Liberia

July 11 - There seems to be new meme in the blogosphere that the only wars liberals want the U.S. to wage are the ones she can't win. As if to prove it, this report from Reuters:

"MONROVIA (Reuters) - Liberia's main rebel faction threatened on Friday to fight any peacekeepers deployed before President Charles Taylor steps down, casting a cloud over plans to send West African and possibly U.S. troops into the country."

Even though Taylor says he won't leave before troops are deployed? My "Beware: Huge Freaking Trap" alarm just went off. Again.

"Washington is wary after the humiliating and bloody retreat of U.S. forces from Somalia 10 years ago. The U.S. army is already stretched by complex and costly operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Liberia has little strategic importance."

Yep. The Unites States is a nation at war, and things like strategic importance do matter.

Foreign troops have been sucked into West Africa's brutal wars before. British soldiers in Sierra Leone and French troops in Ivory Coast have both had to confront -- and sometimes kill -- drunken, drugged-up fighters during missions to end wars.

Uh huh. And some of those are children.

I really want to help the Liberians. But I think we have to remember that there is a vast difference between what is happening in the city of Monrovia and what is happening in the rest (most) of the country.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kelly on Liberia

July 8 - Jack Kelly in a commentary for The Washington Times writes Weighing risks and rewards in Liberia:

"Mr. Dean might not be so enthusiastic about sending troops to Liberia if he had read Ryan Lissa's article in the July 2000 issue of the New Republic, which documents Mr. Taylor's connections to al Qaeda. Liberals tend to support U.S. military action only when it is detached from U.S. security interests.

Liberals (by and large) supported military interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, but changed their minds about Iraq when Mr. Bush became president.

Much of this is mere partisanship. But many liberals really think that if U.S. soldiers risk their lives in conflicts in which U.S. security is at stake, the military intervention is for that reason illegitimate.

Many Americans, most of them conservatives, oppose putting U.S. troops in harm's way unless a vital national security interest is threatened. That's a sound principle. But, as Emerson said: 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.'

I opposed intervention in Haiti (where we replaced a corrupt, incompetent, pro-American dictator with a corrupt, incompetent, anti-American dictator), supported it in Bosnia, opposed Kosovo (though that has worked out better than I thought it would), and regret that we did not intervene in Rwanda. "

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. That is precisely my problem, too. I too remember Rwanda and Somalia. I even remember Vietnam.

How paranoid am I? Something about this whole thing is just too pat. It appeals to altruistic, feel-good sensibilities and is an indulgence that a country at war may not be able to afford.

The fact that the US administration is taking its time before charging in gives me hope that the right decision will be made for the right reasons.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.