Many on U.S. right leery of Liberia mission

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | July 15, 2003 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[Destro]

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."

[Destro]

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.

[Angelus Errare]

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.

[mikenola]

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.

[nmh]

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?

[Destro]

my point is--why focus on his removal but leave the Muslim rebels in the field armed and sharing power in teh new Liberia?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

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.

[Angelus Errare]

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.

[Destro]

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.

[MatthewViti]

"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

[Angelus Errare]

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.

[Joe Marine 76]

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!

[Quilla]

A little light on the left and Liberia:

Jesse, Liberia and Blood Diamonds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/952419/posts

[sheltonmac]

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.

[ex-snook]

"Many on U.S. right leery of Liberia mission "

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

[billbears]

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

[sheltonmac]

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.