Sounds like I hit a nerve....
First, as for the blow-up of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, I think I've gathered enough evidences to strip down the official Bin Laden story and to elaborate a more sensible scenario that matches the actual geopolitics of Africa.... Please John, don't hesitate to click through
suite101.com
As regards Somalia, why don't you just trust your fellow conservatives from the Cato think tank?
SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT IN SOMALIA
by TED GALEN CARPENTER
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of A Search for Enemies: America's Alliances after the Cold War.
Executive Summary
The Bush administration's decision to send nearly 30,000 U.S. troops to Somalia is likely to have far-reaching and potentially dangerous implications for the United States and the international community. Not only does the intervention itself entail significant risks, but it sets a precedent for similar humanitarian military crusades--either unilateral or under the banner of the United Nations--elsewhere in an increasingly turbulent world. The American people would be wise to reject the embryonic doctrine of humanitarian intervention as the new U.S. mission in the post-Cold War era. Although such a mission undoubtedly appeals to those who have an insatiable desire to correct all the ills of the planet and the hubris to assume that American power can achieve that utopian objective, it would inevitably entangle the United States in an array of bloody conflicts that have no relevance whatsoever to America's security interests.
A Limited Mission in Somalia?
In his December 4, 1992, address to the nation officially announcing Operation Restore Hope, President Bush stressed both the humanitarian purpose and the limited nature of the U.S. military intervention in Somalia:
Our mission has a limited objective--to open the supply routes, to get the food moving, and to prepare the way for a U.N. peace-keeping force to keep it moving. This operation is not open-ended. We will not stay longer than is absolutely necessary.(1)
He stated further that the United States had no plans to "dictate political outcomes" in the war-torn East African nation.
High-level administration officials exuded confidence (at least on a "not for attribution" basis) that American forces would be able to complete their mission and return to the United States in time for the inauguration of President Bill Clinton on January 20, 1993. Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney and military leaders were more circumspect, indicating that it would probably be approximately three months before "the bulk" of U.S. troops could be withdrawn. Nevertheless, they also offered assurances that American forces would not get bogged down in a Somalian quagmire. Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared the U.S. mission to having the cavalry ride to the rescue and then transferring responsibility to the "marshals" (i.e., U.N. peace-keepers) once the situation stabilizes.(2)
Whether the administration's optimistic pronouncements prove accurate depends on a number of factors. One of the most important is whether the U.S. intervention is something more than a publicity gesture to allow George Bush to leave office having "done something."
Excerpted from:
cato.org
For an alternative viewpoint:
washington-report.org
Well, you likely know how Operation Restore Hope unfolded: newly-elected President Clinton found himself holding the Somalia bag and, somehow, did his best to honour his predecessor's harebrained commitment....
BTW, while we're at it, could you tell me what does the so-called Clinton doctrine consist of? I mean, bearing the above Cato paper in mind, can we think of the Bush humanitarian doctrine as Clinton's prequel?? |
