Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:
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.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:
I guess that means that you're all about deploying troops to Israel, to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah?

We already do provide a lot of support to Israel. But no, I don't support sending American troops into places where they are unlikely to be successful in their campaign, are likely to be bogged down in a prolonged conflict, have no air of legitimacy or support from the public, and would create a mess out of a delicate regional situation. I can think of many reasons not to intervene in Gaza or Lebanon, but few not to intervene in Cote D'Ivoire.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Jetboogieman said:
Khandahar, this is a time when I have to disagree with you. Foreign intervention in Africa has a history of failure, I do not encourage it,

The British intervention in Sierra Leone was a huge success, and should be a model for how military intervention can be used. Generally when humanitarian interventions have failed, it's because the peacekeepers were unwilling to fight and/or because there was no clear mission.

Jetboogieman said:
we have to help ourselves, or we'll never get out of this crap.

Cote D'Ivoire, like many impoverished nations, is stuck in a conflict trap. It is not able to help itself until it can break free from that trap, and it could be poor for decades without some assistance.

Jetboogieman said:
The issue we should be discussing is, should the Western African Union Forces go into Ivory Coast?

No. Doing so would threaten neighboring countries with spillover from the conflict. It's better if the US (or the Brits or any other rich country that's willing to establish order) did it.

Jetboogieman said:
American intervention is a pipe dream at the very least they may provide money but nothing more.

Why? We've intervened in Haiti. We've intervened in Kosovo. We've intervened in Timor-Leste. What makes it so unfathomable that we could use our military for humanitarian reasons?

apdst · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
I'm interested in foreign policy and international development, not petty partisanship.

I bet you didn't say that when we invaded Iraq.

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.

Like I said, without rooting out the goof-balls and a years long occupation, it's a waste of time. I'm opposed to going into a country, losing men in a firefight, just to go back and do it all over again.

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.

Preparing for war with the U.S.? The Iranian army couldn't even defeat the Iraqi Army.

Gbagbo's administration would probably flee Abidjan at the first sight of a US soldier.

Never underestimate your enemy.

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.

yeah...right.

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.

A thousand? Sending just a thousand troops--basically a battalion--is asking for trouble. The smart play would be to send a division, to overwhelm any resistance that might exist and don't tie their hands behind their backs with stupid ROE's.

No, the reasons the campaign in Somalia turned out so bad was because 1) it was in Somalia

That's different from anywhere else in Africa, how?

2) our troops had no clear mission

the mission was very clear: to root out and destroy the militias.

3) there was no legitimate government with whom the US military could work.

Perfect reason not to be there.

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.

Another perfect reason not to be there.

The #1 reason not to be there, however, was because we didn't have a CIC that was willing to destroy the aggressors. I'm talking about Bush as much as I am Clinton.

apdst · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
We already do provide a lot of support to Israel. But no, I don't support sending American troops into places where they are unlikely to be successful in their campaign

We couldn't kick hezbollah's ass?

are likely to be bogged down in a prolonged conflict, have no air of legitimacy or support from the public, and would create a mess out of a delicate regional situation. I can think of many reasons not to intervene in Gaza or Lebanon, but few not to intervene in Cote D'Ivoire.

The only reason we would get bogged down in a prolonged conflict, is if we saddled our troops with overly restrictive ROE's. It's the reason we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Infantry's mission is to,

The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack.

and if that's not what you're going to let them do, then there's no point in going.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:
I bet you didn't say that when we invaded Iraq.

I opposed the war in Iraq because it was a boneheaded geopolitical move, not because I wanted to stick it to George Bush.

apdst said:
Like I said, without rooting out the goof-balls and a years long occupation, it's a waste of time. I'm opposed to going into a country, losing men in a firefight, just to go back and do it all over again.

I think that's assuming a lot more than is reasonable to assume. You're assuming 1) there would be a firefight, 2) that we'd need to do it again, 3) that all this would take place in a vacuum. Having said that, I have no illusions that this would be the only such intervention we'd need to make...I don't know whether the next one would be in Cote D'Ivoire or somewhere else, and it really doesn't matter to me. The benefits go beyond the immediate goal of instituting a democratically-elected leader...the long-term goal is that after a few such interventions in impoverished nations, the idea of overthrowing a democratically-elected government will be sufficiently unattractive that all but the most brazen leaders don't even try it anymore.

apdst said:
Preparing for war with the U.S.? The Iranian army couldn't even defeat the Iraqi Army.

I'm not saying they'd WIN a war against the US, but they've been preparing for it. They'd certainly be able to do some major damage, destabilize the entire region, play games with the price of oil, and get us bogged down in a lengthy occupation. The government of Cote D'Ivoire does not have the ability to do any of those things, and so Cote D'Ivoire is an excellent candidate for our help.

apdst said:
Never underestimate your enemy.

Never overestimate him either. And a realistic comparison of the military strength of Cote D'Ivoire (and specifically the factions of the military loyal to Gbagbo) and the military strength of the United States of America should tell you all you need to know about that.

apdst said:
A thousand? Sending just a thousand troops--basically a battalion--is asking for trouble. The smart play would be to send a division, to overwhelm any resistance that might exist and don't tie their hands behind their backs with stupid ROE's.

I don't know the precise number of troops that would be necessary...but no stronger than Gbagbo's position is, it would need not be very many. And I agree that our troops should be willing and able to engage if necessary.

apdst said:
That's different from anywhere else in Africa, how?

Somalia is vastly different from Cote D'Ivoire (or just about anywhere else in Africa). Somalia is far poorer than Cote D'Ivoire. Mogadishu (unlike Abidjan) is ruled by warlords. Mass communication and cell phones were not ubiquitous in Mogadishu in 1993, as they are in Abidjan in 2010. Somalia had no history of democracy as Cote D'Ivoire does. And we didn't have any local partners to work with in Somalia, unlike Cote D'Ivoire.

apdst said:
he mission was very clear: to root out and destroy the militias.

No, that was the post-hoc assessment of the mission. There was a great deal of mission creep. Originally we were just trying to deliver food from the UN, then we were trying to stop the warlords from stealing the food, then we were fighting the warlords and their militias. In Cote D'Ivoire, in contrast, we'd have a pretty clear-cut mission: Depose Gbagbo and his henchmen, turn the keys over to Outtara, establish order for a few weeks while Outtara gets his administration in place, and get out.

apdst said:
Perfect reason not to be there.

Another perfect reason not to be there.

The #1 reason not to be there, however, was because we didn't have a CIC that was willing to destroy the aggressors. I'm talking about Bush as much as I am Clinton.

I agree, we should not have intervened in Somalia in 1993.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

For a point of comparison, Cote D'Ivoire spends about $94 million annually on its military. The city of Louisville, Kentucky spends about $152 million annually on its police force. So imagine that the mayor of Louisville seceded and declared himself emperor, and the US military went in to intervene. How long do you think the conflict between the US military and the Louisville police force (most of whom wouldn't even want to fight) would last?

It's laughable, and for good reason. That's the level of resistance we'd be likely to encounter in Cote D'Ivoire if we intervened.

PeteEU · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
For a point of comparison, Cote D'Ivoire spends about $94 million annually on its military. The city of Louisville, Kentucky spends about $152 million annually on its police force. So imagine that the mayor of Louisville seceded and declared himself emperor, and the US military went in to intervene. How long do you think the conflict between the US military and the Louisville police force (most of whom wouldn't even want to fight) would last?

It's laughable, and for good reason. That's the level of resistance we'd be likely to encounter in Cote D'Ivoire if we intervened.

You do know that the country just came out of a civil war between the two sides right? Thinking that one side will just step aside is highly doubtful. The sitting President has a power base that will be out of a job when he leaves and they will do anything to stay in power.

And as for the US sending troops.. pathetic idea. You dont have the troops left over to do jack **** with all the wars you are in. Not to mention the US has not sent troops into Africa since forever. If any non African forces will go in then it will be the French since they already are there and it is a former colony.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

PeteEU said:
You do know that the country just came out of a civil war between the two sides right? Thinking that one side will just step aside is highly doubtful. The sitting President has a power base that will be out of a job when he leaves and they will do anything to stay in power.

Sending troops into Cote D'Ivoire could possibly prevent a civil war, but ultimately there are no guarantees. If Gbagbo wants a civil war he can surely get one.

PeteEU said:
And as for the US sending troops.. pathetic idea. You dont have the troops left over to do jack **** with all the wars you are in. Not to mention the US has not sent troops into Africa since forever. If any non African forces will go in then it will be the French since they already are there and it is a former colony.

I don't give a damn what country does it, as long as someone with the military capability and the willingness to fire if necessary does it. I suggest considering the basic policy suggestion, instead of foaming at the mouth because you saw the words "United States" and "military intervention" in the same paragraph.

apdst · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

PeteEU said:
You do know that the country just came out of a civil war between the two sides right? Thinking that one side will just step aside is highly doubtful. The sitting President has a power base that will be out of a job when he leaves and they will do anything to stay in power.

And as for the US sending troops.. pathetic idea. You dont have the troops left over to do jack **** with all the wars you are in. Not to mention the US has not sent troops into Africa since forever. If any non African forces will go in then it will be the French since they already are there and it is a former colony.

The French Foreign Legion, not really The French per se.

Cold Highway · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
Then whose job is it? Nations that are stuck in poverty traps (of which Cote D'Ivoire is a textbook example) are going to continue to be poor and dysfunctional until they are able to break free of those traps. That affects everyone, not just the people stuck in the misery of the country itself.

Really how is it affecting us right now?

What would that accomplish? People would still view it as American involvement...but without the benefits, efficiency, and ease with which the US military could topple the Gbagbo junta.

I didnt say if it would accomplish anything or not. Im just saying those who want the US to the police of the world should go into these conflicts themselves with their own money. Let them be mercenaries and as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan toppling authoritarian governments and its aftermath arent cakewalks.

Gill · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
For a point of comparison, Cote D'Ivoire spends about $94 million annually on its military. The city of Louisville, Kentucky spends about $152 million annually on its police force. So imagine that the mayor of Louisville seceded and declared himself emperor, and the US military went in to intervene. How long do you think the conflict between the US military and the Louisville police force (most of whom wouldn't even want to fight) would last?

It's laughable, and for good reason. That's the level of resistance we'd be likely to encounter in Cote D'Ivoire if we intervened.

How did you know we had an emperor as mayor here ???? But don't worry, mayor for life, Jerry Abramson is finally stepping down to run for statewide office.

PeteEU · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
Sending troops into Cote D'Ivoire could possibly prevent a civil war, but ultimately there are no guarantees. If Gbagbo wants a civil war he can surely get one.

There are already troops there.

I don't give a damn what country does it, as long as someone with the military capability and the willingness to fire if necessary does it. I suggest considering the basic policy suggestion, instead of foaming at the mouth because you saw the words "United States" and "military intervention" in the same paragraph.

Sorry but you stated the US and not other countries and my point stands. The US has never gone into Africa and is over stretched as it is. On top of that, there are already many thousands of troops in the country overseeing the ceasefire of the last civil war. Also France has big links to the country and possibly a base there if not a large amount of troops. It was not long ago that the French wtfpawned some rebels who fired on them .. was all over the news.

American · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
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.

Wait, I thought we weren't the world's policeman?

PeteEU · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

apdst said:
The French Foreign Legion, not really The French per se.

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?

VanceMack · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

There was a cartoon once...cant recall the title...had a little yippy chijuajua or poodle or some other such little yippy lap dog running around all the time talking about how SOMEONE ELSE should kick someone elses ass...

Yeah...that fits...We should go over there and kick ass...and by we...I mean...YOU guys...yeah...

donsutherland1 · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Kandahar said:
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.

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.

Albert Di Salvo · Dec 29, 2010

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.

VanceMack · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Albert Di Salvo said:
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.

We dont need troops. We can send an all volunteer peace corps and they will love them and show compassion and by doing so win their trust...and then there will be peace throughout the land.

Jetboogieman · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

VanceMack said:
We dont need troops. We can send an all volunteer peace corps and they will love them and show compassion and by doing so win their trust...and then there will be peace throughout the land.

Oh you cynic you Vance :2razz:

VanceMack · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Jetboogieman said:
Oh you cynic you Vance :2razz:

All I am saying, is give peace a chance... :roll:

Jetboogieman · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

VanceMack said:
All I am saying, is give peace a chance...

Don't forget hope and change there buddy :mrgreen:

VanceMack · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Jetboogieman said:
Don't forget hope and change there buddy :mrgreen:

Im hopeful...for change. And then they can build a daisy bridge to Israel and make everything there happy and peaceful! Imagine!!!

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

chevydriver1123 said:
Really how is it affecting us right now?

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

chevydriver1123 said:
I didnt say if it would accomplish anything or not. Im just saying those who want the US to the police of the world should go into these conflicts themselves with their own money. Let them be mercenaries and as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan toppling authoritarian governments and its aftermath arent cakewalks.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we imposed a government on societies that had no experience with democracy, that didn't particularly like us in the first place, and that had no civil society in place. In Cote D'Ivoire we would be turning the keys over to a legitimate government in a nation where the US is respected far more than their own leaders.

The sooner that people can actually evaluate potential military intervention on its merits instead of reflexively comparing it to Iraq regardless of the circumstances, the better off the world will be.

Kandahar · Dec 29, 2010

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

PeteEU said:
There are already troops there.

There are UN troops there, with orders not to fire or do much of anything. I'm talking about actual soldiers who are willing to do what is necessary to impose order, not some guys running around with guns doing nothing.

PeteEU said:
Sorry but you stated the US and not other countries and my point stands. The US has never gone into Africa and is over stretched as it is. On top of that, there are already many thousands of troops in the country overseeing the ceasefire of the last civil war. Also France has big links to the country and possibly a base there if not a large amount of troops. It was not long ago that the French wtfpawned some rebels who fired on them .. was all over the news.

OK, you're obviously more interested in braying about how great the EU is and how terrible the US is, rather than actually evaluating the idea that there should be a serious intervention in Cote D'Ivoire. I'll let you have that argument with yourself.

Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Dispenser of Negativity

Trump Grump Whisperer

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Somewhere in Babylon

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Somewhere in Babylon

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant