With the war on terrorism in progress, our troops in Afganistan and Iraq, do you think it is wise that we now send troops into liberia to play referee in the ongoing civil war there? Or is this going to be perceived as American expansion and add to the anger against our nation?

I think, as the World's Superpower, we have the obligation to "play referee" to stop this civil war.

Just a little tidbit: This is the first time (if troops are sent) that U.S. forces have been sent to an African nation since the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia in 1993



No it will not because the UN insisted that we send peacekeepers so this is not a case where this will be mistaken as an expansion tactic

I heard a woman on the radio last night urging that we help in Liberia. Her son is there and the son says that the situation is so chaotic that you can't leave your home to get food or water because of the fear of being attacked.

Liberia was settled by freed American slaves. So there is an argument that we have a historical tie to Liberia. I don't think that really has much to do with whether or not we should intercede, though.

The woman from the radio (Sean Hannity's program, actually) said that after George W. Bush made his speech calling for the former leader to remove himself (he lost the last election, I believe, but refused to give up power), people started dancing in the streets. I think we should see whether or not the threat of sending troops there will work. If it doesn't, we could send a small contingent of troops.

U.S. Could Send Troops to Liberia
They are currently prepared to send a "Fast team" of 50-75 Marines in there. These were requested by the Liberian ambassador:



Also, as said, others as pushing for us to intervene:

It is really a tough call. We are reluctant to become the "policeman", other countries have chided us for doing it in the past (Iraq), but in this case pressure is being brought FOR US intervention.

Charles Taylor himself is an indicted war criminal, though, Liberia leader on war crimes charge for backing the rebels in Sierra Leone.

The only reason I posted the question the way I did, is because terrorist and Anti-American countries could use this as fuel for their efforts. I think part of the reason we're dispised in parts of the world IS because we've become the world's police and they're intimidated by that, for good reasons. There's no other TRUE super power in the world but us, no balance. No matter how much good we try to do in the world, it won't matter as long as we're preceived as expansionist and an imperialistic country.

I personally think we should go and help the people of liberia.

edited because of misspelling.

I haven't yet made up my mind about going into Liberia. However when looking at your post here this quote I have chosen in particular, I see that you make a great point. But it is a point of cowardice and a point that I feel gives heed to terrorists. When terrorists attacked The US in 2001 several people took the opprotunity to make the point America is in other people's business. However true this maybe I would rather not pull out of anywhere just to show terrorists that their threats and attacks won't deter us from anything we want.

But we won't here. The UN has urged us to go in. So, therefore, it was sanctioned by the UN & they (terrorists)can't use it as propaganda to view this as an expansion tactic

I would support an American military action in Liberia under very carefully crafted terms that would insure our troops were able to protect themselves. That means, among other things, American-defined Rules of Engagement, American field commanders, and no blue helmuts.

Yes, America is often blasted for being the worlds police. But Liberia wouldn't be the first country to ASK us to do just that.

If we go to Liberia, we could be blasted for being police
If we don't, Liberians could blast us for refusing to help their war-torn country.

:/



Sure they can. It just won't be accurate information. But there will be millions of people who will believe it....true or false

I would be ok with this, provided we have a clear end-game. Get in, do what needs to be done and get the heck out. Oh, and like someone said.... no fricken blue helmets

--cheers

What's up with the blue helmets?

I can put my support behind this effort because:

1) As goamerica has pointed out, countries in the region have asked for this help through the UN.

2) Committment is light, relatively speaking, with the intention of bringing in troops from other countries in the West African region to do the heavy lifting.

3) President Bush wants a clear plan, including definitions of exactly when the job is finished.

I've not been able to find recent history on this civil war. I have found where it was supposed to have ended in 1997. Has anybody been able to find more recent information?

Billy Jean,

UN troops wear blue helmets. DP doesn't like the idea of US troops being under the command of UN officers. However, I take your point about the US being resented--and perhaps the use of UN-styled uniforms while undertaking peace-keeping missions would help heal this resentment.

One other observation: The military can only go so far with peace-creating (in this case) and peace-keeping missions. Diplomacy has to be used to keep wars from starting in the first place.

OK, off my soap box

Of course we need to help out over there, God knows that if we don't do anything nobody else would. If only there was some world peacekeeping body that helped in these situations [Like a group of nations, united, hmmm].

CP

Going back to the original post on this thread because I'm not really sure what "playing referee" means. If that means so-called "peace-keeping" forces I would remind people here that you have to first have a peace in order to keep it. I'm not sure that is the situation in Liberia. If we want to send in our forces to stop the the fighting and killing, that is "peace making" and can involve pro-active military action as opposed to reactive action. The 'Blue helmuts" comment was a reference to UN troops under UN command as opposed to US troops under US command. UN troops are almost always "reactive" and that is not a situation I would like to see for American forces.

You misunderstood.

I don't like blue helmets. That says to the enemy "HEY I'M OVER HERE...SHOOT ME" I wonder if they glow in the dark too :/

Our military wears camouflage for a reason, and baby blue goes against it. Those stupid helmets put our troops in danger, that's why I don't like them.

UN Command...not my favorite idea, but I'm ok with it

Sorry, I should have been more specific

--cheers

Of course we should help Liberia, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

It is a far more honorable engagement than the fiasco in Iraq. It meets the criterion of humanitarian in so many more ways.

I'm not. If we commit American troops to potential combat, they should be under American commanders with American-defined rules of engagement. That would be the only condition where I would support a deployment to Liberia.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...
Libera seeks U.S. help to end fighting
USA Today: French help Americans flee Liberia's capital
Boston Globe: French evacuate amid chaos

The French have already been busy with the situation in Ivory Coast and the worsening conditions in Congo. They appear more than willing to assist the victims in Liberia, but they are (reasonably IMO) asking that there first be a cease-fire. I believe their approach to the situation is reasonable:
I'm not a fan of spreading our armed forces all around the world or policing other nations. This is a case, however, where we could work together with other nations to help remedy a terrible situation. Rather than arbitrarily policing the region we would be expected to do no more than assist domestic and foreign peace keeping forces in stabilizing things.

There is a big difference between this case and our war in Iraq. I don't see much to worry about in that we would be viewed as aggressors because both sides in the conflict are begging for us to get involved and help. Not to mention the UN, Britain, and France making suggestions that it is morally our obligation.

We would not be starting a war or interfering uninvited. They've been fighting for seven years now and there is a humanitarian crisis to consider as well.

If we don't go in and try to be the police we claim we are and do so when there is a despot and humanitarian crisis it damages our credibility. This is the problem with using the humanitarian excuse for going into Iraq. There are problems all over the world and we do not want to be obligated to involve our troops in every one of them. If Bush refuses to do so in this instance it's like admitting Iraq was all about the oil.

There is talk of a moral connection because the country was founded by free US slaves which is not quite true. A better description would be that it was colonized by Americans.


Liberia has also been a close ally and trading partner for a very long time. France and Britain have suggested that just as they have felt a responsibility to get involved in conflicts that occur in each of their old colonies that the US should be the ones to take charge of Liberia which is basically ours in their opinion. However, the French have been willing to volunteer troops of their own due to the humanitarian crisis which pretty much put's us in diplomatic check. If we refuse it's checkmate, in a matter of speaking.

So, we can decide not to get involved and look like greedy liars who are happy to show aggression when the situation is not dire and when we are not welcome by those we are supposed to be helping. And that might be necessary since our troops are stretched further than they should be as it is. Everyone knows this but it isn't smart to stand up and announce it to the world.

Another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into due to our big mouths and our insistence on starting a war and leaving ourselves short for unplanned conflicts or any that could occur that are beyond our control. Whose to say this will be the only one or that we won't need our troops to defend ourselves at home one day soon?

I support sending a small number of troops in while at the same time crossing my fingers that nothing un-expected happens that this administration either can't deal with or will make worse. And they better make sure they have a clear exit strategy this time.

I'm in favour of any military action which safe guards civilian life and brings stability to a region. If America has the will and the capability to see this thing through and not bail out half way around, then I'm right behind it. But if this is just some excersize on behalf of GWB to divert attention from his appalling failure in Iraq, then I am against it.

The principle of such things out weigh any political or other considerations. It is the duty of the strong to help the weak.

Doesn't mean it's a colony. It's just founded with the help of the ACS.




Point taken but i think that Liberia will be very short-term. Once the country gets back on it's feet economically and in the way of law & order, then we can leave or let the UN take it


moif Posted on Jul 7 2003, 04:31 AM


First of all, i doubt this is a ploy to divert attention. This is serious humaintrain efforts here & from what you watch on the news, it is necessary.
Second of all....failure? SetBack Moifie. SetBack

How bout that! Good for them, well, that makes it better if we have allies, so why not, us and the French, who'd thunk it?

CP

Before i read any posts id like to give me opinion on if the USA should get involved

Simple Answer

Yes

America Set the slaves free and they created a country this new country has been under tremendous civil strife for a long period of time. The USA should get involved. We created the country in some form and we need to establish the ground rules. This country (Liberia) is in total chaos because of the Rebels VS Government.

However

I see the Point Of View of the people opposing this type of invasion because of safety concerns "send troops to Iraq where they are needed"-cnn Truth is that we have a mighty army and we are engaged in activities that we are not told about on a consistant daily basis. How about S. Korea we have troops there How about Afghanistan they fightning is REALLY SLOW there basically no fatalities.

So simply i think we need to send troops to this war torn nation

And in closing may i ask all people opposing this View Point to tell me this scene "Citizens of America plea for international force to stop civil strife" What if no country came to your aid? American citizens would be mad. This is just like the Liberain question

-holt

I particularly liked the excerpt I heard on the radio, of Rumsfeld saying how we needed to be careful about getting involved in a second engagement. Well, Earth to Rummy, that would be third at least. There are still significant forces in Afghanistan, and little bits and pieces in a dozen other places (most notably the Phillipines). It's not quite as bad as "bring it on" but it still amazes me and disgusts me that our secretary of defense could forget even for a moment how many theatres we're in. Shows something about where our priorities are: once we're done blowing stuff up, Rummy loses interest.

Which brings us back to Liberia. What would our forces actually do there except be targets? How long do we think that will last before the Weapons of Mass Distraction are deployed again and our troops are quietly pulled out of Liberia while we attack Syria or Iran? Is there really any point, other than a symbolic one, to such an undoubtedly brief and ineffectual deployment? Is the symbolic gesture alone sufficient to justify our getting involved?

We have no national interest that would be advanced by going to Liberia.

Hugo, just think of this. If Bush says NO, then he would be accused of only oil & plus not going to restore order from chaos would result in future critisim that Clinton experiences from not going into Rawanda

WE have a responsibility for this country because WE helped organize the country for these people. We owe them a bit of help

There, i will now leave the soapbox

Editied to add: It would look good in the eyes of the world because we are playing the role of the good guys again after that pre-emptive move in Iraq

goamerica - are you saying we should go into Liberia partly as a PR move?

Talk about not supporting your troops...I don't mean to be insulting but the fact is we just lost six there yesterday. EDIT: I could not verify the story I thought I saw about this last night...We have lost one soldier and 3 were injured clearing mines there. I appologize for speaking before I had double checked.

Hugo, if Bush refuses he embarrasses the entire country. On the bright side he will give one more weapon to his competitions arsenal...whoever that ends up being.

Not at all.

The primary reason the United States can't ignore this is because they asked for our help and the country is in chaos and we owe it to them because we helped found the country for them.

Think of it as our baby & the baby has grown up & entered a violent stage of life. The parents (the United States) has to go in and help the child find order in it's life so it can continue and thrive

The PR move as you mentioned is a VERY secondary reason. It would look good in the eyes of the world if we step in and bring order to chaos, after being the supposed aggressor in Iraq and making our Humane side visible more

Of course we should... Britain has sent troops to Sierra Leone, and France to Cote d'Ivoire. The whole situation is intertwined, and unless we secure the situation in Liberia, the surrounding area that is now relatively peaceful may once again plunge into civil war. President Taylor is a criminal who doesn't belong there, and prolonging his stay will mean more lives lost.

Here is an interesting article which looks at the situation in Liberia...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030623&s=trb062303

How it effects GW's political standing should not alter foreign policy. It is not in our interest to go.

Liberia is our creation. They want our help and WE need to give it

It's also not in our interest to be the world police but Bush has chosen to put us in that position so thank him for this. I could care less about his political standing but I do care about how it reflects on us as a country.

There is no reason to go except humanitarian reasons and to get rid of a despot. The same reasons Bush want's us to be satisfied with about Iraq since there have been no weapons found and we're pretending not to want the oil.

Are you saying we shouldn't go because there are no WMD's in Liberia? Or because there is no obvious material gain?

Wrong. We were cast in the role of world policeman to some degree or other long before Bush. As a matter of fact, we've yet to perform that particular role under him. Afghanistan and Iraq were about our own security, not about policing the world.

If we decide to go into Liberia, it should be for the right reasons and not a PR move for the president. If the circumstances warrant a military response, we need to give a true response… Specifically, a lot of troops capable of accomplishing a specified stated goal. If the situation isn’t worth committing a lot of troops, it isn’t worth engaging in. I think the soldiers in line to be sent over deserve better. Either send over the forces to back them, or don’t send them off as fodder and PR control.

Thanks Moif for The New Republic link. Here's two more that I found of interest:

http://armchairdiplomat.com/updates/liberia.htm

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=1901203

I'm not yet convinced that it's up to the United States to commit troops to Liberia. Alas, such are the burdens of being the world's sole superpower.

If there were a poll in this thread I would have to choose "undecided."

I think lawlessness, violence on every street corner, and just plain chaos is good enough of a reason and worth the time of our troops. You have to remember, they ASKED for us to come: Thousands of Liberians March to U.S. Embassy, Pleading for American Forces to Restore Calm



Why deny them the chance to live a decent life?

PR would be the Anti's justification.

If we intend on using military force to combat all lawlessness and violence for every country in the world, we will be very busy indeed.

I don't know enough about the issue to make the call. Some of the discourse here reminds me of the way one might discuss funding for some sort of project. These soldiers are real people, and their lives are as precious as anyone's. Many enlisted after 9/11, in patriotic fervor to show support for the country and combat terrorism. They have now encountered a lot of violence and hardship. I think it's important to remember that when deliberating whether we should send troops to other places around the globe. The stories I've read are heartbreaking, but we need to absolutely have an obtainable (and combat-worthy)goal for what we wish to acheive.We can't afford to have another Somalia, the cost was too high for what we accomplished.

Only if they asked for our help & wanted us there.

I agree with GA. I think that stronger nations have a moral duty to help weaker nations, and if America is serious about its 'war' on terror, then Africa is a good place to focus since nations like Liberia have been over run by various terrorists for decades now.

If America can help, then I think it should.

Our first obstacle has arisen

Taylor Loyalists Get in the Way



hmmmm

Now, Mrs.P, you of all people should know by now that that's a fallacy (excluded middle or slippery slope, depending on how you look at it). We can be justified in acting some times and not other times; it doesn't have to be all or nothing. What we must do, however, is identify the distinctions we're making. If we intervened in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, why not in Liberia? Conversely, if we did not intervene in Rwanda or Sierra Leone or ("Democratic" Republic of) Congo, why is Liberia different? Distinctions are obviously being made, and rightly so, and different distinctions are being proposed, and that's great, but I still think (as I argued in another thread) that accusing someone of inconsistency without understanding the distinctions they make is kind of fruitless.

Edited to add: Mrs.P correctly pointed out that the excluded middle was really goamerica's, and that she was merely performing a reductio ad absurdum on it. Well done, and I apologize.

In yet another thread, I recently laid out three requirements for when our military intervention (other than in self-defense) is justified:

• When the people ask us (check).
  
• When the "international community" such as it is approves (check).
  
• When we have a clear mission with defined success criteria and resource commitment (in progress).

You all know I'm generally no fan of the Bush Inc. administration, but (for the second time today!) I'm going to say I think they're doing the right thing. If I can find fault it's not with the general direction, but with the pace. The same administration that railed against the UN (which was acting, even if that action was deemed ineffectual) for foot-dragging in Iraq now seems oddly hesitant in Liberia. How many "investigative teams" do we need? The lack of an explanation for this sudden fit of caution from Mr. "Bring It On" only fuels negative speculation, and could be considered (at the very least) a major diplomatic/PR error.

I will reword it more clearly. If we are going to engage in (yet a third) war, we must weigh the risk to reward ratio. Is potential cost in life and troop morale worth the benefits of aiding the people of Liberia? What do we hope to accomplish, best-case realistic scenario, as opposed to what might happen in the worst case.

We currently have an all-volunteer military. One more quagmire tasking might just be the straw that broke the camel’s back, leading to a crisis in experienced personnel for which even conscription wouldn’t fill.

That's an excellent point. Our overuse of the military as an instrument of policy has exacted a heavy toll in morale, fatigue, retraining and refitting, etc. We're on the verge of a major crisis in retaining experienced personnel, and that must be factored in to any decision about when and where and how to deploy our forces. The Atlantic did an article about this a few months ago. CSM did an article about morale in Iraq just today. Soldiers ("warfighters" to be generic and PC) the quality of ours don't grow on trees.

The New Republic has an interesting article about Liberia's ties to al Qaeda. Short version: Liberia has stronger ties to al Qaeda than Iraq ever did, so the "no strategic interest" excuse is wearing thin. Are we in a War on Terror, or a War on Something Else?

hmmm. Very interesting. Charles Taylor's been naughty. I think i was right when i was saying that the conditions in Liberia could breed terrorism and is a good place for terrorist groups to take up shop

Just a little update on the situation in Libera:

U.N. Ok's multinational force to Liberia

Oh, well if the UN ok'd it, then it must be the right thing to do, thank God we have the UN's approval. . I think that we should be going to Liberia e en if they didn't, cause frankly, they don't mean anything, however, now that the Liberians have asked us to help, now it is obvious that we need to step in. However I think we need to concentrate more on Iraq, start cleaning up there, and then move on to Liberia.

CP

If we should go in, we should go in now, not when we get restless and no longer feel like finishing the job in Iraq or Afghanistan.



Start cleaning up? Start? That's what we should have been doing since the so-called "end to major hostilities". Why are we putting our troops in harm's way, if not to do that?

I'm a agreeing with you dude. However, what I don't understand is you're saying that we should go now instead of ending the job before it's done, but if we go now, we will be doing just that. We need to finish up taking out the rest of the militant SH supporters and head out, let the Iraqis take care of the rest [minus actually finding SH of course].

CP

No, I'm saying we should intervene in Liberia and we should finish the job in Iraq. Are you saying we can't do both at once? Is the mighty US military with all of its expensive hardware so overburdened in Iraq that they can't spare anything for Liberia? Some might say that's a good reason not to have gone it alone in Iraq.