h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What should the world do about the current situation in Liberia?

Should it be ignored? Should the UN send in peacekeepers? Should West African nations send in peacekeepers? Should the US send in peacekeepers?

The US military is already stretched so thin it's ready to snap. And since nobody is willing to send peacekeepers to relieve the force in Iraq, the US won't have the resources to commit to Liberia soon.

Which is a shame, since the Liberian people appear to be somewhat predisposed to the US. A multinational force in Iraq might ease the tensions there, and a US force in Liberia might ease the tensions there.

Without US or UK leadership, the UN is functionally worthless, so I wouldn't expect that a UN force in Liberia is a practical possibility.

Which means basically, the Liberians are on their own. Which sucks. And I'm sure the world will be hurling insults at the US for not intervening in Liberia while they hurl them for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which leaves the conclusion that the world should be allowed to go to hell in a handbasket.

That's basicly the conclusion I came to. The UN can't do anything without the US and the UK because they're the only Security Council permanent members who really have the force to get anything done on the ground.

China has a huge military but no real peacekeeping experiance.
Russia has enough nuclear misslies to destroy the world, but limited ground capabilities.
France isn't likely to do anything in Liberia--they'll just say its the US's jpb.

"Which leaves the conclusion that the world should be allowed to go to hell in a handbasket."

I'd say it leaves the conclusion that it will be allowed to, not that it should.

Personally, I think it's time Europe and America grew up a little, shook off the halfwit liberals wringing their hands about "neo colonialism" (or whatever the hell their official wing has opted to call it) and intervene in some of that continents awful civil wars. The French were cheered into the Congo after intervening to help end a civil war that has killed 2,000,000 Congolese.

The whole point is that the Africans often *want* us to intervene. Liberia is asking for American help, Congo plainly wants French intervention, there are other countries in crisis that could do with the sort of strong intervention that the UN will inevitably fail to provide.

This isn't Imperialism (It's only Imperialism if you stay) it is intervention - no different than the police being called if someone breaks into your house. The police arrive, do their job, make sure the criminal is no longer a threat and then leave. Real Internationalism needs action, not just "good wishes", as the Liberal Left seems to believe. The West is largely responsible for the mess Africa is in, and it is also our responsibility to help people we have failed on a regular basis.

As Blathers pointed out, the US military is stretched to breaking point. This is where other nations must take responsibility. Britain and France have taken action in Africa recently, but other countries such as Poland, Spain, Italy etc must be brought on board. These are modern nations with modern armies and are quite capable of taking on the Guerilla bandits that cause the civil wars.

This brings me on to Germany and Japan. These are two very rich advanced nations who have modern armies yet never get involved in wars or police actions. This must change. Germany should be encouraged to become actively involved in NATO/EU operations (there was some German intervention in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan) and the 60-year old "pacifism" rule with Japan should be ended. If anyone seriously thinks Japan will try and rebuild her Empire in the Pacific then I'd like to hear their arguments, but I don't think they'd wash.

Of course, any intervention should be done with a clear set of objectives, a clear decleration of the circumstances in which intervening troops with leave and the permission of the (legitimate) government of the nation in question (unless the government or some other force is engaging in state murder that can only be stopped by foreign intervention (see Yugoslavia, Iraq, Rwanda).

So yeah, there's my manifesto.

I came in here ready to debate this thing to death, but I agree with most of what's being said here.

Personally, I think the US should call up reserves and send the force not because of pressure from Kofi Annan or the UN or history with Liberia or anything or anyone else, but because it's good to step in and help those who need it. Even if it results in no praise or criticizm.

And countries who sit on their laurels and do nothing should be made to understand that they need to step up. For all the complaints of the US for screwing up the Middle East and intervening where they shouldn't and not intervening where they should, I don't see Germany answering the call to aid Liberia, for instance.

I don't see the value of risking American lives in this operation. We don't have enough forces to cover our current commitments. I don't see how it's in our interest.

Our expereience with Peacekeeping is fairly limited. The Canadians have lots of expereince with it and an admirable track record.

Indeed, I can't come up with a peacekeeping success in US history other than the shared effort in Germany post-WWII. And that was a nation confronted with some embarassing information that was eager to move on... a situation not likely to occur again, ever.

On another note, does anyone else have a hard time taking Liberia seriously? It's something about the name... it always makes me think someone has misspelled "library."

I always thought it sounded like a cheese. Or a disease you could get from eating some bad cheese. Or is that listeria? Close enough.

Ste

Well, we know the West Indies came to be known as such because Christopher Columbus got lost on the way to India. Do you suppose some poor wretch boarded a train to visit the Library of Congress in DC, took a nap, and woke up in Africa?

Maybe. The real reason for the name, though, is that it was set up ass a colony for freed American slaves at a time when many people in the US wanted to end slavery but didn't want a large population of free blacks in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3097405.stm

Some good news. And it's been welcomed by the UN.

Remember that the Bush still isn't sure about what to do in Liberia.

I don't want another military intervention, if only because it's self massochistic to have four foreign problems at one time - Afghanistan, which we're still somewhat responsible for - Iraq, where dozens of soldiers are being killed - North Koreas, a ticking time bomb? - and Liberia? It's a slippery slope

There's also the financial end of this. The government keeps trying to distract this fact, but Iraq is costing billions and billions. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz actually submitted the budget for the Department of Defense without including figures for the Iraq war! I'm afraid that one day the US will just go bankrupt!

Lastly, what about the motives for an effort in Liberia? I'm curious to hear other's opinions on this.

- too sleepy to make it terribly coherent.

"self massochistic"

What other type of massochism is there? If it isn't directed toward yourself, its sadism, not massochism.

Why should the US get involved in Liberia?

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view266.html#Liberia

I know... I just read over that and I found it particularly rambling... sorry.

I was sleepy

I agree that the US has overstretched itself. US intervention in Liberia would be welcome but I'm not sure they can afford it (although they have done something). The Bush administration's stupid arrogance has isolated some of it's allies (including Canada) that could have been helpful here.