively little risk
>for doing so.  




_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **