US marines diverted to Liberia

Financial Times ^ | June 13, 2003

[HAL9000]

A US marine expeditionary force was heading for the strife-riven west African state of Liberia on Friday night after Washington came under increased pressure to deploy troops in what would be its biggest military engagement in Africa since the early 1990s.

The USS Kearsarge, carrying 1,800 marines, 1,200 sailors and attack helicopters, was diverted on its homeward voyage from Iraq to prepare for the possible evacuation of civilians from Liberia where rebel fighters have reached the edge of the capital, Monrovia.

The ship's redeployment comes amid concerns in the US military that its forces are overstretched.

The US army is engaged in combat operations in Iraq some six weeks after President George W. Bush said they were over.

The US has avoided engagements in Africa since the ill-fated Somalia intervention, when 18 army rangers lost their lives in Mogadishu on a single day.

There is resistance in the Bush administration to the idea of the US being co-opted as a global policeman, especially in a region where it has no clear strategic interest. Many Republicans severely criticised the Clinton administration for its entanglement in Somalia.

Lt Col MJ Jadick, of the task force, under US European command, said the Kearsarge was already in the region. US military officials said a small group of US troops had already arrived in Monrovia to help the embassy.

The diversion of the USS Kearsarge follows calls for a US-led multinational intervention force to secure a fragile ceasefire after a week of renewed fighting between the Liberian rebels and the government of Charles Taylor (pictured). One official said there were proposals for the US to join up to 2,000 Nigerian peacekeepers, with the US running a headquarters and logistics base.

Remi Oyo, spokeswoman for President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, said Nigeria had been talking to the US, but declined to give further details.

A United Nations diplomat said it was possible the Security Council could give its blessing to a temporary deployment in Liberia of troops from the US and other nations.

International Crisis, an influential lobby group, has led calls for the US to intervene in a country that was founded by freed American slaves in 1847. There are concerns that new instability in Liberia risks spiralling to much of west Africa.

"Just as the UK led in Sierra Leone and France led in the Ivory Coast, the US must now assist the nation it helped establish, including through the deployment of troops if necessary," it said in a recent briefing.

Reuters reported that Liberia's warring parties were on Friday haggling over a ceasefire at peace talks in Ghana. Despite a halt in fighting, neither Mr Taylor nor rebels seemed ready to resolve their differences.

[af_vet_rr]

Amen. Rescue yes, nation building, no.

But we are caving into international pressure. It's not like there aren't a bunch of countries around Liberia, nor Europe, around to hel out.

[Trueblackman]

What do we allow Lieberia to become like Rwanda back in 1994? The lack of action in Rwanda was the reason why I left the Democrat Party years ago. One thing I will say about Bush Officials they have tried to include Africa at the world's table and not use it as a two bit photo ops as Bushwick Bill did. Sure Africa has it problems, but at least Bush Officials should be give credit for trying to help a nation in need, unlike Clinton who will stand by and allow 800,000 people to die needlessly.

[HAL9000]

I think the U.S. is in a slightly better position to help Liberia than Rwanda. We do have some national interests there, and so far, Liberia has not reached the level of mass genocide that occurred in Rwanda.

Clearly it's going to be a lower priority than several other foreign issues, and our resources are already stretched thin over Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East Road Map, the Koreas, etc. But if there is something we can do effectively that can improve the situation in Liberia, we should take action.

The U.S. should be actively involved in a diplomatic solution for the Liberian conflict. This involves removing Charles Taylor from his position as head of state ASAP, but I don't think military action will be required to accomplish that.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Kearsarge is the boat that the TRAP team launched from to rescue Scott O'Grady.

[TankerKC]

Well, good thing we have a Republican in office so our military won't be strung out all over ther world...never mind.

[TBP]

We have no vital national interest there and Liberia is of no strategic significance, which is why I am inclined to be opposed to our involvement there.

[TBP]

There was a peacekeeping force sent there in 1990, and all that happened was that the violence INCREASED and Taylor shot his way into power.

[ICX]

Haha...I think this is a perfect example of the double-standard the U.S. is held to by the rest of the world. If we exercise our sovereignty and act in our own best interests by invading Iraq, we're condemned for it - yet when it comes to Liberia, the U.N. and the French (snicker) totally support U.S. involvement. Bottom line: we're paying for Liberia's stability in American blood and we stand to gain nothing from it. I feel for the Liberians, but this should be a U.N. intervention. No other country has the stones to step in alongside us (and I'm not talking about some token Polish soldiers) and help out.