Liberia Calls

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-01 11:13pm

This is from the Washington Post. I won't bother posting the address, since you have to register to see it.

Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A12

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION is coming under considerable international pressure to contribute to a United Nations-backed intervention in the West African state of Liberia -- and understandably so. Founded by freed U.S. slaves, Liberia has been a close U.S. ally for most of its history, and now it is living through one of the worst moments in those 150 years. Its warlord president, Charles Taylor, is holed up in the capital city, Monrovia, besieged by rebel armies. Mr. Taylor agreed to step down peacefully as part of a cease-fire agreement last month but then reversed himself; the result has been heavy fighting in the capital that has left hundreds dead. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for an international peacekeeping force to prevent further bloodshed, and he has implored the United States to lead it. Britain and France have publicly backed the idea, and several West African nations have offered to contribute 3,000 troops if they are matched with 2,000 Americans. Both sides in Liberia say they would welcome a U.S.-led force. Faced with such unanimity, the Bush administration should strongly consider acting.

Administration officials so far are noncommittal. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that while options for Liberia had been discussed, President Bush had not made a decision. Pentagon officials are understandably concerned about another deployment of troops at a time U.S. forces are stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But advocates answer that even a small and short-term U.S. deployment could do a disproportionate amount of good. In neighboring Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, limited interventions by French and British forces succeeded in stopping similar (and related) civil warfare among rival "armies" sometimes made up of little more than children. In this case, foreign intervention would offer the hope not just of rescuing Liberia's 3 million people but of ending much of the turmoil in the region. That's because much of it has been due to Mr. Taylor, who has sponsored rebel groups in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast, more than earning his recent indictment as a war criminal by a U.N. tribunal. Mr. Bush last week demanded that Mr. Taylor resign to make way for an interim government; if American troops were deployed in Monrovia, he could be obliged to do so -- and to face his indictment. Once that happened, U.S. forces could be replaced by the West Africans.

Though al Qaeda may have benefited from some of the illegal diamond traffic fostered by Mr. Taylor, West Africa falls outside the battlegrounds of the war on terrorism. Some in the administration would argue that U.S. forces no longer can be spared for peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. Still, Liberia may stand at a crucial turning point: Without foreign intervention, renewed warfare and a humanitarian catastrophe appear likely -- and any intervention will be far less likely to succeed without American troops. At a time when many people around the world are questioning U.S. foreign policy, Liberia offers an opportunity for the United States to show that it is still prepared to use its power for more than narrow self-defense. In Monrovia, long-suffering civilians have been gathering outside the American Embassy to plead for help. President Bush ought to heed their appeals.

Thoughts? Comments?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-07-01 11:19pm

I think it's a good idea.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-01 11:21pm

I don't know. We have no national interest in Liberia and our help won't be appreciated.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-07-01 11:32pm

Durran Korr wrote: We have no national interest in Liberia

Liberia in and by itself you maybe right, but what happening in Liberia is a part of the problem which does effect the U.S.A.s global interest. Frankly it is much better to put out a brush fire instead of letting it run loose.

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2003-07-01 11:33pm

Y'know, maybe it's just me, but weren't a lot of people complaining about us going into a nation where it's really none of our business? I'm not aiming that at anyone here at the board, but there are people like that in America (and other nations) nowadays, so I really don't see the Bush administration doing anything unless it percieves a real security reason to. God knows we don't need anymore hippies crapping on public buildings and laying in the street.

Though, y'know, it would be funny if a lot of the same fruitcakes started embracing this cause as an example of "the administration's callous disregard for the welfare of other nations". It'll probably happen, and I'll just laugh, and laugh...

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-07-01 11:47pm

I'm sure America will be able to send a few thousand troops without distracting from Iraq or Afghanistan. If it's necessary to reestablish diplomatic relations with the country, or depose a madman, then I'm for it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-01 11:48pm

I suppose it would be a good idea to head into Liberia, and then make a huge deal about how we've got UN backing and stuff.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-07-02 12:24am

I think that it's the right thing to do, both morally and politically. Morally, it is an old ally that we're helping out, and Politically we can show that we're interested in helping people everywhere, not just in oil rich countries.

Of course naturally the anti-bush crowd will immediately claim that Bush is doing this to help the diamond industry.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-02 12:50am

Well maybe the 40,000 man EU rapid reaction force can handle this, assuming they can round up enough flying pigs to bring there troops.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-07-02 02:49am

Well, the country was formed by US residents, so I suppose we should do something about it. Besides, it's different from Iraq--we're the ones being recruited here.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-02 02:51am

Alex Moon wrote:I think that it's the right thing to do, both morally and politically. Morally, it is an old ally that we're helping out, and Politically we can show that we're interested in helping people everywhere, not just in oil rich countries.

And militarily its going to tie up a regimental sized infantry force along with a couple squadrons of transport aircraft at a time when both are in short supply. The US does not need more military commitments.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-02 03:07am

Wait a moment, I thought we were supposed to just butt the hell out of world affairs? Not be the global police?

I'm all confused now

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-07-02 04:02am

Now I don't have a direct quote, but I thought I heard on CNN that the French and the Germans are asking the Americans to intervene.

Someone might need to confirm this, but if this is true, we are talking about a bunch of jackasses. International diplomacy apparently goes something like this:

"Hi, we need you to do certain things but not other things. As long as they coincide with our national interest, we have no complaints. What a bunch of losers. Next thing you know we'll get a chant to go into some other country that has no real bearing on U.S. interests."

Hey may be Canada will tell us to intervene in Chad or Somalia tomorrow.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-07-02 06:16am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Well maybe the 40,000 man EU rapid reaction force can handle this, assuming they can round up enough flying pigs to bring there troops.

Actually, they could do it. Kongo operation was initiated after two weeks the idea of sending a EU force to Kongo was suggested by Javier Solana. However, Liberians are asking for American peacekeepers, not European, but specifically Americans. If it's not the Americans, it's probably the neighbouring African nations that will send peacekeepers. Perhaps Europeans as well, but only to some extent.

@ 0.1
Please, could you give a direct quote to that. Let's not turn this again to Euro-US bashing contest.

If it is militarily possible, I think US should go there, but I can't really blame Bush and co. if they decide not to.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-02 06:23am

0.1 wrote:Now I don't have a direct quote, but I thought I heard on CNN that the French and the Germans are asking the Americans to intervene.

Someone might need to confirm this, but if this is true, we are talking about a bunch of jackasses. International diplomacy apparently goes something like this:

"Hi, we need you to do certain things but not other things. As long as they coincide with our national interest, we have no complaints. What a bunch of losers. Next thing you know we'll get a chant to go into some other country that has no real bearing on U.S. interests."

Hey may be Canada will tell us to intervene in Chad or Somalia tomorrow.

The French, the Britain and the E.U in general have no problems in intervening in African Countries with ties to them, like it could and can be seen in several ocasions. In this case, it happens that it is much more of an U.S problem than a E.U, given the ties between the U.S and Liberia. And Liberia would trust more an U.S led coalition than one led by Europe.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-02 06:43am

I oppose kicking at a new tar baby. We have more than our fair share now...

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-07-02 07:21am

Now I don't have a direct quote, but I thought I heard on CNN that the French and the Germans are asking the Americans to intervene.

Is that really surprising, fixing Liberia a)Doesn't hurt French/German interests and B) Doesn't violate international law (upon which a fair bit of French/German power rests) therefore there is nothing shocking about this nor really hypocritical since this is an obvious humanitarian case and isn't based upon shoddy pretexts for war.

As for US involvement, sure it will give them a chance to prove that the current administration isn't only interested in the world for how they can benefit from it which Clinton did somewhat (although the fact that he ran like a scalded cat after taking a few casualties nullified it to a large extent).

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-07-02 11:57am

As bad as the taste of "more overseas obligations" leaves in my mouth, we should intervene. Liberia is the closest thing to a colony the US had in Africa, and sending troops when specifically asked by the locals would be good for international relations.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-02 12:07pm

This is my ass....Germany and France can give me a fucking rimjob. Liberia is NOT a US problem, so it was founded by ex slaves more than a century ago, give me a fucking break. When Liberians start crashing airliners into skysrapers then give me a call.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-07-02 03:06pm

Stravo wrote:This is my ass....Germany and France can give me a fucking rimjob. Liberia is NOT a US problem, so it was founded by ex slaves more than a century ago, give me a fucking break. When Liberians start crashing airliners into skysrapers then give me a call.

The Liberian people is ASKING for American intervention. It's damn easy to turn your back to a third world country if they don't harbour terrorists or don't have any natural resources. And before you spout anything about Germany or France, please point out the piece of news which says that they are "demanding" that Americans should send peacekeepers.

I haven't heard about either of those countries saying such stuff. I only know that at least Britain and Kofi Annan have said that US should seriously consider a role in restoring order to Liberia.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-02 05:14pm

Most of our warfighting divisions are already deployed. Why add yet another permanent garrison on foreign soil?

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-07-02 06:15pm

I'd say no too any large force. But a battalion maybe. Just as long as we don't have too fund all the damn operations. This of course after the budget is raised and our navy brought back to shape Klinton's incomptence and their Iraq operations. Needless to say, this is far off. So my decision is know a no.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-07-02 08:16pm

Anyone else find the part about Germany and France requesting our assistance here highly ironic?

As for Liberia, I think we should tie up a few more loose ends in Iraq and Afghanistan before we get into this one.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-02 08:26pm

Nathan F wrote:Anyone else find the part about Germany and France requesting our assistance here highly ironic?

Oh fuck it. Provide the evidence where Germany and France are desperatly begging for assistance. They supported the idea, nothing more.
It was Annan who made the plea, the E.U countries have no ties to Liberia and no reason to care. If it happened in a former colony, France and England would be the first to be there.

There's a country asking for help from the U.S, to which it has the strongest ties. That's it. Fuck, I don't recall ever having heard of Liberia until now (OK, an exageration).

PS: In case you missed it

The article wrote:General Kofi Annan has called for an international peacekeeping force to prevent further bloodshed, and he has implored the United States to lead it

The article also wrote:Both sides in Liberia say they would welcome a U.S.-led force.

and, lest not forget, it further wrote:Britain and France have publicly backed the idea

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-07-03 12:26pm

Thanks Olrik for clearing the matter up.