Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arken · 07-19-2003, 01:58 PM

Top headline right now at cnn.com:

Quote:

MONROVIA, Liberia (CNN) -- Liberian President Charles Taylor vowed to fight "to the end" rebel forces advancing on the capital Saturday.

Heavy fighting raged on the outskirts of the city. CNN Correspondent Jeff Koinange, who was on the scene, said rebels were within minutes of the government house and that resistance was very light.

This is why Bush hasn't sent any troops in yet. He wants the rebels to win so he can sweep in there after the fact, once they're celebrating their vitoriy, take them down and chalk up another win in defeating the 'evil terrorist rebels' which (he hopes) will translate into a new upsurge in popularity for him! That's why he's taking so long 'considering' whether or not to send troops! It all fits into place, doesn't it?

ohwilleke · 07-19-2003, 02:52 PM

With all due respect, one of the things holding up Bush in deploying troops is that the U.S. has almost no one in Africa or even very close.

The U.S. has only a couple hundred troops based anywhere in Africa other than Egypt, and most of them are basically embassy guards or liason personnel. Diego Garcia and Egypt, each with a few hundred troops, are the closest meaningful U.S. bases. Egypt is 2000 miles away as the crow files, Spain is 1500 miles away as the crow files, and both are further by sea. Diego Garcia is more distant than Egypt by a few hundred miles and much further away by sea. Troops are in any case scarce with Iraq, Afganistan and Kosovo drawing resources.

Troops must either be sea lifted a great distance from the Middle East or Europe or the U.S., or airlifted in modest numbers with modest equipment. The work horse C-130 may be of limited use for these trips, since the distances are great for this short range transport, and there are few good and friendly air bases between Europe and the Middle East, and Liberia. The U.S. can't very well put down its C-130s for refueling at bases in Libya or Sudan, or even Algeria. Ships are hard pressed to go 20-30 miles per hour and take a long time to load and unload and must take indirect routes, and would have to redeploy from the Middle East or more distant bases. Thus, it would probably take weeks to get significant U.S. forces in place.

Also, the U.S. superiority in long range missles, bombers and cruise missle ships is nearly useless in Liberia, because this is a war being fought with small arms, fluid battle lines, and close civilian proximity to fighting parties. It isn't a war involving heavy equipment that air and sea power can easily dispatch.

Arken · 07-19-2003, 02:55 PM

I assume you're not counting the 2500 marines sitting just offshore from Monrovia awaiting orders...

ex-idaho · 07-19-2003, 02:57 PM

I think there are two primary reasons for the hold up on sending troops into Liberia.

1. Congressional Republicans and the GOP base are not in favor of the move.

2. The military is already stretched beyond its limits with deployments in Bosina, Iraq, Afganastan, the Philippines and N Korea. If they send in a force that is too small they run the risk of a repeat of the last time we sent troops into Africa.

Farren · 07-19-2003, 04:57 PM

Besides which, Charles Taylor has almost as much blood on his hands as Idi Amin, although without some of the bizarre extras.

He's also a source of income and support for rebels in neighbouring countries who appear to have no political ideology other than controlling diamond mines and enriching themselves.

I don't know much about his political opponents, but the chances are fairly high they've got valid grievances. Who would the US support in such a scenario.

Ah, wait, Taylors (nominally) a Christian and the rebels are mainly Islamic...

Frankly, even though Kofi Annan has (I think) asked the US to intervene, I think this is a situation where the UN should assemble a multinational force and deploy it in Liberia until they have some kind of stable democracy.

ohwilleke · 07-21-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arken
I assume you're not counting the 2500 marines sitting just offshore from Monrovia awaiting orders...

I don't know if that's correct, or not. It may well be. I'm not perfect.

But, this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul21.html

does suggest that the administration is planning on holding up for a couple of weeks, at least, until it can ship in another 4,500 Marines from the Middle East to Liberia.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2003, 02:52 PM	#2
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	With all due respect, one of the things holding up Bush in deploying troops is that the U.S. has almost no one in Africa or even very close. The U.S. has only a couple hundred troops based anywhere in Africa other than Egypt, and most of them are basically embassy guards or liason personnel. Diego Garcia and Egypt, each with a few hundred troops, are the closest meaningful U.S. bases. Egypt is 2000 miles away as the crow files, Spain is 1500 miles away as the crow files, and both are further by sea. Diego Garcia is more distant than Egypt by a few hundred miles and much further away by sea. Troops are in any case scarce with Iraq, Afganistan and Kosovo drawing resources. Troops must either be sea lifted a great distance from the Middle East or Europe or the U.S., or airlifted in modest numbers with modest equipment. The work horse C-130 may be of limited use for these trips, since the distances are great for this short range transport, and there are few good and friendly air bases between Europe and the Middle East, and Liberia. The U.S. can't very well put down its C-130s for refueling at bases in Libya or Sudan, or even Algeria. Ships are hard pressed to go 20-30 miles per hour and take a long time to load and unload and must take indirect routes, and would have to redeploy from the Middle East or more distant bases. Thus, it would probably take weeks to get significant U.S. forces in place. Also, the U.S. superiority in long range missles, bombers and cruise missle ships is nearly useless in Liberia, because this is a war being fought with small arms, fluid battle lines, and close civilian proximity to fighting parties. It isn't a war involving heavy equipment that air and sea power can easily dispatch.

07-19-2003, 02:55 PM	#3
Arken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 6,303	I assume you're not counting the 2500 marines sitting just offshore from Monrovia awaiting orders...

07-19-2003, 02:57 PM	#4
ex-idaho Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Spudtopia, ID Posts: 5,315	I think there are two primary reasons for the hold up on sending troops into Liberia. 1. Congressional Republicans and the GOP base are not in favor of the move. 2. The military is already stretched beyond its limits with deployments in Bosina, Iraq, Afganastan, the Philippines and N Korea. If they send in a force that is too small they run the risk of a repeat of the last time we sent troops into Africa.

07-19-2003, 04:57 PM	#5
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	Besides which, Charles Taylor has almost as much blood on his hands as Idi Amin, although without some of the bizarre extras. He's also a source of income and support for rebels in neighbouring countries who appear to have no political ideology other than controlling diamond mines and enriching themselves. I don't know much about his political opponents, but the chances are fairly high they've got valid grievances. Who would the US support in such a scenario. Ah, wait, Taylors (nominally) a Christian and the rebels are mainly Islamic... Frankly, even though Kofi Annan has (I think) asked the US to intervene, I think this is a situation where the UN should assemble a multinational force and deploy it in Liberia until they have some kind of stable democracy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.