Who Are We to Decide Liberia's Civil War?

Newsday.com ^ | 7/29/2003 | James P. Pinkerton

[Angel]

In Liberia, will Americans on the ground there be peacekeepers, or targets? And for that matter, do Liberians need us to keep the peace - such as it might be - or do they need us to help the better side win the civil war? As the United States proved way back in 1865, sometimes it's better to settle things through final victory, not temporary compromise.

Moreover, the politico-military situation is complicated. There are, in fact, two rebel movements seeking to gain control of the country.

So here's a question: If the United States wants Taylor to leave immediately, why fool around with peacekeeping? Why not, as in the case of the American civil conflict 140 years ago, give war a chance?

[Angel]

What do you think about letting Liberia fight out the civil war? For a liberal, he makes some good points.

I especially liked his point: One can speculate what would have happened if the same logic of peacekeeping had been applied to the United States during the Civil War.

[sgtbono2002]

Who knows what to do in Liberia? I believe GWB wanted to stay out of it but the Black Caucus and liberals forced his hand.What does the Black Caucus want? I doubt they know. Why expect Liberia to be any different from any other of the black run countries in Africa ?

[meenie]

What is wrong with letting a number of countries fight their civil wars? The United States reminds me of some worrisome mother trying to arbitrate a dispute between her children over who gets to use the tinker toys first.

It is almost as childish.

[Mr. Bird]

When the Liberia issue first came up, my reaction was a calculated "Why there and why now?". The ostensible purpose for our meddling is the historic ties we have with them (its settlement by former U.S. slaves). I think it's more complicated (and meaningful) than that. We (as a country) have never demonstrated the slightest interest in the West African countries. Now Liberia is grabbing news like crazy.

I think troops in Liberia translate to another piece moved on the chess board in the war on terror.

[wardaddy]

There is a slight emotional motivation in the fact that we founded the country (Liberia) by default.

I even as hard right culturally as I am about relativism find it poignant that many of these poor people feel a bond to America that we are oblivious to and they have this hope that because of that we will save them.

OK...that was my one emo-lib post for the day.

[Mears]

If GWB is letting the Black Caucus call the shots we need a new president. Sorry folks,but that's the way I feel.

[katya8]

If the Congressional Black Caucus wants to save Liberia, then I suggest that the members of the Congressioal Black Caucus go to Liberia themselves, instead of wanting to send our military into a conflict between two murderous thug-armies of crazed children that will cannibalize our troops and proudly display their hacked-off genitals!

[Billthedrill]

The problem with letting them fight it out and hoping for a final victor is unlike the U.S. Civil War, this one is being funded and supported by outside countries who do not have to do any of the bleeding. This sort of proxy warfare is fairly common in African history - the U.S. and the Soviet Union were behind some of the bloodier fights in Angola and Mozambique, for example. Others less directly influenced were the Congo, Biafra, Ethiopia/Eritrea, the Sudan...it's a long and sad list. The reason for not allowing it to be settled this way is that a lot of people die and nothing ends up being settled.

The second question is more difficult - why us? I don't actually think "because we can" is a sufficient answer - in fact, we can't, not there and everywhere else. Is this an appropriate venue for UN collective security? Yes. Will the UN do it in a timely enough fashion such that when they do go in there will be anyone left alive? Maybe. Will they bring peace there in the face of tribalism and outside interference from the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and others? Probably not.

[freeeee]

Bush noted today that we are a privlaged nation, we must aid those in need.

Global socialism.

[KantianBurke]

Someone should inform President Bush that just because we're a privielged nation doesn't mean we have a duty to get involved in turd world nations. We are successful precisely because we tend to avoid cesspools and sewers such as Liberia.

[Squantos]

Who are you and how did you get WD's moniker ?!?!?!

Stay Safe !

[Squantos]

Who are you and how did you get WD's moniker ?!?!?!

Stay Safe !

[StriperSniper]

For a liberal, he makes some good points.

Yes, he makes good points, no, he's not a liberal. Pinkerton is more a free market libertarian.

His Newsday Bio:

James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.

Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University.

[lilylangtree]

Charles Taylor is a despot dictator. The rebel forces are trying to dislodge the sucker but he refuses to go. He keeps reneging on his promises to leave. Why should the US involve itself in an internal matter? US: Get out of Liberia until the dust settles.

[Akira]

I agree completely. Sorry, but we are being forced into this one for reasons of appeasement and I just don't understand what it is buying the country or the administration. The last thing I want to see is Bush acting like Clinton.

[Exeter]

IMO, Charles Taylor is hoping to delay his "resignation" until U.S. troops arrive and calm things down. Then Mr. Taylor can say that with the situation stabilized there's no need for him to resign and he'll then renege on his promise to leave. That way, it'll appear that he remains in power with American troops to back him up. The rebel forces will then start sniping at our own soldiers, and Pres. Bush will be left with either continuing to act as peacekeepers/targets (and the press will scream that it's another Iraq), or increasing our military presence (and the press will scream that it's "mission creep" and another Viet Nam), or leaving Liberia (and the press will scream that it's another Somalia and American lives were sacrificed in vain).

Either let the U.N. step in and do their job, or let the Liberians settle it themselves, but America has no business getting involved in this internal conflict...

[southern cross forever]

Thats right, It's like that whole "manifest destiny" policy back in the 19th century. It's as if we have some
moral imperative to convert the world to our way of thinking, Much like we did with the manifest destiny
policy , it was our moral imperative to conquer the west and convert the natives. We do this at our own
peril, like all empires the U.S will stretch itself to thin and it will implode. Nothing last forever,
and i hate to say it but America will fall to.