Bush: Liberia Force May Just Be Advisers (State Dept., UN and France Defeated)

AP ^ | 07/09/03 | TOM RAUM

[Pubbie]

PRETORIA, South Africa - President Bush (news - web sites) suggested Wednesday that any U.S. military help in ending brutal civil unrest in Liberia might consist mostly of advisers and trainers to avoid stretching American forces too thinly around the globe.

"We won't overextend our troops, period," Bush said at a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki, who had pressed him on what role the United States would play in the crisis.

African nations want the United States to do more to end the bloodshed in the western Africa nation. But U.S. lawmakers, including some leading Republicans, have questioned the wisdom of yet another major overseas military entanglement with so many troops already on the ground in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere.

Still weighing a final decision, Bush noted that the Pentagon (news - web sites) had already trained African peacekeepers, including those from Nigeria and Senegal.

"It's in our interest that we continue that strategy so that we don't ever get overextended," he said.

Bush has invited U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), the head of U.N. peacekeeping and the head of U.N. political affairs to the White House on Monday, according to a United Nations (news - web sites) official in Washington. While it was not clear that Liberia was the topic, Annan has said in the past that he who would like to see the United States lead a multinational peacekeeping force there.

On the second leg of a five-nation Africa trip, Bush promoted his $15 billion, five-year plan to combat AIDS (news - web sites) and proposals to increase trade with sub-Saharan Africa. His first stop was Tuesday in Senegal. Still ahead: visits to Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria.

Also on Bush's agenda was the continuing strife in Zimbabwe, where there has been violence and economic upheaval aggravated by President Robert Mugabe's refusal to pursue democratic reform. Bush appealed to Mbeki to step his pressure on Mugabe to restore democracy to South Africa's neighbor in southern Africa .

Mbeki has come under some U.S. criticism for not exerting enough pressure on Mugabe. Still, Bush voiced support for Mbeki, saying he was in touch with the parties in Zimbabwe and was making progress.

"I think Mr. Mbeki can be an honest broker," Bush said.

At the news conference, Bush also defended anew his decision to go to war with Iraq, even though the White House earlier this week conceded his assertion in his January State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was trying to buy uranium from Niger was based on false information.

"One thing is for certain, he's not trying to buy anything right now," Bush said.

White House aides said the Iraqi war did not come up in the talks between Bush and Mbeki, who was critical of the U.S.-led military action there. But with U.S. troops in Iraq coming under increasing attacks, questions have been raised at home about whether Bush should commit still more troops to easing civil unrest in Liberia.

Lawmakers of both parties have said that Bush should first get congressional approval for such an action.

Bush has been under growing international pressure to send troops to participate in a peacekeeping force once the rebellion in Liberia ends. West African nations have said they will provide 3,000 soldiers for the mission but have suggested the United States send 2,000 more.

Both Bush and Mbeki suggested that the U.S.contribution might be mainly of a non-combat variety.

"We need a lot of support, logistics-wise and so on," Mbeki said.

Mbeki said that the military burden in Liberia peacekeeping "really ought to principally fall on us as Africans."

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) that the president was considering the appropriate U.S. role. He said Bush has told world leaders that he intends to assist Liberia, a nation that was founded in the early 1800s by freed U.S. slaves and has retained close links with the United States.

Rumsfeld noted that "assessment teams" requested by the president are still in the region. Bush has said he will not make a final call until these teams report back.

On Wednesday, U.S. military advisers came face-to-face with the dreadful cost of Liberia's war, wading through wards at the once-prestigious John F. Kennedy Hospital in Monrovia that overflowed with wounded — some nursing bandaged stumps.

Many U.S. Democrats, and even some Republicans, have been wary of a major new commitment of U.S. forces, given increasing violence against U.S. forces based in Iraq, and major U.S. deployments there, in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and South Korea (news - web sites). The United States already has about 8,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, about 150,000 in Iraq and 2,500 in Kosovo.

In South Africa's capital of Pretoria, about 1,000 demonstrators marched peacefully to the U.S. Embassy, protesting Bush's war in Iraq and trip to Africa. About two dozen police officers and a handful of embassy employees looked on as demonstrators burned several small American flags emblazoned with slogans against Bush.

"We stand together with millions of people throughout the world and say that the biggest weapon of mass destruction is George W. Bush," Salim Vally of the Anti-War Coalition said in a speech.

Bush is spending more time in South Africa than any other nation on his African trip. He toured a Ford automobile plant and attended a dinner for Mbeki at the home of U.S. Ambassador Cameron Hume.

But Bush was not scheduled to meet with former South African President Nelson Mandela, the popular leader and hero of the anti-apartheid struggle who had harshly criticized Bush for going to war without a U.N. mandate.

[Pubbie]

"We won't overextend our troops, period," Bush said at a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki,"

Take THAT Europe!

[onyx]

"We stand together with millions of people throughout the world and say that the biggest weapon of mass destruction is George W. Bush," Salim Vally of the Anti-War Coalition said in a speech.

Yessiree and they'd better watch out!

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Sir Gawain]

Liberia, a nation that was founded in the early 1800s by freed U.S. slaves

Wrong.

[OpusatFR]

"African nations want the United States to do more to end the bloodshed in the western Africa nation..."

Oh no, that would not do at all. After all, we are listening to your criticism with open ears and do not want to become imperialists ~in your eyes~. We can just let the UN do its work as peacekeeping and keep our hands out of it so that we don't offend you with an Imperial appearing move.

[Bahbah]

Wrong, indeed. But it gets repeated over and over.

[adam_az]

Both Bush and Mbeki suggested that the U.S.contribution might be mainly of a non-combat variety.

"We need a lot of support, logistics-wise and so on," Mbeki said.

Mbeki said that the military burden in Liberia peacekeeping "really ought to principally fall on us as Africans."

They need logistic support from the US, a country thousands of miles away across the Atlantic Ocean, to help them stage logistics to support their own troops on their own continent?

Are they sure this is a good idea with the US being the biggest threat there is to world peace? /sarcasm

[Coroner]

I've heard that and believed it. How was Liberia founded??

[Sir Gawain]

Here

[htjyang]

[quote]
While the Liberia project was never officially endorsed by the government, it was supported from time to time by the government in various ways, including armed support and subsidies for the transportation of Liberian emigrants, for generations. The question of responsibility for Liberia has come up time and time again and we have never disowned her before. We should not do so now after 150 years have passed, solely on the question of the legitimacy of her birth. It's a bit disingenuous.
[/quote]

There was never any responsibility to speak of. Pray tell, exactly which section of the US Constitution mandates US responsibility for other countries?

Liberia is not a significant interest of the US and the US should not touch it with a 10-ft. pole. Personally, I'm against even advisers (remembers the tens of thousands of "advisers" in Vietnam"?) and logistical support.

Both the Cato Institute and the American Conservative Union have come out against it. So should we. Foreign policy should be guided by self-interest, not some ephemeral notion of "responsibility".

[Redbob]

Liberia's a free country, and her problems are of her own making.
Not ours.

Let Liberia stew in her own juices. It's not worth one single drop of American blood.

[htjyang]

[quote]
The Constitution does not tell the wielders of power in the United States how they should execute the constitutional powers assigned to them. If the US wishes to take responsibility for a foreign nation founded by Americans with the support of the American government in the name of the American Revolution, then it's up to the US to decide. The Constitution allows this.
[/quote]

The Constitution expresses the intent of the Founders. It is instructive to study the actions of the Founders in discerning their intent.

Did George Washington declare war against revolutionary France because of its brutality? I don't know of anything said or done by the Foudners that would suggest they'd endorse a humanitarian crusade.

[quote]
As a nation, we have few filial interests. Liberia is the strongest of those.
[/quote]

"filial interests" = empty words, meaning absolutely nothing.

Tell me, suppose if the US doesn't intervene, how will it impact our GDP? As the late president Calvin Coolidge put it so well: The business of America is business.

The case for non-intervention is simple: There is no reason for action, therefore inaction is the default. Furthermore, intervention costs money and may very well cost lives.

[htjyang]

[quote]
Do take some time to review their thoughts on Indians and slavery. In particular, read of Adams.
[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words. Who instituted the 3/5 Rule?

[maxwellp]

Can you tell us the right story? Thanks. I have also read that it was founded by returned slaves from America.

[Bahbah]

Some American whites who, as I understand it, did not think that having free blacks in the country would work, formed a society to assist the settlement of free black Americans in Liberia. They raised money for transportation and assistance in getting started. There is some interesting information on some FR threads, and if I were a clever FReeper, I would find them for you.