Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Many on U.S. right leery of Liberia mission
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | July 15, 2003 | Ralph Z. Hallow

Posted on 07/27/2003 4:56:19 PM PDT by Destro

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Leading conservatives and foreign-policy analysts, including those who served in the Reagan administration, oppose proposals by some in the Bush administration for sending U.S. troops to Liberia as part of a peacekeeping mission.

"I believe we are already overextended abroad," said Faith Ryan Whittlesey, a former aide in the Reagan White House who also served twice as ambassador to Switzerland. "We already have 370,000 troops in over 100 countries in the world."


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: africa; conservatives; liberia; patrobertson; ralphzhallow
Mr. Robertson went further. "So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country," he said on his TV show.

Robertson: Bush Favors Muslims Over Baptist

1 posted on 07/27/2003 4:56:19 PM PDT by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Destro
Pat Robertson Explains His Position on Liberia and President Charles Taylor

July 16, 2003

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA -- As you may know, Liberia was founded by the United States as a homeland for freed African slaves. The word Liberia is a derivation of the Latin for "free" or "freedom," and the capital, Monrovia, was named after President James Monroe.

Liberia had as its first president a Baptist minister from Norfolk, Virginia. It modeled its constitution after the United States and attempted to follow us in establishing its government. Liberia considers itself a "little brother" of the United States, and has always looked to the United States as its founder, friend, ally, and protector.

In the early 1980s, there was a military coup in Liberia led by Master Sergeant Doe. The Liberian President Tolbert was hacked to pieces by machetes. Then all of the top members of his government were taken from the capital city and butchered. Doe began a reign of terror in Liberia, which resulted in civil war. Among those who fought Doe was Charles Taylor whose militia ultimately defeated Doe. Subsequently, Taylor was elected president of Liberia in what I understand to be a free election.

Shortly thereafter, a rebellion broke out in neighboring Sierra Leone. Charles Taylor backed the rebels, whose teenage soldiers were guilty of extreme brutality. Since Sierra Leone was a former British colony, first the United Nations and then the British sent troops in to establish order and put down the rebellion. From all I can gather, they were successful.

Because of Taylor’s role in assisting the rebels of Sierra Leone, the State Department of Bill Clinton urged the United Nations to place economic sanctions on Liberia. The government of Charles Taylor denied any further involvement with the rebels in Sierra Leone, but to no avail. As a result of the pressure brought on by the United States through the United Nations, Liberia was squeezed unbearably and the people suffered.

With Taylor weakened, a group of rebels, who were principally Muslim, began a civil war using neighboring Guinea as a staging area. The United States gave $3 million to help the army of Guinea, and I have on good authority that at least two containers of arms were sent by the United States to the port of Monrovia in Liberia to be used by the rebels against Taylor.

Guinea is a Muslim country ruled by a capricious and ruthless dictator. If the Taylor government falls, the Muslim rebels are hoping to overrun Liberia, which is a predominantly Christian nation. If they do so, it is feared that a vicious civil war will result, leaving the nation bleeding and in chaos.

My question to the United States State Department is very simple, "If you are successful in taking down the government of Charles Taylor, what plan do you have to establish stability in Liberia, the rule of law, free elections, and representative government? What appropriation has been made by the United States Congress to back up the actions that you have taken to bring down the freely elected government of a sovereign and friendly nation?"

These questions and my concern in no way indicated that I was supporting Charles Taylor. I merely asked the State Department how much African blood would have to be spilled before they were satisfied.

The Christian nations of Africa are right now under assault by Muslims funded either by Saudi Arabia or Libya. This fact is well known to the CIA. Regrettably, the State Department seems to be indifferent to this emerging tragedy.

I regret that my sentiments in support of the suffering Liberian people were misinterpreted by The Washington Post as unqualified support for Charles Taylor, a man who I have never met, and about whose actions a decade ago I have no firsthand knowledge.

Thank you for writing, I remain…

Cordially yours,

Pat Robertson

2 posted on 07/27/2003 5:00:29 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Im one of those on the right who believe we have no business going into Liberia!
3 posted on 07/27/2003 5:17:08 PM PDT by Dr. Marten (Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
Im one of those on the right who believe we have no business going into Liberia!

I agree Dr. however, Liberia appears to be an area prone to terrorist migration and going to Algeria under the hood of the UN to augment a free flow of intelligence from Algeria doesn't seem like a "no business" endeavor to me.

4 posted on 07/27/2003 5:27:20 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS; Dr. Marten
If so-then ousting Taylor helps the Muslim rebels. What then?
5 posted on 07/27/2003 5:47:57 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Destro
With Taylor weakened, a group of rebels, who were principally Muslim, began a civil war using neighboring Guinea as a staging area. The United States gave $3 million to help the army of Guinea, and I have on good authority that at least two containers of arms were sent by the United States to the port of Monrovia in Liberia to be used by the rebels against Taylor.

I'm not following this. If we are sending arms to the rebels who are fighting out of Guinea, why would we ship the arms to Monrovia which, even today, is held by Taylor?

6 posted on 07/27/2003 6:06:05 PM PDT by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Destro; All
Well, Taylor himself seems quite chummy with bin Laden and his organization:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A48929-2002Dec28&notFound=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56986-2003May14&notFound=true

Also, you can read about Taylor's reaction to 9/11 here:

http://www.copla.org/lurd123102.htm

http://www.voanews.com/EnglishtoAfrica/article.cfm?objectID=E68E017A-F745-4C4D-8BE5E1727C682061

At the very least, Liberia deserves to be added to the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for these type of activities. This one of many reasons why Pat Robertson's continued defense of Charles Taylor is the utter height of hypocrisy.
7 posted on 07/27/2003 6:09:29 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
There has been a link established between al qaida and Liberia, and how the latter is using its resources ("conflict diamonds") to help foster and fund terrorism. Doesn't the Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism require the US to go into Liberia?
8 posted on 07/27/2003 6:11:37 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5
Follow the money. The most lucrative place to be in any conflict is right in the middle. "Anyone wanna buy a missile?"
9 posted on 07/27/2003 6:14:06 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Destro; All
This October 23rd will mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. In that "peacekeeping" mission we sacrificed 219 U.S. Marines, 18 U.S. Soldiers, and 4 U.S. Sailors; 241 of our finest military members were set ashore as sitting ducks in the middle of six-sided fight that has been raging for at least a couple thousand years. Let's not make that mistake again!

Personally, I'm tired of hearing the "peacekeeping" mantra of the United Nations and liberal politicians in our country. In my military mind, a peacekeeping mission is nothing more than a defensive posture where our Marines, if sent ashore to Libera will become the targets for the rebel forces. Marines are "trigger pullers", i.e. RIFLEMEN and their primary mission is "to close with and destroy the enemy by superior firepower and manuever". There is no manuevering when you are sitting between two groups of people who want to wipe each other off the face of the earth. If the United Nations wants a peacekeeping force, then find some other sucker...... and finally, OUR new mantra should be:

"The US out of the UN, the UN out of the US.....Go to France (Hell)!"
10 posted on 07/27/2003 6:18:35 PM PDT by Joe Marine 76 ("We few.....We proud few.....We Band of Brothers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
That explains a lot -- the left wants us to get invoved in Liberia to help the Muslim rebels take over. Then Liberia can become another terrorist training ground. I had to laugh when Pat Robertson described Charles Taylor as a Christian. Taylor is just a thug who has misruled Liberia for years -- good riddance. So I cannot cheer either the rebels or Taylor. I am sympathetic to the argument that since America created Liberia as a place to dump American slaves (even though that was a long time ago), America has some responsibility. I even view the Liberians as our kin, because their ancestors were in America. Both sides in this Liberian civil war are bad, however there are sure to be long-term problems if the Muslim rebels take over. It is interesting that Liberia has been in a state of civil war for 20 years, and only now that the Muslims are on the verge of winning does the left profess to be concerned about the suffering in that country.
11 posted on 07/27/2003 6:34:22 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Not our problem. I dont want to get into the habbit of sending our armed services into harms way for humanitarian reasons.
12 posted on 07/27/2003 7:02:06 PM PDT by Dr. Marten (Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro; Enemy Of The State
Liberia Ping
13 posted on 07/27/2003 7:05:47 PM PDT by Dr. Marten (Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
I agree with your points.

I am puzzled as to why Taylor was told to resign but the rebels were not warned to disarm at the same time Taylor is being made to leave. I mean if we were going to crush both sides of the fight and be neutral do gooders, fine. But in asking Taylor to leave but allowing the rebels to remain in the field and armed means we have taken sides with teh Muslim rebels and are not honest brokers.

What makes those Muslims any better than Taylor?

14 posted on 07/27/2003 7:06:17 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Destro
They aren't, to the best of my knowledge, state sponsors of al-Qaeda. They appear to be pawns of one of the many African nations that Taylor has pissed off over the years.

Besides, Taylor has been Qadaffi's puppet for years (he was originally trained in Libya), his alleged Christianity aside. Defeating him is yet another blow to Libya's nascent African empire and what gives Qadaffi a bad day is almost always a good thing.
15 posted on 07/27/2003 7:20:08 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
They funny thing is Qadaffi and al-Qaeda are hostile to each other.
16 posted on 07/27/2003 7:31:03 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I recognize that, in part because Qadaffi is an old-time military dictator who is more interested in empire than religion (he ever-so fashionably "anti-imperialist" during the 1980s) and as such he has tried to set up puppet governments in Burkina Faso, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and Uganda during the last twenty years. There is a very good case to be made for Mugabe being a Libyan puppet as well.

Taylor is, in all likelihood, overstepping his authority in his decision to back al-Qaeda in its financial efforts post-9/11. Or maybe Muammar doesn't believe the press reports or maybe he just doesn't care. In any case, Taylor has a clear pattern of behavior in regard to al-Qaeda that should not be tolerated by the US after 9/11.
17 posted on 07/27/2003 7:41:36 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
Liberia, like all of Africa, is filled with Lebanese middle men who act as buyers of diamonds and gold, etc. If al-Qaeda is in Liberia-it is there indirectly. I do not discount al-Qaeda involved with Liberia or Taylor but as Taylor's partner? Maybe dealing with diamond sales using al-Qaeda sympathetic Lebanese diamond and gold merchants but I would not say there is more of a connection with any certainty. In addition such contacts would explode if we allow Muslims to take over, IMHO.
18 posted on 07/27/2003 8:03:13 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
You are not alone, if the U.N. cares so much, why don't they just send in the French to teach Taylor's troops how to properly lay down their arms?
19 posted on 07/27/2003 8:05:12 PM PDT by mrmeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The articles I linked say that al-Qaeda is being assisted in their diamond efforts by both Taylor's government and Lebanese middle-men who work for Hezbollah. They also state that senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Faisal Abdullah Mohammed, the man who presided over the recent attacks in Mombasa, got VIP treatment from Taylor after 9/11.

According to LURD, who may or may not be lying to get US support, there are "Arabs" fighting with the Liberian government. They also say that al-Qaeda in Liberia are probably working to stir up trouble in the Ivory Coast. LURD's credibility aside, if this is true then it is definitely a bad thing and needs to stopped.

Bottom line: if Taylor's siding with al-Qaeda, that's as valid a conservative rationale as ever to teach him that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated.
20 posted on 07/27/2003 8:15:14 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
That is a big long leap to say that Taylor is in league with al-Qaeda because he found a buyer for his ill gotten diamonds. In actuality the people to hammer would be the ones buying the diamonds from said al-Qaeda middle men since it is from them that they make their profits.
21 posted on 07/27/2003 8:19:01 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Destro
He still harbored Faisal Abdullah Mohammed after 9/11 and has been encouraging Muslim rebels that we can easily verify as nasty in the Ivory Coast.
22 posted on 07/27/2003 8:21:41 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Destro
5k of our troops in Liberia, for 5k from the EU into Iraq.

If Bush asks for and gets that, he's got my vote in 2004!

Cheap oil that results from Iraqi production back on the market might be a good shot in the arm (temporarily) for the EU economy. They can cough up some troops.
23 posted on 07/27/2003 8:25:14 PM PDT by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Why not send the U.N. over there or rather get the U.N. to have its members cough up some people to get the country under control. Then they could feel like hereos for a change?
24 posted on 07/27/2003 8:28:26 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
my point is--why focus on his removal but leave the Muslim rebels in the field armed and sharing power in teh new Liberia?
25 posted on 07/27/2003 8:33:32 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
We agree. This is nothing but caving into Globalists who have decided that we are responsible for all their ills. We're not. Is God dead? Let the EU take it on for a change. What about Kofi? We certainly give them enough of our hard earned cash. If the UN had gone in early on when the Christians were being terrorized and murdered, things wouldn't be this dismal. But then, Kofi and the rest of the world seem to have no problem with Christian or Jewish persecution.
26 posted on 07/27/2003 8:45:49 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I don't know and I wasn't attempting to disagree with you on that one, as I generally view any kind of "private army" as being an obstacle to peace in the aftermath of a conflict (just look at the great job the KLA's done).

What I object to is that this is being framed by Robertson and others as a Christian-Muslim conflict when, my own doubts on Taylor's Christianity aside, he is far from innocent and is likely in bed with our number one enemy and has sponsored Muslim rebels in Liberia and is a lapdog to Qadaffi.

More to the point, I disagree with the whole idea of a US mission to Liberia being framed in strictly humanitarian concerns. If that were our only motivation, then we should go to Zimbabwe, where a lot more people are likely to die thanks to the actions of Robert Mugabe. OTOH, if al-Qaeda is converting a lot of its financial assets into diamonds, shopping for weaponry, and sending operatives to Liberia then it becomes a US concern and a valid one. You give these jihadis a place to regroup and they will seize it and come back around to kill you again, you and I agree on this much, I think.
27 posted on 07/27/2003 8:49:59 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
I agree with you--if we go in just to make it easier for the rebels --what a waste and potential disaster. If we go in on teh basis of breaking up all armed formations to stabalize the country to deprive al-Qaeda of a sancutary, hell yes! But we ain't doing that!

We need not send in Marines when South African Mercs can do the job cheaper and faster. But don't just leave the rebels in power who are probably just as evil if not more so than Taylor.

28 posted on 07/27/2003 9:11:30 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader." -- Plato


29 posted on 07/27/2003 10:44:20 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MatthewViti
I agree.

However, if your Plato quote is intended to act as an indictment of Bush, I would remind you that we are already engaged in a low-level (by Chechnya, Kashmir, or Mindanao standards) guerrilla war in Iraq. That is indeed one of the rationales behind an argument not to send us into Liberia: we don't want to spread our troops too thin.
30 posted on 07/27/2003 10:52:17 PM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Destro; All
ERRATUM:

I miss-typed on my last post: should be "219 U.S. Marines,18 U.S SAILORS, and 4 U.S SOLDIERS sacrificed"

Apologies!
31 posted on 07/28/2003 6:32:58 AM PDT by Joe Marine 76 ("We few.....We proud few.....We Band of Brothers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
A little light on the left and Liberia:

Jesse, Liberia and Blood Diamonds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/952419/posts
32 posted on 07/28/2003 6:43:20 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro; ppaul; ex-snook; Inspector Harry Callahan; WarHawk42; Satadru; Ted; greenthumb; willa; ...
President Bush, while visiting South Africa on Wednesday, said the United States would not overextend its military forces in Liberia. But he also has said America would enforce a cease-fire between the government and rebel forces.

I would expect no less from a consummate politician.

33 posted on 07/28/2003 7:05:21 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
"Many on U.S. right leery of Liberia mission "

Not to worry. We will be gone after next election.

34 posted on 07/28/2003 7:54:21 AM PDT by ex-snook (American jobs need BALANCED TRADE. We buy from you, you buy from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Leading conservatives and foreign-policy analysts, including those who served in the Reagan administration, oppose proposals by some in the Bush administration for sending U.S. troops to Liberia as part of a peacekeeping mission.

Oh, but this can't be true. I've been told elsewhere on FR that Bush and Reagan are on the same path. Sheesh, where else do they need to send troops? Where on this planet are US troops not located? And I see it's the same rhetoric as we heard in Iraq. Not overextended, a promise of not being there for an extended period of time, but there just to help and do the job. And I'm sure the Muslims will just thank us for giving them yet another country

35 posted on 07/28/2003 8:31:50 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Where on this planet are US troops not located?

Well, I don't recall the U.S. sending any troops to the North Pole. In fact, during the bloody Elf Rebellion of '87 we maintained our neutrality, despite pleas from enslaved workers who wanted "regime change" there.

36 posted on 07/28/2003 8:48:48 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson