Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Albert Di Salvo said:

Not one red cent. No American involvement in any way. Period.

Click to expand...

The relevant word in my post was "if."

Personally I think America would be wrong to go into Cote D'Ivoire - I read elsewhere that the US has a high approval rating in Sub-Saharan Africa - that would go pretty quickly if it chose to send forces again into Africa.

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Infinite Chaos said:

Completely disagree, far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.

Idi Amin was thrown out by a coalition force of Tanzanian and Kenyan forces - the war pretty much bankrupted Tanzania (even though it had little money to begin with) and there was no comeback for the US. We were all rid of a savage dictator - I think the same could be said for Cote D'Ivoire.

Click to expand...

That's where I get off the bus. If we spend a nickel on such a venture, we should do it ourselves.

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Infinite Chaos said:

Completely disagree, far better that if the US wishes to be involved it pays towards the cost of any African force that goes in.

Idi Amin was thrown out by a coalition force of Tanzanian and Kenyan forces - the war pretty much bankrupted Tanzania (even though it had little money to begin with) and there was no comeback for the US. We were all rid of a savage dictator - I think the same could be said for Cote D'Ivoire.

Click to expand...

But that's the point. It took a bloody and violent war to get rid of him. The US could remove Gbagbo from Abidjan with little or no bloodshed. Merely bankrolling other African states to do it is counterproductive. No amount of money will change the fact that their troops are simply not as good as ours and will endure heavier casualties. Furthermore, the idea of intervening is to create an environment where the usurping of democracy is less common, and therefore states can concentrate more on their human development instead of their militaries. If we start writing checks to African militaries, that will make the problem worse.

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Infinite Chaos said:

The relevant word in my post was "if."

Personally I think America would be wrong to go into Cote D'Ivoire - I read elsewhere that the US has a high approval rating in Sub-Saharan Africa

Click to expand...

We do. The US approval in Cote D'Ivoire is over 90% and is the highest of any country in the world.

Infinite Chaos said:

that would go pretty quickly if it chose to send forces again into Africa.

Click to expand...

Why is it assumed that American involvement is always unwelcome?

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:

That's where I get off the bus. If we spend a nickel on such a venture, we should do it ourselves.

Click to expand...

I am basically against US involvement here, not for any anti-US feeling but simply because I believe it would do politics in the area far more harm for US troops to hit the ground in any hostile action to remove Gbagbo.

Kandahar said:

But that's the point. It took a bloody and violent war to get rid of him. The US could remove Gbagbo from Abidjan with little or no bloodshed --

Click to expand...

There are no wars with little bloodshed anymore. The war to rid Uganda of Idi Amin was a purely African affair and even though there are problems (particularly anti-gay christians), Uganda is a far better place for the intervention. America does have a history of indirect intervention - including Zaire during the cold war which is still resonant in many political minds there.

Kandahar said:

We do. The US approval in Cote D'Ivoire is over 90% and is the highest of any country in the world.

Click to expand...

That could and will drop very quickly.

Kandahar said:

-- Why is it assumed that American involvement is always unwelcome?

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, there is a history of indirect action. America is a fantasy to many Africans, a fantasy of a richer, better and more comfortable life. US GIs on the ground will paint a very different picture.

There are far easier and better ways to manage and put pressure on those on the ground without putting troops in. As APDST also pointed out earlier - your own rules of engagement will not allow your troops to do the job properly and you'll probably end up with an unpleasant situation that shouldn't even happen in the first place.

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:

They musta changed it since I was in. In the 80's, it was illegal for French nationals to enlist in the Legion. About the only way for French nationals to enlist was to enter with Canadian, Belgian, or Luxembourg papers.

Click to expand...

I agree -- when I enlisted in 1988, most, if not all of the Frenchmen who didn't hold an officer position had enlisted as Belgians. But, apdst, I'm now curious -- did I read your post wrong, or did you say you were in the Legion?

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Le Marteau said:

I agree -- when I enlisted in 1988, most, if not all of the Frenchmen who didn't hold an officer position had enlisted as Belgians. But, apdst, I'm now curious -- did I read your post wrong, or did you say you were in the Legion?

Click to expand...

No, that was a typo. My mistake.

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Le Marteau said:

-- when I enlisted in 1988 --

Click to expand...

Where you in the Legion? I toyed with the idea in my late teens and even went across to Paris for 3-4 weeks to consider it further. Never joined them though.