The policing action needed in Liberia is a perfect opportunity for those who oppose the US becoming too active in world affairs..possibly led by the French, to show their diplomatic expertise. Charles Taylor , the leader of Liberia, has alredy been convicted of directing the massacre of his own citizens and also of filling his pockets with money from his countrys treasury. (sound familiar).. He needs to be deposed. The US, busy fighting a war against terrorism elsewhere, is now being called on by France to send troops to Liberia, to stop warring factions there..How ironic, just months ago they were complaing that the US was no more than a bully in deposing Saddam in Iraq. The US will probably do what it takes to stop the killing in Liberia, pressure on Taylor to step down is being applied now, but he said he would step down in 1997 and didnt. Someone has to insist he step down now.. Taylor must go and order must be restored in Liberia.. it should be a job for French supplied UN forces.
Let the French handle it with their "mighty" military if it's so important. I hate to be cold, but is Liberia in the national interest? Probably not. I've always said we can not right the wrongs of the world and to try to do so invites what one of my politcal science professors called "imperial overreach." Our military resources are not limitless and if we stretch them to the limit acting as the world's policeman in every trouble spot around the world, what happens when we have to fight a real war (like the war on terror)? What happens to the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines (Semper Fi, baby!) and coasties when they spend ridiculous amounts of times deployed? What happens to our already aging equipment (the CH-46 helicopters we used in the USMC are already 40+ years old, in fact, most of these choppers saw duty in Vietnam!!!) when we are forced to conduct absurd optempos putting out every brush fire on Earth. I have sympathy for these people, but if it's not in our immediate national interest, we don't need to intervene.
Do you know how embarrassed the French will be when they surrender to the Liberians? Don't destroy their self-confidence!!! Keep the French Army where it belongs- hiding in France.
They're not hiding in France... they're mucking around all over Southwest and Central Africa... like they have time out of mind. That was one of the ironic things about their complaining about us mucking around in the Middle East. We've both been mucking around. The French tend to do it in backward, "insignificant" countries and we chose strategic ones sure to kick up a fuss around the world. They don't have the Foreign Legion to promote Hollywood scripts. They see Liberia as in our sphere of influence. It was founded as a place to send freed American slaves, afterall.
No one has any influence on what happens in Liberia. A total lack of any semblance of law enforcement makes Monrovia the closest thing to Thunderdome known in the world today. The US doesn't need to subject our servicemen to the sub-human conditions there. The French are better suited for this crappy job...they are always full of shi*
Pretty much agreed. However, if you are taking it from that that we can predicate the justice of our actions on the premise that two wrongs make a right, our paths diverege.
If we are going to be the world's policeman, and stop at oil producing countries that pretty much kills that argument for invading Iraq. So at this stage we have no WMD, we're not saving the Iraqi people, no black people to save, but plenty of crude oil. The administration is being an even bigger hypocrite if they don't help. Can't complain about any previous admin if you don't want to step up to the plate yourself.
The facts:Why U.S. Troops Should Not Be Sent to Liberia by Jack Spencer WebMemo #308 July 3, 2003 | printer-friendly format http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/wm308.cfm President Bush should not commit any United States troops to an international peacekeeping force in Liberia. At some point in the future an international peacekeeping force could help stabilize Liberia. However, refusing United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan’s efforts to have up to 2,000 U.S. troops present as peacekeepers -- because there is scant evidence that peace is imminent -- acknowledges the reality that any international force would be war fighters. The Administration should hinge its support on either of the following steps taking place: Both sides stop the violence and come up with a political settlement, One side wins and asks for the help of the international community to stabilize the nation. Yet, if these conditions are met the U.S. should still resist efforts to send troops. Assistance in helping Liberia emerge from its current situation and become a successful African nation could focus more on: Providing logistics support and communications capabilities, and Committing a few high ranking officers to run the operation if the international community needs help leading the effort. Eight Reasons Not to Send Troops The United States should not commit military ground forces to the effort now or in the future. There are eight reasons why: Political violence in Liberia does not constitute a threat to the vital interests of United States. Americans are not needed. A Liberian peacekeeping operation will drain valuable resources away from vital national security requirements. Considerable financial cost. Americans peacekeepers will be targets of political violence. The American public will not support such operations. The U.S. armed forces do not make good peacekeepers. The international elite makes it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to participate in any of these kinds of missions. Political violence in Liberia does not constitute a threat to the vital interests of United States. The civil war in Liberia is not our business. While the United States does have historical ties to Liberia and should play an active role in helping it solve its problems, diverting scarce national security resources away from vital missions to Liberia is not legitimate. Americans are not needed. If peacekeepers are needed to monitor a fragile Liberian peace, which does not exist at present, they should not be Americans. Other nations are fully capable of provide the military forces necessary. The effort should be led by African nations, for whom this is an issue of vital importance. And there are a host of European nations that chose not to help liberate Iraq that could certainly provide adequate support for the operation. A Liberian peacekeeping operation will drain valuable resources away from vital national security requirements. The U.S. cannot afford to commit an ever-larger proportion of its stretched forces to worldwide peacekeeping operations. This was true before the war on terrorism, but is critical now. Maintaining U.S. troops in the Balkans and critical peacetime operations, such as maintaining alliance commitments and anti-drug operations, before September 11 kept the United States military at an exceedingly high operations tempo. Since September 11, the United States has been engage in two major wars and countless other smaller operations as part of the global war on terrorism. Already it has 11,500 troops in Afghanistan, 150,000 in Iraq, and countless others conducting smaller operations around the world. Now is not the time to commit troops to an operation that has little to do with America’s national security. Considerable financial cost. An American Liberian peacekeeping commitment also would entail considerable financial costs and could drain away hundreds of millions of dollars from the defense budget. Past peacekeeping operations such as Somalia cost a total of $1.5 billion, Haiti cost over $1 billion, and the United States has spent about $20 billion on Balkans peacekeeping. Americans peacekeepers will be targets of political violence. The United States is not neutral, as peacekeepers must be if they are to be effective. U.S. troops would – rightfully – be on the side of the rebel forces trying to oust Charles Taylor. In fact, the Bush Administration has more than once identified Taylor as the problem and called for Taylor to leave the nation. Even if the U.S. were neutral, it would not be perceived as such, and this creates huge problems—the greatest of which is violence against U.S. forces. Organized forces that feel they are not being treated fairly by the United States would identify America as unwanted occupiers against whom violence would be justified. There is also a high risk of less organized violence from terrorist or small factions trying to gain notoriety. Americans are high value targets for these bands of vagrants. They can use American casualties to gain popularity, increase membership, generate interest, or demonstrate their capabilities. The American public will not support such operations. One of the great fallacies of the 1990’s was that American’s would not take casualties. The American public absolutely will accept causalities when it feels that a military operation is clearly in support of the national interest, such as with Operation Iraqi Freedom, which still enjoys solid public support. But Americans will not tolerate seeing its young men and women dying in the streets of far-flung nations fighting for something that has nothing to do with American national security. While there may be some initial support for these operations, that support will dwindle as Americans begin to die. The U.S. armed forces do not make good peacekeepers. America’s armed forces are equipped and trained to fight wars, not be international peacekeepers. And that is the way it should be. As demonstrated in the three most recent major conflicts—Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq—only the United States has the capability to move large forces globally and defeat adversaries in relatively short amounts of time with relatively low casualty rates on both sides. They are able to conduct such operations because that is how they are equipped and trained. However, just because the United States can fight and win wars does not mean that it is the best nation at peacekeeping. Indeed, it is one of the worst nations to do peacekeeping. Applying war-fighting skills to international peacekeeping leads to low morale, misapplication of force, and frustration. The international elite makes it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to participate in any of these kinds of missions. It will be virtually impossible for the United States to participate in international peacekeeping coalitions in the future because any action it takes will be used by the anti-American international left to make accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. When the operation is in direct support of the nation’s security, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the risk of trumped-up legal accusations are overtaken by the risk of not addressing the threat. However, when the operation does not support the vital national interest, the inevitable legal charges are just one more reason why the United States should not commit ground troops. This is precisely why, from the liberal internationalist perspective, it is so important for nations to give U.S. forces exemptions from International Criminal Court prosecutions. Regardless of the facts, the anti-American international elitists will view any U.S. participation as imperialist. Of course, they will initially demand that the U.S. commit troops, but as soon as the United States takes an action that they deem inappropriate, America will be branded war criminal. Why 2,000 Troops is Really 6,000 Troops A peacekeeping force consists of more then just the number of troops actually involved in the operation. If 2,000 troops are deployed – as Kofi Annan requested – the United States would really be committing is 6,000 troops, because for every soldier committed, there is one preparing to deploy and one recovering. In addition to that, the U.S. maintains 8,000 troops in the Balkans, which means that 24,000 are dedicated to that mission. So with an additional peacekeeping mission in Liberia, the United States would have at least 30,000 troops committed to missions that have little or nothing to do with U.S. national security. In addition to diverting troops from other, more important missions, an open-ended peacekeeping mission in Liberia will reduce the military effectiveness of troops available for other missions. Troops returning from Liberia will need many months of retraining to regain the war fighting skills that atrophied during their peacekeeping deployment. For example, troops returning from Somalia took 10 months to regain their war fighting skills. And many of the specialties that will be needed for a Liberia operation are the same high demand, low-density assets, such as special operations units, reconnaissance assets, and military police units that the U.S. needs to fight the war on terrorism. Quagmires That Achieve Little The United States does have a role to play in helping Liberia to emerge from its current situation and become a successful African nation. That role may even be in the form of facilitating an international peacekeeping effort, assuming that the conditions are right for success. The United States could provide logistics support and communications capabilities. A few high ranking officer could even be committed to run the operation if the international community needs help leading the effort. The United States must avoid sending ground troops to Liberia, not because the U.S. should not help Liberia, but because sending American troops is not the best way to help. Historically, unless conditions were optimal, peacekeeping efforts usually have failed. Forces move in, then they move out, and the international community forgets about issue. Somalia and Haiti are both examples of peacekeeping failures. The Balkans operations are still ongoing, but they have been far from successful. Indeed, they would descend into chaos if the international forces were to leave. It is time that the American government recognize that there is no “home by Christmas” when it comes to peacekeeping operations. They are quagmires that cost more then expected, especially when measured in American blood, and usually achieve very little in the long run. --Jack Spencer is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Hell, no. I just like to do my little bit to help out the historically challenged from time to time. Both countries have been doing an outstanding job of screwing up on the World Stage. I harbor no illusions about American grandeur. Unlike our dear President. (or his French counterpart)
I'm no fan of Jacques Chirac or his administration, but for what its worth there already IS a French force deployed as peacekeepers in neighboring Cote D'IVoire, which has a civil war that spilled over. That, of course, is separate and apart from the French contingent that has been in Afghanistan for the past few years. Oh, and by the way zzhiggins, you and French Foreign Minister Dominic de Villepin are apparently of the same mind on this, as France seems to be contemplating sending peacekeepers to Liberia: MONROVIA, Liberia (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Saturday called for urgent deployment of an international force for Liberia, warning of a "humanitarian tragedy" in a war-ruined capital where fighting this week killed hundreds of trapped civilians. West Africa promised a peace force of at least 5,000 for Liberia if warring sides halt fighting, and France suggested Saturday it was open to contributing troops - stepping in where the United States, Liberia's colonial-era founder, so far has declined to tread. After a four-day battle between government and rebel forces for the Liberian capital, Annan urged the Security Council on Saturday to authorize sending a multinational force to Liberia to enforce a cease-fire that fell apart soon after it was signed June 17. "There are reports that several hundred innocent civilians have been killed in fighting in and around Monrovia and of wanton destruction of property and widespread looting," Annan said in a letter to the council. He called for the deployment to Liberia of a force "to prevent a major humanitarian tragedy and to stabilize the situation in that country." Liberia's capital counted its dead from this week's siege, the rebels' fiercest assault yet on Monrovia, a city of 1 million crowded with hundreds of thousands of refugees. Rebels pulled out of the city Friday after a four-day siege by artillery and rockets, and after fighting that left an estimated 500 civilians dead. An international peace force for Liberia was called for in a June 17 cease-fire accord. The cease-fire collapsed last week, after Liberian warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor repudiated his past pledges he would yield power in the interest of peace. The rebels responded with the assault. Monrovia awoke to calm Saturday for the first time in five days. Thousands of Liberians who had taken shelter around the city's U.S. Embassy, hoping for protection through proximity to the American Marines there, streamed home Saturday - only to find homes looted by government soldiers and others. "I went home this morning only to see that everything is gone," said one resident, 37-year-old Martin Weah. Rebels had overrun western neighborhoods of the city as far as the port, heavily contested both for its well-stocked food warehouses and for its strategic value. Liberian forces challenged rebels' claim that the insurgents had retreated under a unilateral cease-fire, saying rebels had left the city only because of an intense push by Taylor's forces. "If you see their bodies on the road, you will tell whether they withdrew or were forced back," said Gen. Roland Duo, chief of staff of Liberia's navy. In Ghana, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and Ghana President John Kufuor, current head of the West African leaders' bloc, urged both sides in Liberia toward a real cease-fire. When that happened, Kufuor said, West Africa would lead an at least 5,000-member peace force to Liberia. West African authorities spoke Saturday of the force deploying fairly quickly, with the aim of serving as a buffer between rebels and government. Kufuor said de Villepin had offered both French troops and logistical support for such a force. De Villepin did not confirm such an offer, but indicated French receptiveness. He cited Congo and the former French colony of Ivory Coast, where French troops have taken a lead role in trying to enforce cease-fires. "It will not be difficult for us to do the same for any disposition force in Liberia," the French foreign minister said at Ghana's international airport in Accra, before leaving Saturday. "But the first thing that must be done is a cease-fire." European and U.N. leaders have urged the United States to take a lead role in such a peace force, citing the effectiveness of Britain's and France's military deployments in their former colonies of Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. The United States has shown no inclination to commit a similar force for Liberia, a key West African Cold War ally of the United States that still sees itself as having special ties through its founding by freed American slaves in the 19th century. De Villepin, without mentioning President Bush, criticized the American leader when asked about Bush's call for Taylor to step down in the interest of peace. "In such conflict resolution, outside dictatorship does not help anybody," the French foreign minister said. "Rather, neighboring countries should be encouraged to take charge while we lend our support, and not the other way around." Taylor, trained by Libya as a guerrilla in the days when Liberia was the United States' Cold War base in West Africa, launched Liberia into conflict at the head of a tiny invasion force in 1989. The seven-year civil war that followed killed an estimated 200,000 Liberians, and left the country in lasting ruin. Taylor emerged from the war as the strongest fighter, and won presidential elections the following year. During the civil war, Taylor's fighters clashed frequently with a Nigerian-led peace force sent by fellow West African states to try to enforce peace deals. Taylor on Friday expressed support for a new international force in the current three-year rebellion. The Liberian leader also joined his people in urging the United States to get involved. The United Nations has Taylor under sanctions for alleged gun- and diamond-running with West Africa's rebel movements. A U.N.-backed war crimes court in neighboring Sierra Leone announced Taylor's indictment June 4 for his backing of Sierra Leone's vicious rebels in their 10-year terror campaign in that country. (PROFILE (COUNTRY:Congo; ISOCO
For those of you that have children, remember that their ability to identify humor and sarcasm is an excellent way to judge their intelligence.
So no one adovates sending US troops to Liberia to stop the murders and human rights violations? So I guess you guys would rather have a bunch of innocent people die than have the US extend its horrible "influence." The US could stop this with minimal cost or loss of American life. For the people who are advocating that France take care of it- stop joking around! This is serious!
I thought the reason why it doesn't matter if WMD are ever found in Iraq or not is because innocent civilians were saved from murder and bloodshed. Why then is Liberia a bad cause?
Or maybe they should pick their euro-bashing targets a little more carefully to avoid looking dumb, France apparently is planning on taking care of it. Enjoy the freedom fries, guys.
It matters whether the WMD are found.. What happened to them? Even the Iraqis admitted they were there, where are they? And it does matter if Liberians are being killed in their civil war, the question is who is going to stop it.. It wont be the French, it will be the US.
Yes they were there in 80's and part of the 90's but even Iraqi's defectors are saying they haven't been there for some time. Defectors also aren't the most reliable source of information.
And I was thinking the left was telling us the only way they would swallow this war was only IF WMD were found.
Well it wasn't just the left. What the anti-war crowd was saying was the reasons given for needing the regime change in Iraq was that WMD presented a clear and present threat to the U.S. So far there are no WMD found, and people are saying it doesn't matter because we took out a dictator and saved plenty of civilian lives by doing that. Now some of the same people that think that was worthy in Iraq, don't seem to think it's worthy in Liberia. I just wanted to understand their argument. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't go into Liberia. I'm just trying to find the consistency in their viewpoints, or at least an explanation in what appears to be their lack of consistancy.
