Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
Why shouldn't the US play a roll in it, if the US didn't lead the backing out after the Battle of Mogadishu, there may have been a chance of bringing security and order in that country. Rather that administration, having extended the mission objections without providing adequate support to said mission, did not provide overwhelming force to achieve the objectives, thus leading to the Osama Bin Laden coming to the belief that the US was only a "paper tiger". But that's a different arguement, that relates to it, but isn't directly connected.
I do see the US as having a roll in this idea, but definatly not a leading one. The US has one of the few global logistic abilities that very few other nations posess. However, at the same time, it is overstretched (until the eventual draw down of US forces in Iraq), even with the continuing growth of its active force (i.e. the increase in BCTs). What I would like to see is an AU or other region power, such as India, take the lead, with other nations providing support and expert know how that the lead nation lacks.
|
I have a lot of reasons for not wanting the U.S to be involved at all (or as minimally involved as possible), most of which reach beyond the bounds of controlling piracy and into the realms of proper administration of state.
This is a difficult thing to argue, because you are very right on a number of points. U.S. logistic support would be very helpful to restoring order in Somalia, and I agree that the U.S. should not have a leading role in any such effort. You are also correct in stating that U.S. withdrawl from Somalia was a less-than-ideal outcome, and that it possibly contributed to future violence ( unless I mistake your meaning)
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having some other nation assume the burden of Somalia.
Despite how correct you are in many things, I maintain my stance of U.S. non-involvement.
Firstly, there is the assumption that U.S. withdrawl from Somalia caused a problem, or that continued U.S. presence would have been wise. Somalia was in dire straits before the U.S came along, and our presence ultimately did nothing to fix it, nor could it have. Somalia is an economic quagmire. It is a near-worthless piece of land with an almost equally worthless and factionalized populace. Like many quagmires, this is a quagmire that the U.S. did not create. Europe is responsible for it.
Let them fix the problem.
Seondly, there is the matter of U.S. success in nation-building and/or foreign aid in Africa, or for that matter, the success of any nation in nation-building Africa. The point stands on its' own. You already know what the statistics say.
Honestly, I think you have great case for solving Somalia but I don't see why the U.S should be a part of it at all. The risks are great, the rewards are small, and it is none of our business. Better to let some other nation(s) deal with it and forget the whole business.
My preference is to stand on the principles that made the U.S. great to begin with. Private industry and non-interventionism. Also, by looking out for America's interests and paving the way for private firms to ensure the security of our shipping (should our shipping companies choose to employ it) we can avoid all the hassle of wasting taxpayer money whilst benefitting from the economic cost to (and any anti-pirate success of) other nations. The world is already pissed at us for interfering all the time, it would be a simple political matter to transfer state regulation of piracy to other nations if we are sufficiently obsequious.
Finally, I will address your implied desire for the U.S to effectively back up its' foreign policy (the paper tiger thing). Honestly, if we just stayed out of other nations' business, it wouldn't be a problem. Free trade with all nations, alliances with none. We need to move in the direction of "we weren't there, don't blame us" Ultimately, no one is going to be mad at us for not being involved at all. They only ever get mad at us for interfering incorrectly.
You really do have a great idea for Somalia, but I don't think U.S intervention on any major scale would be effective or appreciated, even if it does work (which it usually doesn't) at best, we'd be accused of colonialism or supporting colonialism. At worst, the U.S would take the forefront(as it often does with major international endeavors) and then we would be accused of imperialism (already happening) and the predictable backlash would follow.
The only winning move is to not play the game at all. Let some other nation take the fall (or the credit, as unlikely as it is) for once.