Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

[Jetboogieman]

The West African region has suffered more than its fair share of military coups and civil wars and its leaders have made a clear commitment to ensuring that these come to an end.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Ecowas has been going through a series of exercises, scenario-building. So it is possible that it can take place so quickly”

If the arrival of the leaders of Cape Verde, Sierra Leone and Benin fails to end the stalemate over last month's elections, West African states have threatened a military intervention if Mr Gbagbo does not step down.

The regional grouping Ecowas has a history of using force to restore order, when there is no other option.

As early as 1978 the region's nations agreed to refrain from the use of force against each other and this was followed in 1981 by a mutual defence pact.

But events in Liberia in the 1990s, when the country descended into civil war, called for more urgent measures.

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.

 

[Kandahar]

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.

 

[Jetboogieman]

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.

Ah, I do not support this course of action.

 

[Kandahar]

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.

It would cost us virtually nothing, in dollars or in manpower. We would have the air of legitimacy since we were assisting a democratically-elected government instead of imposing one. And the risk would be very low since we would already have someone to hand the keys of the country. If we intervened in Cote D'Ivoire, the Gbagbo government would quickly collapse and the legitimate government could take power...probably within hours.

It is sad that all military actions anywhere in the world are now viewed through the prism of the war in Iraq...

 

[Cold Highway]

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.

It would cost us virtually nothing, in dollars or in manpower. We would have the air of legitimacy since we were assisting a democratically-elected government instead of imposing one. And the risk would be very low since we would already have someone to hand the keys of the country. If we intervened in Cote D'Ivoire, the Gbagbo government would quickly collapse and the legitimate government could take power...probably within hours.

It is sad that all military actions anywhere in the world are now viewed through the prism of the war in Iraq...

Its not the job of the US to be the police of the world. If people feel that they should get involved, just get a group of people have them finance the trip themselves.

 

[VanceMack]

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.

And of course you are rushing to enlist...

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Its not the job of the US to be the police of the world.

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.

If people feel that they should get involved, just get a group of people have them finance the trip themselves.

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.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

And of course you are rushing to enlist...

So I suppose that you are opposed to the police protecting you from crime unless you yourself are a police officer? I suppose you wouldn't dream of availing yourself of our legal system under any circumstances unless you yourself are a judge? I assume that you are opposed to firefighters saving your burning house unless you yourself are a firefighter? This is a moronic argument and always has been. When you have a rational argument, be sure and let me know.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

So I suppose that you are opposed to the police protecting you from crime unless you yourself are a police officer? I assume that you are opposed to firefighters saving your burning house unless you yourself are a firefighter? This is a moronic argument and always has been. When you have a rational argument, be sure and let me know.

I say again...you ARE rushing to enlist...right? You are advocating sending in the military...so...you ARE putting your ass on the line...right?

Phhhh...didnt think so. The left loved that whole "all hat, no cattle" slang with regard to Bush...Id say you wear about a 6 3/4...

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Phhhh...didnt think so. The left loved that whole "all hat, no cattle" slang with regard to Bush...Id say you wear about a 6 3/4...

What you imagine "The Left" believed about Bush has no relevance to Cote D'Ivoire or when military intervention is or isn't called for. If you can't think of anything intelligent to say, I'm done talking to you. Bye bye then. :2wave:

 

[VanceMack]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

What you imagine "The Left" believed about Bush has no relevance to Cote D'Ivoire or when military intervention is or isn't called for. If you can't think of anything intelligent to say, I'm done talking to you. Bye bye then. :2wave:

Nothing I can say to or about you that you havent already said yourself.

 

[Taylor]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

It would cost us virtually nothing, in dollars or in manpower. We would have the air of legitimacy since we were assisting a democratically-elected government instead of imposing one. And the risk would be very low since we would already have someone to hand the keys of the country. If we intervened in Cote D'Ivoire, the Gbagbo government would quickly collapse and the legitimate government could take power...probably within hours.

It is sad that all military actions anywhere in the world are now viewed through the prism of the war in Iraq...

There are already 10,000 UN Peacekeepers there, which have maintained a presence for six years. They have a budget this year of almost half a trillion dollars. What makes you think that all they need is a handful of "virtually free" US soldiers to effect a quick, within a few hours collapse?

Maybe you're suggesting we call in the superfriends?

 

[apdst]

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.

Why? So we can kick one asshole out and let another asshole in and in ten years we hear about how it's alllllllllll America's fault that this last asshole grabbed power?

I'm opposed to any future conflicts, where our people are deployed to a free fire zone.

 

[apdst]

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.

It would cost us virtually nothing, in dollars or in manpower. We would have the air of legitimacy since we were assisting a democratically-elected government instead of imposing one. And the risk would be very low since we would already have someone to hand the keys of the country. If we intervened in Cote D'Ivoire, the Gbagbo government would quickly collapse and the legitimate government could take power...probably within hours.

It is sad that all military actions anywhere in the world are now viewed through the prism of the war in Iraq...

Before Iraq, American military intervention was viewed through the prism of Somalia. I'll take the Iraq one :rofl

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

There are already 10,000 UN Peacekeepers there, which have maintained a presence for six years. They have a budget this year of almost half a trillion dollars. What makes you think that all they need is a handful of "virtually free" US soldiers to effect a quick, within a few hours collapse?

Maybe you're suggesting we call in the superfriends?

I'm suggesting we call in some soldiers who are willing to fire and take casualties if necessary, instead of 10,000 UN peacekeepers with orders to do nothing.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Why? So we can kick one asshole out and let another asshole in and in ten years we hear about how it's alllllllllll America's fault that this last asshole grabbed power?

Cote D'Ivoire has a democratically-elected president-elect, who has been recognized by virtually every country in the world and the Ivorian people. It's not like we'd be imposing a leader on them.

I'm opposed to any future conflicts, where our people are deployed to a free fire zone.

Abidjan is not Baghdad.

 

[apdst]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Cote D'Ivoire has a democratically-elected president-elect, who has been recognized by virtually every country in the world and the Ivorian people. It's not like we'd be imposing a leader on them.

The dickweed that won't vacate the big house was democratically elected, too. Wasn't he?

We'll be helping the Ivoronians, until this new cats nuts, then it's all our fault.

I think the USA's new policy should be a totally hands off approach, when it comes to these little jerk water countries. People have been bitching all this time that America has caused all the problems in the world? I say we let them try and get along without us for a few years.

Abidjan is not Baghdad.

My opinion is, we never again send soldiers into a potentially dangerous situation, where they have any rule of engagment than, "enage any and all targets of oppurtunity".

 

[apdst]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

I'm suggesting we call in some soldiers who are willing to fire and take casualties if necessary, instead of 10,000 UN peacekeepers with orders to do nothing.

You sure are brave with other people's lives. It's never necessary to take casualties.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Before Iraq, American military intervention was viewed through the prism of Somalia. I'll take the Iraq one :rofl

No, actually it was viewed through no prism in particular, which is the way it should be. The war in Iraq has had the effect of making many conservatives oppose any military action in which they imagine that the US might get some frowns from the rest of the world (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would). And it's had the effect of making many liberals **** themselves at the very mention of military intervention in which they imagine that the US might sustain a heavy number of casualties or a prolonged campaign (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would).

I think that we should evaluate when we should intervene on a case-by-case basis. Cote D'Ivoire seems like an excellent candidate for American military intervention, if Gbagbo won't stand down. 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. A robust American military presence would help encourage the development not just of Cote D'Ivoire, but of other countries under threat of coup where the US could make a credible promise to intervene if necessary.

I agree with economist Paul Collier. Countries stuck in poverty traps will remain poor until they can break free of those traps. It could take decades for them to do it on their own, but American help could speed up the process.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

The dickweed that won't vacate the big house was democratically elected, too. Wasn't he?

Yeah, ten years ago. I'm certainly not suggesting that this will be the only time we'll need to intervene. I'm OK with the US playing an active role in Africa to protect democrats.

We'll be helping the Ivoronians, until this new cats nuts, then it's all our fault.

No, you're just viewing this through the prism of the war in Iraq. The people of Cote D'Ivoire elected a new president, we wouldn't be installing one.

I think the USA's new policy should be a totally hands off approach, when it comes to these little jerk water countries. People have been bitching all this time that America has caused all the problems in the world? I say we let them try and get along without us for a few years.

To what "people" are you referring? Certainly not the people of Cote D'Ivoire, where the United States has a 94% favorability rating...the highest in the entire world, in fact.
Sub-Saharan Africa Leads World in U.S. Approval

My opinion is, we never again send soldiers into a potentially dangerous situation, where they have any rule of engagment than, "enage any and all targets of oppurtunity".

I don't think we need to intentionally escalate conflicts in a situation like this, but US soldiers should be willing to engage if necessary. 1,000 US soldiers who were willing to fire could impose order a lot faster than 10,000 UN peacekeepers that were not.

 

[apdst]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

No, actually it was viewed through no prism in particular, which is the way it should be. The war in Iraq has had the effect of making many conservatives oppose any military action in which they imagine that the US might get some frowns from the rest of the world (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would). And it's had the effect of making many liberals **** themselves at the very mention of military intervention in which they imagine that the US might sustain a heavy number of casualties or a prolonged campaign (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would).

I think that we should evaluate when we should intervene on a case-by-case basis. Cote D'Ivoire seems like an excellent candidate for American military intervention, if Gbagbo won't stand down. 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. A robust American military presence would help encourage the development not just of Cote D'Ivoire, but of other countries under threat of coup where the US could make a credible promise to intervene if necessary.

Not picking on your because you were only 10 in 2001, but I was in the Army in the 90's and yes, our military was viewed through the prism of Somalia. Just like up until the point we were viewed through the prism of Vietnam. UBL even referred to Somalia as proof that the U.S. couldn't stand the sting of battle.

I agree with economist Paul Collier. Countries stuck in poverty traps will remain poor until they can break free of those traps. It could take decades for them to do it on their own, but American help could speed up the process.

Most African countries have had a couple of milennia and they can't do it. I see no reason to spend money and risk lives on a ****hole that will still be a ****hole after we leave. Without a deliberate annihilation of all the dumbasses inside--and outside--of the government and a lengthy occupation, it's a waste of time.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Not picking on your because you were only 10 in 2001, but I was in the Army in the 90's and yes, our military was viewed through the prism of Somalia. Just like up until the point we were viewed through the prism of Vietnam. UBL even referred to Somalia as proof that the U.S. couldn't stand the sting of battle.

Or we could try to evaluate each potential intervention on its own merits instead of shrieking "ZOMG another Somalia" or "ZOMG another Iraq." But I guess ill-informed analogies are easier than actually thinking about challenging geopolitical issues. :roll:

Most African countries have had a couple of milennia and they can't do it. I see no reason to spend money and risk lives on a ****hole that will still be a ****hole after we leave. Without a deliberate annihilation of all the dumbasses inside--and outside--of the government and a lengthy occupation, it's a waste of time.

And I suppose that shrieking "ZOMG dumbass Africans" (translation: "stupid ****ing niggers") is easier than trying to understand economics, trying to figure out why they haven't been able to develop as much as the rest of the world, and how we might be able to help.

An American offer to intervene in places where democracy is imperiled would go a long way toward preventing coups and election-stealing in the first place, which would in turn go a long way toward reducing the need for many democratic African nations to spend so much on their military and enable them to spend more on development. That doesn't mean that we need to go overthrowing every dictator in the world, but it's time to intervene when there is a clearcut case of someone stealing an election or staging a coup in a smallish country, there is a legitimate government ready to take power, and it won't cost us very much. This kind of thing should be one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy.

 

[apdst]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

Yeah, ten years ago. I'm certainly not suggesting that this will be the only time we'll need to intervene. I'm OK with the US playing an active role in Africa to protect democrats.

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??

No, you're just viewing this through the prism of the war in Iraq. The people of Cote D'Ivoire elected a new president, we wouldn't be installing one.

They elected the last guy, too. Iran wanted to elect a new prez a new government in fact; were you as gung-ho to invade Iran?

To what "people" are you referring? Certainly not the people of Cote D'Ivoire, where the United States has a 94% favorability rating...the highest in the entire world, in fact.
Sub-Saharan Africa Leads World in U.S. Approval

I'm talking about the people that Ivornonians that will go nuts, if this new guy goes rogue.

I don't think we need to intentionally escalate conflicts in a situation like this, but US soldiers should be willing to engage if necessary. 1,000 US soldiers who were willing to fire could impose order a lot faster than 10,000 UN peacekeepers that were not.

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.

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.

I say no, unless we have a CIC that is willing to allow any and all firepower and support to our soldiers on the ground and that, we surely don't have.

 

[apdst]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

No worries. Not picking on you because you were already going senile in 2001. You just worry about your knitting, grandpa.

Close, but no cigar...:rofl

Or we could try to evaluate each potential intervention on its own merits instead of shrieking "ZOMG another Somalia" or "ZOMG another Iraq." But I guess ill-informed analogies are easier than actually thinking about challenging geopolitical issues. :roll:

Or, we can just stay the hell out of it, until we're ready to go in and fight it the right way. The use of military force hasn't changed in a few thousands years. It's, "diplomacy by other means", not, "diplomacy for diplomacy's sake".

And I suppose that shrieking "ZOMG dumbass Africans" (translation: "stupid ****ing niggers") is easier than trying to understand economics, trying to figure out why they haven't been able to develop as much as the rest of the world, and how we might be able to help.

Why am I not surprised that you took that route?

An American offer to intervene in places where democracy is imperiled would go a long way toward preventing coups and election-stealing in the first place, which would in turn go a long way toward reducing the need for many democratic African nations to spend so much on their military and enable them to spend more on development. That doesn't mean that we need to go overthrowing every dictator in the world, but when there is a clearcut case of someone stealing an election or staging a coup in a smallish country and it won't cost us very much, it's time to intervene. This kind of thing should be one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy.

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

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

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??

That's a pretty low brow statement even from you bro. Come on now, we're talking about alot of peoples lives and the fate of a nation, not a stupid congress brawl.

Now, I don't support American intervention, it's long time that Africa sorted out it's own problems.

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

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

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