• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

I disagree. No compelling U.S. interests are involved.

Define "compelling US interest."

donsutherland1 said:
In fact, similar arguments were made when the U.S. intervened in Somalia beginning in 1992, another case where no compelling U.S. interests were involved.

There also was no clear mission in Somalia, no exit strategy, and no local partners to work with. This analogy is invalid. Just because they happened to be located on opposite ends of the same continent does not mean that Somalia is anything like Cote D'Ivoire. We've intervened in Haiti, Kosovo, and Timor-Leste without any compelling national interests, and we've generally accomplished our goals there.

donsutherland1 said:
That move was a disaster and should never have occurred. Neither should U.S. military intervention in Cote D'Ivoire even as I hope that the dictator who refuses to relinquish power ultimately falls. The regional states do have a compelling interest in the situation and, if they choose to intervene militarily, that would be a course of action consistent with their interests.

Although I'm not necessarily opposed to regional action, the US is much better equipped to deal with this sort of thing than West African nations are. Not only in terms of money and manpower, but also in terms of risk. Regional involvement carries the risk of a broader war in West Africa.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

After the experience of the last decade I think Americans will be reluctant to send troops overseas for any purpose. Sending US troops on humanitarian missions is a nonstarter.

That was one of the biggest hidden tragedies of the war in Iraq. It's caused virtually the entire left (and many on the right) to become isolationist and unwilling to commit US troops to anything. People scream "Iraq" at the mere mention of US military involvement anywhere in the world. :(
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

That was one of the biggest hidden tragedies of the war in Iraq. It's caused virtually the entire left (and many on the right) to become isolationist and unwilling to commit US troops to anything. People scream "Iraq" at the mere mention of US military involvement anywhere in the world. :(

The experience of the last decade transformed me from a Realist to an Isolationist. I want no contact with other countries except normal trade and low key diplomatic relations. Nothing else.

As far as I am concerned American troops should never again leave American soil under any circumstances. No exceptions.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Yes they are. For one, the commanders are all French citizens, the language spoken is French. The members can apply for French citizenship after 3 years of service also.

There are also many non US citizens serving in the US armed forces, does that mean under your definition that the US armed forces are not American?

It's against French law, for French citizens to join the Foreign Legion.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

I disagree. No compelling U.S. interests are involved. In fact, similar arguments were made when the U.S. intervened in Somalia beginning in 1992, another case where no compelling U.S. interests were involved. That move was a disaster and should never have occurred. Neither should U.S. military intervention in Cote D'Ivoire even as I hope that the dictator who refuses to relinquish power ultimately falls. The regional states do have a compelling interest in the situation and, if they choose to intervene militarily, that would be a course of action consistent with their interests.

Just for clarity, I'm not opposed to sending US troops so much because there's no need, as I am to sending them over there on a fool's errand, that was planned by politicians and diplomats.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Vance says give it a chance.

Come on now...seriously. If we dont speak harshly of them, dont call them terrorists, dont speak about aggressively ending their murderous...errr...expansionist ways, then they will see us truly as a partner in peace, lay down their arms, and all will be well. They will like us...they'll really really like us.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

It would have the effect of giving the Ivorian people their legitimate government, helping to end a poverty trap in Africa, and discouraging other would-be despots from stealing elections or staging coups of their own.

How would it help end the "poverty trap?"
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Instability spreads disease, raises the price of commodities, provides potential terrorist havens, and lowers the economic output of our potential trading partners.

Proof? For each thing that was mentioned?
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

How would it help end the "poverty trap?"

Cote D'Ivoire, like many impoverished nations, is stuck in a vicious cycle: Poor economic conditions make coups and election-stealing more likely...and coups and election-stealing inhibit economic development. Any country where the democratically-elected government is under threat of overthrow by the military will tend to spend more on its military to appease them. The problem is that many West African nations cannot afford to do this; there is so much development work that needs to be done.

If the US (or any other large country with the manpower and willingness) would intervene in situations like these, it will make coups and election-stealing less frequent and enable more countries to focus on their economic development instead of on protecting their own power from the military.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Many of the poorest nations in the world are stuck in a trap of constant coups (or the threat of coups). Staging coups and/or stealing elections would become a lot less attractive, if the coup-stagers and election-stealers routinely faced the prospect of being deposed by the US and turned over to the legitimate government for prosecution. This would allow African nations to spend less on their militaries and more on important social priorities.

Nice as it is to see people debating a real issue here for once I have to disagree.

Its impossible for the U.S to be a neutral player. Traditionally it has been the one intervening against legitimate governments in africa, not for (e.g Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and Kwame Nkrumah) In order for it to act as a poilceman here it has to determine whether or not a government is legitimate, historically it has made this decision throughout the world by refering to its economic interests (which Jacob Arbenz found out to his peril) Even if America did intervene with the noblest of motives it could allienate the local people through it's armed forces inherent carelessness regarding civillians causualties (as we see now in Afganistan).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Has their been any time in since the end of WW2 that the U.S has installed a government without a huge loss of innocent lives?
 
Last edited:
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

It's against French law, for French citizens to join the Foreign Legion.

Um, no, it's not:

The French Foreign Legion (French: Légion étrangère) is a unique military unit in the French Army established in 1831. The legion was specifically created for foreign nationals wishing to serve in the French Armed Forces. Commanded by French officers, it is also open to French citizens, who amounted to 24% of the recruits as of 2007.

French Foreign Legion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just saying.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Nice as it is to see people debating a real issue here for once I have to disagree.

Its impossible for the U.S to be a neutral player. Traditionally it has been the one intervening against legitimate governments in africa, not for (e.g Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and Kwame Nkrumah) In order for it to act as a poilceman here it has to determine whether or not a government is legitimate, historically it has made this decision throughout the world by refering to its economic interests (which Jacob Arbenz found out to his peril)

I agree that we should not intervene in situations where there's a lot of gray area whether or not a government is legitimate, but in this case (as it often is) it's pretty clear-cut. Virtually every Western nation, the whole of West Africa, and the UN have stated that Gbagbo's government is illegitimate.

Red_Dave said:
Even if America did intervene with the noblest of motives it could allienate the local people through it's armed forces inherent carelessness regarding civillians causualties (as we see now in Afganistan).

But Afghanistan is a prolonged war, and the plan was always to occupy the country to build a democracy. I'm talking about a surgical invasion of Cote D'Ivoire lasting no more than a couple months. The only objective would be to arrest or drive Gbagbo out of Abidjan, and turn the keys over to Ouattara. We need not stay around for the aftermath; that is the business of Ivorians. I'm just talking about helping to instate the legitimate government and sticking around for a few weeks until they're up and running.

Red_Dave said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Has their been any time in since the end of WW2 that the U.S has installed a government without a huge loss of innocent lives?

Haiti. Kosovo. Depending on how you define a "huge loss of innocent lives" I might also include Kuwait (about 1,000 Kuwaiti and 3,500 Iraqi casualties). Additionally we could learn from the highly successful British intervention in Sierra Leone.

But ultimately whether or not there are a lot of civilian casualties is up to the Gbagbo junta. If they crap themselves and run away at the first sight of an American soldier (which I think is the most likely outcome), there will be very few casualties. If they stand and fight, there will be some, but still relatively few given their overall military weakness. If they run off into the bushes and launch another civil war against the legitimate government, there will be a lot, but if that's the case it wouldn't be the American military intervention that caused it and we certainly wouldn't stick around to fight a prolonged battle for them.

Ultimately what I envision is the US surgically assisting poor countries that want democracy, when they need it. I do not want to see the US bogged down in quagmires in Africa for months or years on end.
 
Last edited:
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Define "compelling US interest."

Something for which the outcome would have a significant adverse impact on the U.S. or its allies.

There also was no clear mission in Somalia, no exit strategy, and no local partners to work with. This analogy is invalid. Just because they happened to be located on opposite ends of the same continent does not mean that Somalia is anything like Cote D'Ivoire. We've intervened in Haiti, Kosovo, and Timor-Leste without any compelling national interests, and we've generally accomplished our goals there.

The common link is that again, the outcome in Somalia, would have had no significant adverse impact on the U.S. or its allies.

Although I'm not necessarily opposed to regional action, the US is much better equipped to deal with this sort of thing than West African nations are. Not only in terms of money and manpower, but also in terms of risk. Regional involvement carries the risk of a broader war in West Africa.

The region's states will need to balance the risks of failure with the benefits of success. If the expected benefits exceed the expected costs/risks, then military intervention would make sense. If not, then they'll have to pursue an alternative approach. That the U.S. is more capable of handling the issue does not mean that it should get involved. IMO, precisely because no major U.S. interests are involved, it should not.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

I agree that we should not intervene in situations where there's a lot of gray area whether or not a government is legitimate, but in this case (as it often is) it's pretty clear-cut. Virtually every Western nation, the whole of West Africa, and the UN have stated that Gbagbo's government is illegitimate.



But Afghanistan is a prolonged war, and the plan was always to occupy the country to build a democracy. I'm talking about a surgical invasion of Cote D'Ivoire lasting no more than a couple months. The only objective would be to arrest or drive Gbagbo out of Abidjan, and turn the keys over to Ouattara. We need not stay around for the aftermath; that is the business of Ivorians. I'm just talking about helping to instate the legitimate government and sticking around for a few weeks until they're up and running.



Haiti. Kosovo. Depending on how you define a "huge loss of innocent lives" I might also include Kuwait (about 1,000 Kuwaiti and 3,500 Iraqi casualties). Additionally we could learn from the highly successful British intervention in Sierra Leone.

But ultimately whether or not there are a lot of civilian casualties is up to the Gbagbo junta. If they crap themselves and run away at the first sight of an American soldier (which I think is the most likely outcome), there will be very few casualties. If they stand and fight, there will be some, but still relatively few given their overall military weakness. If they run off into the bushes and launch another civil war against the legitimate government, there will be a lot, but if that's the case it wouldn't be the American military intervention that caused it and we certainly wouldn't stick around to fight a prolonged battle for them.

Ultimately what I envision is the US surgically assisting poor countries that want democracy, when they need it. I do not want to see the US bogged down in quagmires in Africa for months or years on end.

Kosovo is a poor example given that the West bears much responsibility for causing the conflict in the first place by supporting the KLA, not to mention the huge civillian casualties of the actual invasion (1200 to 5,700 according to wikipedia), not to mention that the government now running Kosovo is far from savory*. Yugoslavia is a pretty good example of a country that would probably have been better off if it had been left alone to find its own path to democracy (I.E a system not based on the narrow majoritarianism that proved so disastrous in its breakaway republics).

What im more concerned about is the precendent these interventions set, i.e that anyone can remove a government they do no belive is democratic. Who gets to make this judgement? Would you accept a Russian intervention to restore democracy in a Latin American country? If not then you must accept that you are working from the assumption that it is only the U.S that can make this judgement, something that its got wrong time and time again.

*Kosovo head accused of organ trafficking
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Cote D'Ivoire, like many impoverished nations, is stuck in a vicious cycle: Poor economic conditions make coups and election-stealing more likely...and coups and election-stealing inhibit economic development. Any country where the democratically-elected government is under threat of overthrow by the military will tend to spend more on its military to appease them. The problem is that many West African nations cannot afford to do this; there is so much development work that needs to be done.

If the US (or any other large country with the manpower and willingness) would intervene in situations like these, it will make coups and election-stealing less frequent and enable more countries to focus on their economic development instead of on protecting their own power from the military.

Well also one must take into account that many African nations don't have a history of democracy, thus making it harder for them to legitimize democratic governments, much less form a government in general.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kosovo is a poor example given that the West bears much responsibility for causing the conflict in the first place by supporting the KLA, not to mention the huge civillian casualties of the actual invasion (1200 to 5,700 according to wikipedia), not to mention that the government now running Kosovo is far from savory*.

But neither the history nor the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict change the fact that we were able to go in, institute the legitimate government, and quickly extricate ourselves. I'm not saying that our interventions have always been pretty, but Kosovo is an example of when we were able to accomplish our goals from a military standpoint without a prolonged campaign or a huge number of casualties. With that said, there are no guarantees that Cote D'Ivoire would turn out any differently. Their new president might very well turn out to be just as unsavory as Kosovo's. The point isn't necessarily to give them a great government, it's to foster the conditions where Cote D'Ivoire (as well as other poor nations with similar problems who would clearly be watching) no longer need to worry as much about coups and election-stealing, because they'd have an implicit security guarantee from the United States. This would allow them to focus more on human development.

Red_Dave said:
Yugoslavia is a pretty good example of a country that would probably have been better off if it had been left alone to find its own path to democracy (I.E a system not based on the narrow majoritarianism that proved so disastrous in its breakaway republics).

That very well might be the case. I would be against forcibly imposing democracy in countries where there is no strong democratic movement (e.g. Chad), or where there is a dictatorship but no immediate democratic crisis (e.g. Cameroon). I'm only talking about situations where there is a clear, legitimate government that is being usurped by an illegitimate government...generally after a coup or an election.

Red_Dave said:
What im more concerned about is the precendent these interventions set, i.e that anyone can remove a government they do no belive is democratic. Who gets to make this judgement? Would you accept a Russian intervention to restore democracy in a Latin American country?

Absolutely not.

Red_Dave said:
If not then you must accept that you are working from the assumption that it is only the U.S that can make this judgement,

I'd be OK with any established democracy doing it, provided that they had the manpower and were willing to fire and take casualties if necessary. The UK or France or Australia could probably do it. I'm not sure if there are any other countries that fit the bill.

Red_Dave said:
something that its got wrong time and time again.

If there is a legitimate dispute over who won an election then there is no need to intervene. But open-and-shut cases of election fraud are, unfortunately, quite commonplace in Africa. Cote D'Ivoire is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Well also one must take into account that many African nations don't have a history of democracy, thus making it harder for them to legitimize democratic governments, much less form a government in general.

I agree. I wouldn't dream of trying to impose democracy in, say, Chad. But Cote D'Ivoire just elected a legitimate president.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

The United States should send troops into Cote D'Ivoire if necessary. It would cost us virtually nothing, the troops wouldn't have to be there more than a couple months, and they would have a clear mission: to help establish the legitimately elected government. This is exactly the kind of situation where we should be more willing to deploy our military.

Dude, that was the reasoning behind GW2 and Afganistan and that's going on 7-8 years now, not 2 months.
 
BBC News - Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Africa doesn't really get a lot of play around here so I thought I'd throw this in, I hope I haven't missed a breaking rules guideline, I know the thread title is a question but it is talking about what's happening.

So, onto my 2 cents.

As an African it is refreshing to see Africa trying to do the right thing, but it's a little tough when some of the very leaders villyfing this guy, aren't exactly squeaky clean themselves, and certainly even if it is for the greater good, a military intervention could be costly in terms of not only human lives, but a great waste of money and recourses that these countries simply can't spare to have war. But it could cost them more in the long run if there's a refugee crisis.

Have a read through and check out some of the pictures, these guys mean business, and if Africa can begin to police itself, and sort out it's own problems, even if it sometimes needs foreign military aid and money to do it now, we could see some promising results.

If the "President" refuses to step down and acknowledge the will of the people.
W Africa (with help from rest of Africa) and UN including Western nations should overthrow it. The consequences of not doing so may be worse, civil war or god forbid another genocide.

This is what UK should be using its military for. I support my Government who has expressed willingness to provide soldiers if it comes down to force.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Dude, that was the reasoning behind GW2 and Afganistan and that's going on 7-8 years now, not 2 months.

The diffrences is here that you can directly can install a legatimate goverment that have the support of the mayority of voters. In GW2 and Afganisthan, USA had do try to somehow create a legitamate goverment. First by appointed guys they trusted (that was not very trusting at all many shady people in Iraq and warlords in Afganisthan. Then trying somehow held election in a contries with no tradition of that.

Also here you have the neighboring countries are willing go in and take responsibility for security sene the illegitamale goverment is kicked out. Yes they may also be responsilibilty to kick the goverment out them self. But USA with their military power could probably do it more effecient and less risk of civilian casualties.

Also it is intersting to see that liberation and democracy was one of the big reason for the Iraq war. But are Fox News and other right wing opionmaker calling for an invasion? A invasion that would be much easier and less costly then the Iraq war.
 
Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

The United States should send troops into Cote D'Ivoire if necessary. It would cost us virtually nothing, the troops wouldn't have to be there more than a couple months, and they would have a clear mission: to help establish the legitimately elected government. This is exactly the kind of situation where we should be more willing to deploy our military.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom