| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa: West |
| Don’t count on regional forces, send the Marines |
| 2003-08-12 |
| Long but interesting piece in the International Herald Tribune about the near-worthlessness of the peacekeepers coming to Liberia. Too long to post here in full, but I’ve excerpted some key paragraphs. Counting on regional forces to bring peace to Liberia without substantial American participation is a mistake, one that will likely come with tragic consequences. As the UN human rights officer in Liberia in 1995 and 1996, I had the misfortune to witness the last round of West African peacekeeping in the country. At the time, the regional coalition forces (then called Ecomog) supported and armed an ever-growing list of ethnically based rival rebel factions. The theory was that these factions would thwart the biggest rebel, Charles Taylor, from taking power by force. The tactic backfired. ... As a result, the war degenerated into a bloody stalemate and the chaos of a failed state. Almost every citizen was displaced by the war amid a mind-bending series of torture and cannibalism cases. By my calculation, one in every six women had been raped. The regional coalition forces managed to do considerable damage at the tactical level, too. The State Department reported that soldiers not only engaged in the systematic looting of small, easily transportable goods, but even shipped entire buildings for scrap to be sold abroad. (In the field we had an additional name for Ecomog: "Every Conceivable Moving Object Gone.") UN officials reported observing Nigerian forces, which made up 80 percent of the coalition troops, at the port of Monrovia trafficking in narcotics. ... Peacekeeping forces were also responsible for sexual violence. In 1996, my colleagues and I investigated - and confirmed - reports of child prostitution. And these are our peacekeepers of choice in Liberia today. The lure of regional forces for peacekeeping operations is understandable. Regional forces, the thinking goes, have significant advantages over their international counterparts: They’re more likely to understand the society they’ve entered, they have a stronger interest in bringing security to their own neighborhood, they are more willing to absorb casualties, and they are relatively inexpensive. But the last decade in Liberia should show us that these theories can crumble the minute they are tested in battle. If U.S. forces are active, their professionalism will raise the bar considerably for everyone. Competence breeds — or at least inspires — competence. Witness Sierra Leone. The initial Ecomog and UN arrangement was on the verge of failure until a very small force of approximately 1,000 British soldiers arrived in 2000. Since then, the situation has stabilized... Of course, the responsibility is not America’s alone. The United Nations needs to go public with its oversight, reporting on the actions of the soldiers sent to Liberia in a vigorous manner. It should place greater emphasis on fighting corruption. And it should fully detail the horrifying extent to which rape has been used as a weapon during the last 14 years. Washington hailed as an achievement the arrival of a seven-member U.S. military team in Monrovia last week. To those familiar with Liberia’s civil war, it is a failure. More than 2,000 marines are on ships just off the Liberian coast. In a short time, they could be working with African troops to put an end to a crisis that is getting worse by the day. Holding American soldiers back in deference to a regional force that has been demonstrably brutal and misguided is a grave mistake. And it’s certainly no cause for celebration. He saw what the Nigerians, et al. did last time so it’s hard to argue against him. I still don’t like having our troops in Liberia. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 ZF and badanov Ive been thinking for weeks that a tradeoff like that would make a lot of sense - US marines to Liberia, in exchange for a UNSC res authorizing troops to Iraq under US or NATO or equivalent command, with no significant concession of political authority. Hasnt happened yet, but it is interesting that we're keeping the Marines offshore. I mean if we're never going to put them in under any circumstances, why not just let them go home already? and if we're going to send them in without quid pro quo, why not just send them now, now that Chuckles is gone? And Germany the other day said they WOULD be willing to send troops to Iraq under NATO command, as long as there was a UN mandate. And there is talk that some UNSC res, recognizing the interim governing council, could go through any day. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-12 2:13:46 PM |
| #7 What part of "NO" do they NOT understand? Any of it, Ptah, that doesn't allow them some control of US Military Forces. That's Kofi's (and the UN's) goal in all of this - direct control of US forces. That's the number one reason we should stay out of this stupidity. Number two reason is that nothing ANYBODY does is going to make a nickel's worth of difference as long as the primary commitment of 99.9999999% of Africans is to their Tribe, their Family, or their "god". There IS no link to "nation". There is no commitment to "nation". There is no understanding of why governments are created, or what they're supposed to do. Africa is even farther behind today than the native North Americans were in 1700. There were at least several "nations" among the native Americans, where there are currently none among African tribes. Among all the other trappings of management I received as an Air Force NCO was an introduction to Abraham Mazlow's pyramid. Right now, 99% of Africans are concerned with personal survival. Until enough people can escape from the endless loop of spending every waking moment thinking about survival, there can be no successes in Africa. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-8-12 1:03:49 PM |
| #6 We need to stay far, far away from this. We have no business there and they (UN / Media), won't let us fight for real. Stay away! |
| Posted by: SPQR 2755 2003-8-12 12:16:35 PM |
| #5 When I read about why we need to send troops to Liberia I get this image of the headline the NYT, the Guardian or the Beeb will print the first time a 19-year old Marine fires when he shouldn't have (in hindsight), or the first time a Marine shoots a 10-year old Liberian "soldier". What some folks seem to have in mind is an "Immaculate Intervention" in which the Marines simply explain to the bad guys that burning and eating people is considered tacky, and the bad guys then stop. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-8-12 11:51:46 AM |
| #4 Good buffer zones make good neighbors? Peace at any cost? Where are the Swiss? In the high mountains! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-8-12 11:42:11 AM |
| #3 Shoot. What part of "NO" do they NOT understand? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-8-12 10:47:27 AM |
| #2 If the world really wants our troops in Liberia, they can offer to deploy troops under US command in Iraq in exchange for a US deployment to Liberia. Since that's not happening, I can only conclude that all the posturing about Liberia is just another ploy to tie our troops down in yet another bottomless sinkhole. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-12 10:12:12 AM |
| #1 We have no stake in the outcome of the civil war or the UN operation in Liberia. If the UN was more receptive about our own national security needs last year concerning Iraq, I would say consider sending troops. But since this is a UN operation, the only goal the UN has in mind is for soldiers to become targets and subsequently corpses. If the UN can kill US troops by proxie, all the better for the UN. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-8-12 7:59:15 AM |