From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: A pacifist's call for conditional support for US action in Somalia
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:16:49 GMT

dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>Why did Bush do this?  I would guess to look good in the history books.

Yes, it is well known that the motives of all conservatives are venal
and the motives all liberals are as pure as the driven snow. But it
does seem a bit gratuitous to point out a basic motive on the part of
Bush assignable to every President that has sat in the Oval Office,
at least during the current century.

>The publicly announced objectives and reasons for the action DO make
>sense and are appropriate.  I support them while opposing any hidden
>agenda for a permanent US presence in the area.  I would urge all others
>who have a fully justified opposition to US military actions to take
>similar positions.  

If you have been paying any attention at all, the biggest concern by the
U.S. Government is how to get the troops back out expeditiously -- and
avoid the burden of carrying out the desires of UN leadership, which it
is widely believed would bog us down in *exactly* the kind of perma-
nent presence that we most certainly *don't* want. It is the UN that
wants U.S. troops to exercise a broader role than merely guaranteeing
defense of the food supplies -- a desire that continues to be resisted
by the Bush administration. Or haven't you noticed?

If we should have anything to fear, it is the possibility that the new
President will allow himself to be into the scope of action
UN General-Secretary is attempting to foist on the the U.S. military.

(If the current administration has a hidden motive toward getting the
U.S. military presence inserted into geographical areas having some
significant national value, then Bosnia would certainly make more 
sense than Somalia -- and you may have noticed that the current admin-
istration has cautiously avoided such an idea, even as it is being
called for by certain members of Congress who have *never* been mistaken
for conservatives -- or Republicans. And who bear an uncanny resemblance
to those of similar political stripe who voted in favor of the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution to satisfy then-President Johnson, arguably the
greatest criminal mind ever to occupy the White House. In a landslide.)

If you are concerned about de facto hegimony being established in Somalia
using U.S. troops, you may wish to call or write your congress-critter
and ask that he/she/it assist avoiding such an outcome by doing everything
possible to help install the new administration with a stainless-steel
backbone against the inevitable call that will issue forth from the UN
for us to stay and do the "moral" thing, namely: disarm the citizenry
and set up a local government, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. God
forbid.

Your unalloyed admiration of the intent of the Gen-Sec may need rather
urgent re-examination if solutions by military action give you excessive
heartburn. Turning our military into the world's police force is not
transformed from a "bad idea" into a "good idea" merely because the
decision to do so is made by U.N. politicians (whom none of us voted for),
rather than own wretched government politicians who survived the last
electoral farce.

Put another way: to whom is the *U.N.* really accountable in any mean-
ingful way, if it creates another stupid quagmire, the outcome of which
affects absolutely NO vital interest of the United States?
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Speed is life.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d