- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?
I'm interested in foreign policy and international development, not petty partisanship.
Yeah, ten years ago. If this new guy tries to become a dictator in ten years, we can intervene again in ten years. The idea is that if the US makes an implicit guarantee to intervene to impoverished nations stuck in conflict traps, it will change the calculus of would-be coup-plotters and election-stealers. Those things look a lot less attractive if there is a credible threat of being forcibly removed from power by the US military.
No, but Iran is a much bigger country with a well-established (if now illegitimate) clerical government that has spent the last 30 years preparing for war with the United States. Cote D'Ivoire has a puny military and an unstable regime. Gbagbo's administration would probably flee Abidjan at the first sight of a US soldier.
There's no reason to think that they would hold the United States responsible. They like the US far more than they like their own leaders, and we would just be helping to pave the way for whom they already elected on their own. And even if they did hold the US responsible, oh well. If intervention improved the economic development of Cote D'Ivoire (and hopefully all of Western Africa) then that would be an acceptable price to pay. West Africa (less Liberia and Sierra Leone) is, in my opinion, poised for an economic boom if it can escape its poverty trap. Ghana has already done it. Nigeria is getting there. Cote D'Ivoire lags behind its peers, and some nudging from the US in the right direction can do it.
You sound gung-ho for a war, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sending in a thousand or so soldiers prepared to fire if necessary, arresting Gbagbo and his top henchmen (if they haven't already left Abidjan), turning the keys over to Outtara, and leaving after 6-8 weeks at most.
No, the reasons the campaign in Somalia turned out so bad was because 1) it was in Somalia, 2) our troops had no clear mission, and 3) there was no legitimate government with whom the US military could work. Furthermore, intervening in Somalia didn't really accomplish anything from a nation-building standpoint. It's not like we were protecting democracy (there wasn't any), encouraging economic development (there wasn't any), or even strengthening American interests (there weren't any at the time). We were just trying to deliver some food from the UN.
Ok, stop!! What the hell's gotten into the Liberals lately? Wait! Are ya'll hoping something like this will possibly make Obama look like a hero??
I'm interested in foreign policy and international development, not petty partisanship.
apdst said:They elected the last guy, too.
Yeah, ten years ago. If this new guy tries to become a dictator in ten years, we can intervene again in ten years. The idea is that if the US makes an implicit guarantee to intervene to impoverished nations stuck in conflict traps, it will change the calculus of would-be coup-plotters and election-stealers. Those things look a lot less attractive if there is a credible threat of being forcibly removed from power by the US military.
apdst said:Iran wanted to elect a new prez a new government in fact; were you as gung-ho to invade Iran?
No, but Iran is a much bigger country with a well-established (if now illegitimate) clerical government that has spent the last 30 years preparing for war with the United States. Cote D'Ivoire has a puny military and an unstable regime. Gbagbo's administration would probably flee Abidjan at the first sight of a US soldier.
apdst said:I'm talking about the people that Ivornonians that will go nuts, if this new guy goes rogue.
There's no reason to think that they would hold the United States responsible. They like the US far more than they like their own leaders, and we would just be helping to pave the way for whom they already elected on their own. And even if they did hold the US responsible, oh well. If intervention improved the economic development of Cote D'Ivoire (and hopefully all of Western Africa) then that would be an acceptable price to pay. West Africa (less Liberia and Sierra Leone) is, in my opinion, poised for an economic boom if it can escape its poverty trap. Ghana has already done it. Nigeria is getting there. Cote D'Ivoire lags behind its peers, and some nudging from the US in the right direction can do it.
apdst said:If they're not forced to impose order with three rounds per man, or no ammo at all. Or, rules of engagement that prevent our troops from actually engaging the enemy. Not to mention, a CIC that isn't afraid of a little collateral damage for the safety of the soldiers. All things considered, I think we're **** outta luck on all three accounts.
You sound gung-ho for a war, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sending in a thousand or so soldiers prepared to fire if necessary, arresting Gbagbo and his top henchmen (if they haven't already left Abidjan), turning the keys over to Outtara, and leaving after 6-8 weeks at most.
apdst said:Don't forget, the reason Somalia turned out so bad, is because Clinton refused to allow armor support to take part in the mission, for fear of too much collateral damage.
No, the reasons the campaign in Somalia turned out so bad was because 1) it was in Somalia, 2) our troops had no clear mission, and 3) there was no legitimate government with whom the US military could work. Furthermore, intervening in Somalia didn't really accomplish anything from a nation-building standpoint. It's not like we were protecting democracy (there wasn't any), encouraging economic development (there wasn't any), or even strengthening American interests (there weren't any at the time). We were just trying to deliver some food from the UN.