Us to liberia?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Just caught the news- the USS Iwo Jima is currently steaming towards Liberia, along with its Marine force. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to google up what units are on the Iwo.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ok let´s look what Uncle Sam has in the region:

- USS Iwo Jima with Marine expeditionary unit

- USS Nashville

- USS Carter Hall

considered pentagon duration of the US mission:

30, 60 or 90 days

after that the mission will be (pentagon planning) turned over to Western africa forces.

The mission goal is still unclear. By now pentagon reserves a status of protecting UN installations and US installations. A participation in disarming is not planned atm.

Another point that is still unclear is, if US forces will go in alone or simultaniously with Western africa forces.

[FSPilot 0]

@ July 25 2003,19:25)]A MEU(SOC) usually has a VMA detachment (Harriers), an HML/A detachment (Cobras), an HMH detachment (Helicopter Marine Heavy Transport), and an HMM squadron (Helo Marine Medium Transport).

good , our Mirages will be able to focus on congo

And our air forces will sweep through Angola and we'll INVADE AFRICA!!!!!!!

[ran 0]

@ July 25 2003,19:25)]A MEU(SOC) usually has a VMA detachment (Harriers), an HML/A detachment (Cobras), an HMH detachment (Helicopter Marine Heavy Transport), and an HMM squadron (Helo Marine Medium Transport).

good , our Mirages will be able to focus on congo

And our air forces will sweep through Angola and we'll INVADE AFRICA!!!!!!!

nah

YOUR command finds YOUR runway and you put YOUR Planes on YOUR runway

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Here's what the Iwo can carry:

http://navysite.de/ships/lhd7.htm

pretty damn formidable for a little jeep carrier

[Tamme 0]

Who's the 'bad guy' in Liberia? IIRC it's the president of Liberia, but I'm not sure. And who's side is USA on?

[denoir 0]

@ July 25 2003,18:53)]Or we could go in like Beirut- put a Marine battalion on the beach and then have them sit in their compound until the local bad boys can put together enough high-explosive to form a proper welcoming committee.

This is unfortunately a general problem with US peacekeeping. You see, since Vietnam it has been a general policy of protecting the troops at all costs and to avoid any potentially dangerous situation.

During war this is solved with superior fire power and technolgy. If the enemy has 10 tanks - then attack him with 100 tanks etc

Peace keeping is however a completely different animal. The problem there is that the enemy is the people you are helping. And of course not all of them. This makes it difficult to establish a 100% safe operational pattern which US doctrine requires. The effect is that they lock themselves up in their base. The problems in Iraq now are all coming from that problem.

And it is also a problem of attitude with the soldiers. In Kosovo our team often experienced this problem. We operated very often unarmed and with an armed escort. These escorts were provided externally. More times than I can count when we operated in the US-sector we were denied an escort by the US military because they thought that the situation was too dangerous or the area too hostile. Most of the time it ended up with us going in without any escort or troops from other countries stepped in and provided support. When we got escort from US troops, it was always a complete overkill. I remember when we were to inspect a munitions factory near Kamenica. The day before somebody had taken a shot at some German troops. After a long debate and a direct intervention of COMKFOR the US commander of the sector agreed to provide an escort. Our mission was to inspect the AA installations on the place and talk to people to get an estimate of the pre-war activity at the place. In short, a very low key, low risk thing. The escort we got was a company strength infantry force. There were four or five Abrams tanks. An air corridor was established above our travel route with a couple of F-18s circling overhead. Several gunships were put on standby. The whole thing was blown up entirely out of proportion. A lightly armed squad would have been more than enough - and that would have been playing it safe.

The result was that when we entered Kamenica the locals were very pissed off. They were scared because they thought that something serious was happening. Our "escort" treated the locals as if they were all potential hostiles. The tank severly damaged the main road in the town. As a result the locals were entirely uncooperative and we got none of the information we wanted.

This was far from the only case.

My hope is that the US command gets some new experience and insights in Iraq and realize that their doctrine is not at all suitable for peace keeping. You have to accept that superior force won't help you. There are some substantial risks. If you are not willing to take them, you won't accomplish anything.

[Warin 0]

I think a good point was made...

The Marines did a bang up job in Somalia. It only went to hell in a handbasket when the Rangers and Delta came in and declared 'war' on MF Aidid.

It's good to see that Shrub has woken up and sent troops to a place that has asked for them, for the right reasons.

After all of the UN mistakes in Africa (Rwanda as an example), it would be good to see a coherent and systematic plan for military aid and support in Africa to make sure genocide doesnt happen again.

I saw an interview with Romeo Dallaire, and there is a man that could do a lot to help with understanding of how tribal warfare can degenerate to genocide. I wonder if he is in a position where he could be helpful...

[E6Hotel 0]

The Marines did a bang up job in Somalia.  It only went to hell in a handbasket when the Rangers and Delta came in and declared 'war' on MF Aidid.

The problem wasn't with the troops, it was with mission creep.  When the objective changed from providing security for humanitarian relief to going after the warlords, that's when things went haywire.  Considering the nature of the mission the Rangers and Delta were, if not the best men for the job, at least as good as anyone.

Of course, the warlords were the reason for the famine so IMO they should have been targeted.  I think it's fairly obvious we lost our political will too early after taking relatively light losses during a successful snatch mission.

Semper Fi

[Warin 0]

The Marines did a bang up job in Somalia.  It only went to hell in a handbasket when the Rangers and Delta came in and declared 'war' on MF Aidid.

The problem wasn't with the troops, it was with mission creep.  When the objective changed from providing security for humanitarian relief to going after the warlords, that's when things went haywire.  Considering the nature of the mission the Rangers and Delta were, if not the best men for the job, at least as good as anyone.

Of course, the warlords were the reason for the famine so IMO they should have been targeted.  I think it's fairly obvious we lost our political will too early after taking relatively light losses during a successful snatch mission.

Semper Fi

I agree to some extent. However, it's another case of not looking at local traditions, and attempting to do as little as possible to offend the sensibilities of the locals.

I am not saying you have to go in and become muslims to do the job. I am saying that when you try to impose western values and ethics on a distinctly foreign culture, you run into problems.

I think the key to 'humanitarian' missions is to go in, do protective duty, and avoid trying o reform the country into some sort of western ideal, which I think is a trend in a lot of cases.

[FSPilot 0]

How did the delta/rangers/marines impose western beliefs on somalians?

[Warin 0]

How did the delta/rangers/marines impose western beliefs on somalians?

Basically, they got involved with local politics and prejudices without even attempting to understand the dynamics of the situation.

They put a price on Aidid's head, thinking that the Somalis would turn on him. Tribal loyalties in most of Africa are insanely strong. Look at countries where rivalries result in genocide...

Then they antagonized the local population to a great degree, and basically flew around in Blackhawks making trouble. (From the point of view of the people of Mogadishu

Have you read the Bowden book that BHD was based on? It gives a lot of time to interviews with Somalis, who saw the Rangers and Delta as cowboys, wheras they all seem to have a lot of respect for the Marines (Who were mostly concerned wiht humanitarian relief).

I am not slamming any of the US forces. I am pointing out that some policies were very poor, and implemented in a way that antagonized an already leary population.

[FSPilot 0]

I can understand how that would be ignoring their values and ethics, but how is it forcing western values and ethics on them?

[Warin 0]

I can understand how that would be ignoring their values and ethics, but how is it forcing western values and ethics on them?

When you ignore local customs and culture, and act however you want, according to your own priciples... then seem surprised when you get a negative reaction, you are in essence expecting them to follow your values.

I agree that there is a difference between saying 'This is how you will live your life' and just ignoring local custom in favour of your own. But both are an imposition of your mindset on people who believe differently.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ] think it's good. Just like the French have a responsibility to Cote d'Ivoire, USA has a responsibility to Liberia.

(Liberia was founded by freed African-American slaves.)

A US military intervention would also be the first time in a couple of years that the US has done something because it is right and not out of pure self-interest.

You people drive me F&$king insane! So it's ok with all of you that U.S. troops get sent into Liberia to get shot at because it's "noble" give me a break. Denoir who are you to say what is "right" and "wrong" you weren't God the last time I checked. Why are we obligated to them? They left the U.S. to go back to Africa. If it's so "right" why don't YOU go.

[denoir 0]

"Right" as in humanitarian cause, as opposed to "revenge" or "oil" or whatever. "Right" in the meaning of having no alterior motive. "Right" in the meaning of unconditionally helping fellow human beings.

Quote[/b] ]If it's so "right" why don't YOU go.

I've done my part in Kosovo. Tell me, what have you done?

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, both of you let's not adrift this to another topic.

US do not have ANY responsibilities with Liberian crisis. HOwever, I do find it noble that we decided to intervene. Heck, they were BEGGING US to intervene.

[denoir 0]

US do not have ANY responsibilities with Liberian crisis.

Not with the crisis but there is a direct connection to Liberia.

Liberia was founded by freed American slaves. Had there been no slavery in the US then there would have not been a Liberia today. So just as some responsibility is assigned to European countries to help their former colonies, so is some responsibility assigned to USA when it comes to Liberia. While it is not binding by any international law it's a question of having the decency to help clean up the mess that your ancestors created.

It's the same reason why Europe contributes 90% of all aid that goes to Africa. Europe has always provided peace keepers, political and diplomatic support to troubled former colonies. It's not because Europe is somehow forced to help by law - it's because of a sense of a moral responsibility.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. Africa needs all the help it can get. This might be a good opportunity for the US to get involved and help out.

[FSPilot 0]

wait, because freed american slaves went to Liberia we're somehow connected to it?

I lived in New Jersey, but we moved to Kansas. Does that connect Kansas to New Jersey?

We might be remotely related to it historically, but that doesn't obligate us to do anything. I would understand if we colonized it with our freed slaves, but we didn't.

[denoir 0]

wait, because freed american slaves went to Liberia we're somehow connected to it?

I lived in New Jersey, but we moved to Kansas.  Does that connect Kansas to New Jersey?

We might be remotely related to it historically, but that doesn't obligate us to do anything.  I would understand if we colonized it with our freed slaves, but we didn't.

It depends how you look at it. Liberia was founded by Americans. At the time of the foundation (1815-1820) it was a real American colony under US government control. The colonization was part of a plan of complete separation of white and black Americans (advocated by groups from both camps). The colonialization was organized through the American Colonization Society which was endorsed and funded by the government. It was first 1847 that that independence was declared. For about 30 years its citizens were in fact US citizens and its government the US government.

So in a manner of speaking, you did colonize it with your freed slaves. They did it willingly and later took the initative of creating the Republic of Liberia - an independent country ä- but it was an American colony at first.

But as I said, USA does not in any way have any legal obligation to help out. Europe does not have any legal obligation to help Congo out, but we're doing it anyway out of moral obligation.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Liberia was founded by freed American slaves. Had there been no slavery in the US then there would have not been a Liberia today. So just as some responsibility is assigned to European countries to help their former colonies, so is some responsibility assigned to USA when it comes to Liberia. While it is not binding by any international law it's a question of having the decency to help clean up the mess that your ancestors created.

exactly. and what has Britain and other European colonists done and why is that not covered? In fact, salvery would not have happened if europeans never appeared on the Plymouth rock. in that sense, those European countries that let their people immigrate bears more responsibility, not to mention a slaughtering of Native Americans.

ok enough sarcasm

Quote[/b] ]It's the same reason why Europe contributes 90% of all aid that goes to Africa. Europe has always provided peace keepers, political and diplomatic support to troubled former colonies. It's not because Europe is somehow forced to help by law - it's because of a sense of a moral responsibility.

unfortunately, that seems to be the case if some African nation is having some serious problems that makes headlines. I fail to see why many things would be prevented in African nations if former Europian conoialists have any real heart and desire to help African nations. if they did, that butcher who encouraged mob death of white descendents who owns farm would have not happened.

Quote[/b] ]This might be a good opportunity for the US to get involved and help out.

yup.

[hellfish6 7]

The US has no business to be in Africa. We learned our lesson in Somalia. Bring back one of the mercenary outfits like Executive Outcomes and let them bring stability to the region. They know how to do it and they've been 100% successful.

The American public will be outraged (to put it mildly) if they learn that the Marines are over there exchanging shots with doped up 14-year-old cannibals. We already screwed up in Iraq. No need to carry the tradition on to Liberia, who has not historically been an interest of the US.

[denoir 0]

exactly. and what has Britain and other European colonists done and why is that not covered?

Who says that it's not covered. A couple of years ago the British stabilized Sierra Leone and this year France helped out in the Ivory Coast.

Quote[/b] ]I fail to see why many things would be prevented in African nations if former Europian conoialists have any real heart and desire to help African nations.

As I said, Europe stands for 90% of all the aid that goes to Africa, so I don't think USA has any right to say that our involvement is inadequate.

Quote[/b] ]The US has no business to be in Africa. We learned our lesson in Somalia.

Well boo-hoo. So you got a bloodied nose. So what? Did you see Germany chicken out from Afghanistan when their peacekeepers were killed?

Are you saying that USA can only fight when there is no risk involved?

Quote[/b] ]No need to carry the tradition on to Liberia, who has not historically been an interest of the US.

Really? How quickly friends are forgotten. Liberia has been historically of great interest to USA. That interest was lost once the Soviet Union disappeared.

BBC recap of US/Liberian ties:

Quote[/b] ]Liberia was for a long time economically and strategically important to the United States.

In the early part of last century, the US relied on one of its natural resources, rubber, to compete with Britain in the rapidly growing automobile industry.

This natural source of latex rubber was also vital to the allies during World War II.

During the Cold War years Liberia was viewed by the US as an ideal post to fight the spread of communism through Africa.

A mutual defence pact was signed and the US established a massive air base and built communications facilities to handle intelligence traffic and relay a Voice of America signal throughout the continent.

But, when the Cold War came to an end, US political interests faded.

Now, America is coming under increasing pressure to turn its attention again to Liberia, particularly from the UK, which has suggested the US lead a military mission to the country.

Alex Vine, head of the Africa Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, says there is a split within the US administration over proposed intervention.

"The State Department and Pentagon favour action but the White House hasn't been so keen. Last year, defence officials carried out a feasibility study to see if the US would be able to provide assistance."

He says that what could emerge is a "surprising alliance" between the US, UK and France. France has already helped out by airlifting US nationals out of Liberia.

"But, if it happens, it will happen soon, to coincide with President George Bush's trip to Africa in early July," says Mr Vine.

The UK and France have both recently intervened in African conflicts. The British took the lead in corralling international intervention for Sierra Leone, its former colony several years ago, and France recently sent troops to help stabilise the Ivory Coast.

The US, however, has been reluctant to endorse peacekeeping missions in Africa because of its disastrous 1993 mission in Somalia.

On Thursday, Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who is taking part in a high-level UN Security Council delegation to West Africa, described the US as "the nation that everyone would think would be the natural candidate" because of its historical ties.

Liberia is full of symbols that commemorate its historic links to the US. The capital Monrovia was named after US President James Monroe.

Another major city honours President James Buchanan. And Harper, the capital of Maryland County, is named after congressman Robert Goodloe Harper who invented the name Liberia.

Some Liberians look to the US as their mother country, others argue that an obsession with American culture has meant that many Liberians are lost between being a Liberian and being an American.

But all Liberians want an end to the years of bloody civil war and many believe the US is best-placed to achieve this.

[Badgerboy 0]

Edit - rm

[Winters 1]

Why does the US always have to be the worlds police force? we have our own problems without having to fix everyone else's.