Liberia: US Troops sooner or later?

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
First of all, the news relayed before has been building for over a year, so this isn't a sudden development.

Pres. Bush gave a speech last week urging peace in the region, but obviously it was more to just acknowledge that the US is aware of the situation.

Liberia itself has been in chaos for the last, oh, decade or so. The US Embassy there has even taken the occasional stray bullet and had its own snipers shoot back before.

So now, the rest of region is saying, "Hey Sheriff, now that you took out Iraq, why not come here and clean up this town." Of course, this time the UN is also saying "come and lead our forces", too.

There is some historical extra element to this: Liberia was founded by the US for former slaves that wanted to return to Africa. So we actually parented this place.

Here's a sampling of current news:

-----------------------------
W. African Leaders Want U.S. in Liberia
Tue Jul 1, 8:19 AM ET

By JONATHAN PAYE LAYLEH, Associated Press Writer

MONROVIA, Liberia - Pressure built Monday on the United States to contribute to a peacekeeping force in Liberia, with West African leaders asking for 2,000 U.S. troops — and seeking a response from President Bush before his July visit to the continent.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Bush administration and State Department were "looking at a range of options" in Liberia but had made no decision on whether to supply troops.

Rumsfeld did not reveal his personal view on whether U.S. forces should be deployed, though he seemed to suggest that African nations could handle it largely by themselves, noting that U.S. forces have trained Nigerian and other African armies for regional peacekeeping operations.

"They've been well-trained. We've helped equip them, and to the extent they've been deployed I've been told they've handled themselves well," he said.

Bush is scheduled to make a five-day visit to Africa starting July 7. West African leaders said they hope for a commitment on U.S. troops before his arrival.

U.N. Security Council ambassadors and West African leaders were in Ghana on the third stop of a West African mission, which has focused on assembling a 5,000-strong force to separate rebel forces and those of Liberian President Charles Taylor.

Rebels have waged a three-year campaign to unseat Taylor, an indicted U.N. war-crimes suspect blamed for much of the conflict that has roiled West Africa in recent years.

France, Britain, U.N. diplomats and both sides in Liberia's fighting have pushed for an American role in a peace force for the country, which was founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century and a longtime regional U.S. ally and trade partner.

African nations have offered 3,000 troops to the force, with the rest to come from the United States, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

U.N. Ambassador Martin Chungong Ayafor of Cameroon, a Security Council member, suggested a U.S.-backed mission could win goodwill for the United States.

"This could be a good face-saving measure for them, and show that they intervene for the sake of peace and security," Ayafor said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has also suggested the United States take a leadership role in a peacekeeping force. "Of course that is a sovereign decision for them to take — but all eyes are on them," Annan said in Geneva.

At U.N. headquarters Monday, U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham told the Security Council during closed-door consultations that the United States wanted three conditions met for further discussion about the nature of a peacekeeping force.

According to diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Cunningham said Washington would insist on Taylor giving up power, on a political agreement among the parties and international support for a peace process. The council decided to continue discussion after the mission it dispatched returns from the region and West African leaders meet over the weekend.

Liberia's rebels joined the calls Monday for U.S. military involvement.

"The Americans can lead the force, and the West Africans can play a supporting role," Charles Bennie, a rebel envoy, said in Ghana.

The rebel official promised his side would not target Americans troops if they are sent to enforce a truce. A previous cease-fire unraveled last week.

In Monrovia, a small crowd rallied outside the U.S. Embassy on Monday to appeal for American military action.

The few dozen picketers were a fraction of the thousands of panicked Liberians who surrounded the U.S. Embassy and nearby compound last week, seeking protection from rockets and mortars as rebels laid siege to the capital.

Western authorities, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that two mortar shells hit the U.S. Embassy compound during the siege — contradicting previous American statements that explosives hit only within the walls of the U.S. residential compound across the street.

The end of the siege left doctors to treat hundreds of wounded and victims of disease sweeping the capital, which is crowded with refugees who have filled schools, homes and a sports stadium and have inadequate supplies of water.

People used wheelbarrows to haul cholera victims to the main John F. Kennedy hospital, where workers have logged at least 600 cases of the disease.

------------

Washington not ready to join Liberia peacekeepers
Mon Jun 30, 2:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has not decided whether its troops will join peacekeepers in Liberia, a State Department spokesman said.

"We've been looking more broadly at the overall situation to see what contribution we could make and how we might help work with others to calm that situation somewhat for the sake of the people of Liberia," Richard Boucher said.

"I don't have a final answer at this point on what the prospects are or what steps we might choose."

Boucher added that Washington had opted to take a seat on an international commission to oversee a cease-fire accord reached between the Liberian government and rebel forces on June 17 in Accra, Ghana but which has since fallen through.

On Saturday UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the Security Council authorize deployment of a multilateral force in Liberia. He said Monday that US participation was welcome.

"There are lots of expectations that the US may be prepared to lead this force, of course that is a sovereign decision for them to take, but all eyes are on them," Annan told reporters.

On Saturday the UN chief called in the UN Security Council in a letter for the urgent deployment of a multinational force to the West African state to prevent a "major humanitarian tragedy."
 

BlackSpy

Tsrgoihrea,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Posts
2,959
Well, I had a Liberian friend called Eric till he disapeared. Whatever they do now they should have done ten years ago.

Liberia was the only US colony in Africa which a lot people seem to forget, there is a need to help sort it out.
 

Tacitus

Volatile Memory Construct - SN://0467839
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Posts
15,120
Oh, so *now* we're supposed to intervene?

It's nice that the U.N., the french and many other countries can ask us to come in and sort out the problems of the world after they screwed us royally in the last conflict we had. Weren't these the same people who cried "The US are not the policemen of the world"? It's nice to see that they're there when they need us.

Fuck 'em... actually I wouldn't totally snub my nose at them, most notably, the UK. If they urged us into it, I would most likely go along with that to pay back the favor in Iraq.

As far as the countries that opposed us, I would say... well, we're not the policemen... why not do it yourself??? Then, openly object and make every political move you could to oppose them.

Ok, way overboard there, I know.. but it's shit like this that makes me insane when it comes to world politics. Fuck it, let's bail out the world again.

Note: It's nice to see other countries are "emotionally blackmailing" the US to enter in this as a "goodwill" mission to atone for our "sins" in Iraq.
 

BlackSpy

Tsrgoihrea,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Posts
2,959
Liberia is an old US colony, its a different situation.

Also, how do you teach France a lesson by letting Liberians die of cholera?

<small>[ July 01, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: BlackSpy ]</small>
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
BlackSpy:
Also, how do you teach France a lesson by letting Liberians die of cholera?
It's the American way.

It's exactly the same mindset that let Afghanistan fester for 20+ years after multiple cries for help.

It's exactly ths same mindset the sat back and let the UN muddle its way through the Bosnian Conflict until world furor and (limited) domestic disgust finally got the US to get involved with NATO

It's exactly the same mindset displated by the US when 300,000+ people were eradicated in Rwanda less than 10 years ago. "oh, who cares, they're not important"

The US loves to be self-righteous. It's a crowning achievment of any empire. Ask the British -well, 100 years ago... before they were made the laughing stock of the world. Or the Romans... before the fell. Or the Greeks (ditto). Or the Mongols... Or the...

History tends to repeat itself
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
VanillaThunder:
Oh, so *now* we're supposed to intervene?
Well, you did seem to miss the point that this has been chaos for over 10 years. But I digress.
 

Tacitus

Volatile Memory Construct - SN://0467839
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Posts
15,120
Bobak:
VanillaThunder:
Oh, so *now* we're supposed to intervene?
Well, you did seem to miss the point that this has been chaos for over 10 years. But I digress.
No, didn't I say:

<strong>
Fuck it, let's bail out the world again.
I believe I did.

My point is this and maybe I'm a bit misunderstood.

Basically, it's ok for everyone to bitch about the US and our involvement in other areas as long as it serves their purposes. I'm well aware of the Afghani situation as well as other situations around the world that are steadily degrading. (Sri Lanka, the Kashmir, Sierra Leone... etc.)
Do I think people should be left to die? No. Do I think its situations like this that are just pure political manipulation by other countries because they're miffed at us? Yes.

The argument of:

<strong>
Also, how do you teach France a lesson by letting Liberians die of cholera?
</strong>

Why can't the french take care of it? I'm sure their military and medical personnel are more than adequate to take care of the situation... ok, maybe the medical staff. wink

What am I getting at? Well, it's BS for other countries to bitch at us when we do something to try to get them to join up or something that would be termed "global policing"... but when the same tactic is used on the US, it's our OBLIGATION to jump aboard.

It's when they're critiscizing us for one action, only to turn around to get us to DO IT FOR THEM is what pisses me off.

yeah, we pulled that stunt ourselves, but like many other things that irritate me in the world.. if you're going to split hairs, split them the same damn way. Either help us out when we ask you to, not help us, but as our ally.. DON'T ACTIVELY TRY TO FUCK US.. (which they did) or bitch about the tactic and DON'T use it yourself. It's having their cake and eating it too.

Liberia's condition is awful and I don't think we should spite them for the sake of making a point. Yes, we have ties to that country. Yes, we should intervene as we are the leading world power and if we're as benevolent as we like to think we are.. it's a moral imperative.

The politics around this situation is what sickens me, not helping the people.

<small>[ July 01, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: VanillaThunder ]</small>
 

BlackSpy

Tsrgoihrea,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Posts
2,959
France has been putting troops into the Congo off its own back to try and enforce ceasefires, thats a conflict that has claimed more lives than any other since WWII.

The UK has been trying to enforce the peace in Seirra Leone.

Belgium has been someother place I don't remember.

And so on. Just because American media doesn't report it doesn't mean its not happening.
 

Crovax

Rasputin's Rose Gardener
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
701
IF the US does anything it'll be a feigned effort at most. Sure, the moral obligation is there, as we now claim that we went into Iraq to free the people there from a bloodthirsty dictator. Unfortunately, the circumstances allow neither the PR war, nor gives incentive to various captains of industry to support going in. that is, first, there is no way to pin WMD or any other threat to the US on them, and second, the natural resources of the region aren't anything any industrial tycoon wants. yeah, it is probably the moral thing to do, but let's face it, the leadership of the US is simply not interested. I think, if anything, the situation will probably be left unchecked, unless foreign powers take initiative on their own.
 
Top