Pentagon Leaders Warn of Dangers for U.S. in Liberia (Go Rummy Go!)

The New York Times ^ | July 24, 2003 | By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS and THOM SHANKER

[Pubbie]

WASHINGTON, July 24 — Two days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called for the speedy deployment of troops to Liberia, the top two American military officers warned today of significant dangers facing United States military involvement there and called for a clear mission and a strategy for its successful end before troops are sent.

The anarchy and violence in Liberia, they predicted, would not yield to a quick solution.

"It's not a pretty situation," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his reconfirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It's not going to give way to any instant fix. Whatever the fix is going to be is going to have to be a long-term fix."

Two days ago, Mr. Powell acknowledged his frustration with the slow pace of the administration so far, telling The Washington Times that "we do have an interest in making sure that West Africa doesn't simply come apart."

Pentagon officials and military officers have for several weeks described the complexities — and dangers — of American involvement in trying to separate warring factions in Liberia, which was founded in 1847 by freed American slaves. But the comments today by General Myers and Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, were the most sobering public analysis to date of the risks.

"It is potentially a very dangerous situation," said General Pace, who was appearing for his own reconfirmation hearing. "If we're asked to do something militarily, we need to make sure we do it with the proper numbers of troops and that we be prepared for the eventualities of having to take military action."

General Pace cited an ominous precedent, the failed humanitarian mission to Somalia, which ended after the deaths of 18 troops in a vicious firefight in Mogadishu in 1993. General Pace was deputy commander of forces there in 1993 and 1994.

The generals faced insistent questioning from Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a former Navy secretary. He called the situation in Liberia "very tragic," but said, "In my judgment, it is a situation that poses great personal risk to forces, such as our forces, that could be injected into that very fast-moving and volatile situation there in Monrovia and the greater Liberia."

In a closed session with the House International Relations Committee today, Mr. Powell reiterated his support for an American role, citing it as a moral imperative.

Representative Donald M. Payne, a New Jersey Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the panel's Africa subcommittee, said afterward that Mr. Powell was "sympathetic to sending in troops."

As for the Pentagon, he said, "There's no question, they don't want to go near Liberia." A member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne said bluntly that the reluctance was racist. "It's because they're African, and they're black, and they don't count," he said.

General Myers laid out the military's broad requirements for potential deployment to Liberia, using a formulation paralleling the so-called Powell doctrine, which Mr. Powell laid out when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs from October 1989 to September 1993.

"I'm concerned, like you," General Myers said, "that whatever we do, that we have a very clear mission, we understand the mission we're asked to do; that we have an idea of when the mission is going to be over — in other words, when can we come out of the mission? And that we have sufficient force to deal with the security situation."

President Bush is expected to decide soon whether to send as many as 2,000 American troops to back up two peacekeeping brigades to be deployed from Nigeria.

The Economic Community of West African States has committed two Nigerian battalions, which may be followed by a battalion drawn from Mali, Senegal and Ghana, a United Nations official said today.

In Sierra Leone's capital, Freetown, where one of the Nigerian battalions has just finished a tour of duty, Gen. Martin Agwai, asked by reporters today about the timing of the deployment, , hedged, saying: "What is better, to rush in and make a lot of mistakes? Or to really make sure everything is done right and once we get there, we deliver?"

At a closed meeting of the United Nations Security Council this afternoon, the American pledge of $10 million to support the Ecowas mission was welcomed. But when the question of a possible troop commitment came up, the United States ambassador, John D. Negroponte, said: "We are not in a position to make a commitment at this time. We are not ruling it out. We are just not ruling it in."

Afterward, Jacques Klein, the secretary general's special envoy to Liberia, told reporters the plan for sending in the Nigerian forces would be finished Monday.

Some advocates of swift intervention argue that a United States-backed force could quickly pacify a nation already exhausted by war. President Charles Taylor, who has been indicted for human rights crimes, has said he would leave the country for exile in Nigeria only after the Americans arrive.

Congressional action is not required for the president to send in peacekeeping troops, but Senator Warner urged President Bush to define clear national security interests before ordering troops to Liberia.

He insisted that before American troops are committed, "that there be a clear and identifiable strategic interest, security interest of this country. That, to me, remains somewhat to be defined in this situation."

Fighting for Port in Monrovia

MONROVIA, Liberia, July 24 (Reuters) — Liberia's rebels and government troops engaged in heavy fighting today for the seaport here.

The port stands between the rebels and President Charles Taylor's downtown stronghold. Warehouses there hold the city's main food supplies and are now in rebel hands, cut off from a refugee-crowded city desperately short on food and water.

Defense Minister Daniel Chea said government forces had pushed across Stockton Bridge, one of three strategic crossings, for the first time in the six-day rebel offensive.

Despite the fighting, rebels said they were trying to put into effect the cease-fire they promised on Tuesday.

"We don't want to take the country by force. We want to do it by negotiated settlement," said a rebel leader, Charles Benney.

[Pubbie]

So Powell thinks Toppling the Iranian Government by supporting the Democratic Iranian Students is not in our National interest, but he thinks peace-keeping in Liberia is.

Powell is the RINO of RINO's.

I hope this resigns this year.

[Dan from Michigan]

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne said bluntly that the reluctance was racist. "It's because they're African, and they're black, and they don't count," he said

That's pure bovine excrement.

Last I checked, Liberia did not attack us.

[William McKinley]

Not that I want to have our troops go to Liberia, I would like to point out that Bush has said that we'll help keep the peace after Taylor goes.

I don't think Liberians will change skin color if Taylor goes, so there goes the racism argument.

Of course, Taylor is a buddy of Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, and Ramsey Clark- which is why the Democrats will try to put the pressure on to get us to go in and prop him up.

Watch what happens- if Taylor is killed or bolts the country, the liberals screaming for intervention will suddenly change their minds.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Africans' favorite hobby is killing and enslaving other Africans and has been for hundreds of years.

There is hardly a single nation in Africa where the leaders (whether elected or in power by coupe) are not in it to enrich themselves and to hell with everyone else. The rebels in Liberia are no better or worse than the current government. Why should we get in the middle of it?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

If Taylor goes, then I think Bush will have to send it troops. But, I am uncertain that he will go.

[William McKinley]

If Taylor goes, I would not mind seeing some troops sent in to prevent this friend of our enemies from coming back. I am not quite sure why the far left likes Taylor so much, but I know that means it is in our interest that he not be in there.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I was under the impression that when Bush asked Taylor to leave, that he was fulfilling the promise to stop the spread of terrorism. I don't know if this was an idle threat.

[gedeon3]

I dont understand Bush. The so-called 'rebels' are muslins. If they take over the country thousands more will be killed.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Not all Muslims are in league with terrorists. But the terrorists fled to Liberia after September 11th. Perhaps Bush will base his case on Taylor giving them harbor.

[Mo1]

"It's not a pretty situation," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his reconfirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It's not going to give way to any instant fix. Whatever the fix is going to be is going to have to be a long-term fix."

As I can see Powell's point, we can't let Liberia fall apart, because we can end up with more problems

I have to admit, I am so glad Meyers made that point. It's not going to be pretty, nor easy and frankly the whole thing scares me

[FloridaBoy]

Powell did not want to go into Iraq but he wants badly to go inti Africa. Wonder why the change in stance?????

[FreeReign]

So Powell thinks Toppling the Iranian Government by supporting the Democratic Iranian Students is not in our National interest, but he thinks peace-keeping in Liberia is.

You mischaracterize Powell's positions on Iran and Liberia.

[FreeReign]

Two days ago, Mr. Powell acknowledged his frustration with the slow pace of the administration so far, telling The Washington Times that "we do have an interest in making sure that West Africa doesn't simply come apart."

The NY Times conclusion based on the Powell quote is a nonsequitur.

[Cicero]

As far as I can see the choice is between Taylor, a known tyrant, or a power vacuum and civil war between contending warlords. In some ways Taylor is the more preferable choice of the two. Usually a tyrant is better than a perpetual state of civil war unless he is a real nutjob like Stalin.

We still don't have any national security interest in Liberia, nor is there any obvious solution in sight--that is, a strong leader who would replace Taylor and do a better job.

The best solution would be to close our embassy, pull out, and let the UN solve it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne said bluntly that the reluctance was racist.

Going to get Saddam was racist, not going into Liberia is racist. Whatever.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I'm probably a racist also, because of my screen name, to guys like Payne......

[AUH2OY2K]

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne said bluntly that the reluctance was racist. "It's because they're African, and they're black, and they don't count," he said. He then qualified his statement by adding, "Except when it comes to admissions to universities, government handouts, employment, and forming a Caucus exclusively based upon race."

[UnBlinkingEye]

Last I checked, Liberia did not attack us.

Last I checked, Iraq did not attack us.

[Smile-n-Win]

Last I checked, Iraq did not attack us.

For the one billionth time: Iraq was a threat, Liberia isn't.

[cdrw]

Actually they did. Their security services attempted to assasinate Bush I while he was in Kuwait which is clearly an act of war. I believe it is only for political reasons that Bush II does not talk about this. They also fired regularly on our planes while they conducted UN peace keeping missions in the northern and southern no fly zones. Those are also acts of war.