Making Peace In Liberia And Making War In The Twilight Zone

Toogood Reports ^ | July 13 | Lowell Phillips

[F_Cohen]

Making Peace In Liberia And Making War In The Twilight Zone

By Lowell Phillips

Toogood Reports

July 13, 2003

"It's nice to be nice again. We may as well savor it while it lasts, which should not be long. With the constant drumbeat of condemnation portraying our military as a modern SS and President Bush as a reincarnation of "Hitler", the calls for intervention in Liberia are like a face full of icy water on a sweltering day. It does not necessarily feel bad, but it certainly is a shock.

Since the administration began to respond affirmatively, the editorial pages across the country and around the world are suddenly awash with "That bloodthirsty Bush regime has a soft side, who woulda thunk it" sentiments.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (Yes, that Dominique de Villepin), who did everything short of calling for French troops to protect Iraq from the United States, has urged U.S. intervention, citing our "special tradition in Liberia."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, another dogged protector of everything Saddam, similarly referenced our "special responsibility" and expressed the need for "a country with capacity, a military capacity, that can deploy a robust force."

I guess that's us.

Despite the fact that it was determined, and utterly ignorant, opposition to the invasion of Iraq that put him on the national political map, Howard Dean has demanded that President Bush immediately dispatch thousands of troops to "stabilize the situation" because,

"There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."

The widespread support for American intervention in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and now perhaps in Liberia, contrast starkly with the gasps of horror at our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading me to conclude, once again, that the global philosophical left likes our military just fine, so long as it is acting as muscle for the United Nations, as a de facto "world army". It also reinforces my long-held conclusion that the utilization of U.S. military might is valid, so long as it has nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. national security.

As far as the United States having some "special" responsibility or tradition in Liberia, that is simply a load of excrement. Nations like France and Great Britain may indeed feel responsible, or more likely guilty, because they held desperately onto their colonial possessions in Africa until they were driven out a few decades ago. But the United States' ties to Liberia have been no more extraordinary than with countless other countries since sponsoring its founding as a nation of freed slaves over a century-and-a half ago. True, it was of interest in the global chess match with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but about how many others can the same be said?

There is surely, as Mr. Dean states, a brewing "human catastrophe" in Liberia, and virtually everywhere else in Africa. In fact, the continent as a whole can rightly be described as a human catastrophe. But the choice of the words "imminent threat" as it relates to our foreign policy is more than a bit odd, considering that a maniac formerly residing in Baghdad, who we waged war against once before, who constantly violated the ceasefire agreement, attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, was training and harboring anti-American terrorists, was funding suicide bombers in Israel, had sought and used weapons of mass destruction in the past, was taking potshots at our aircraft on a daily basis, and was tying down our military assets indefinitely was to Dean and others like him, no threat whatsoever.

The morbid punchline with regards to the nobility of coming to the aid of the suffering is that the same people now urging action in Liberia were perfectly content to allow 25 million Iraqis to suffer in perpetuity. But then a mingling with U.S. security interests corrupted the cause. Can't have that, now can we?

Terry M. Neal of the Washington Post, in his July 8 piece "Bush Reverts to Liberal Rationale for Iraq War" (an editorial in all but name) declared,

"If the Bush administration had wanted to make the case for going to war against Iraq on purely humanitarian reasons, it could have done so. Saddam Hussein was one of the world's truly bad guys, a horrific leader who brutalized and terrorized his own people. But the administration likely would have found much resistance from conservatives who have long argued that the United States should not try to act as the world's police department."

The implication is that acting militarily cannot serve humanity if in doing so America becomes safer. Anyone not gripped by hatred of alleged U.S. "imperialism" would have heard throughout the months leading up to Saddam's downfall words like, "brutal dictator," "mass murderer," "genocide," "rape," and "torture." To those who were, they mattered little.

But the liberation of the Iraqi people cannot now be undone, unless one holds out hope that guerillas will drive the United States out by picking off our troops one and two at a time. And have no doubt, leftists nostalgic for the days of Vietnam are longing for just that.

There is, however, the chance in Liberia to revive the Clinton/Carter social worker spirit in the U.S. military, free from all that "Go U.S.A" stuff.

Think again.

By all indications George W. Bush is a compassionate man, but he is also one who views everything in the context of the war on terror. He is often charged with hypocrisy for his opposition during the 2000 campaign to "nation building", while now engaging in what looks a lot like it. Indeed the difference may be not in the act, but in the motivation.

In the aftermath of 9/11 a more appropriate description might be "strategic stabilization". As we learned with Somalia and Afghanistan, lawless countries are ideal breeding grounds and bases of operations for terrorists. In addition to a laundry list of other problems, Africa is increasingly becoming a hotbed of genocidal Islamic fundamentalism. Liberia's President Charles Taylor is the product of the Libyan terrorist training camps of Muammar Khadafi. He has been openly hostile to the United States and active in destabilizing surrounding nations.

There can be little doubt that the Mediterranean coast of the continent is a front in the war on terror. And the duplicity of Saudi Arabia and general volatility of the Middle East increases the importance of countries like Nigeria, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe as current and future sources of oil.

The need for a base in Africa is clear, and the largely positive view of the United States as their "father country" by its people makes Liberia ideal, to the extent that any nation on a continent ravaged by poverty, disease, war, and economic backwardness can be considered as such.

Are there humanitarian motivations behind the looming U.S. move into Liberia? Probably. But if that were the key factor, any number of other countries would be higher on the list, most notably the Congo. This is not to say that it would be a smart move. Africa is fraught with dangers. Our forces are already overstretched and it is debatable that this is a wise use of limited military recourses. A commitment must be for the long haul with a willingness to pay a price. Another Mogadishu would be a disaster.

So deeply engaged are they in self-congratulation for their humanitarian proclivities, the left does not realize that our involvement in Liberia is a move in the war on terror with clear U.S. security implications. But don't tell the left. They just might decide its better to let the Liberians suffer than to perpetuate the dreaded American hegemony.