OK, but where are the troops going to come from? Which commitment is less important than Liberia?

Can we pull people out of Kosovo? Do we have anyone left in Germany? What about the need for a strategic reserve against North Korea? What about the need to rotate troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? What will all these commitments do to our training and readiness?

Should we start increasing the size of the US Army, maybe add a few new divisions?

I think Michael Totten makes a great case for increased CIA attention for Liberia. I would prefer the picture to be a lot cleaner (clear objectives, understanding of who's on whose side, etc) before we send in troops.

Joe,

I have a post going up today on the American ground troop shortages that says Liberia is not a vital interest compared to our other missions.

If I were a tinfoil hat type, I'd believe Totten is against intervention in Liberia. He's trying to convince the left that we can't intervene because we do have interests there. ;)

OK, THAT'S funny!

Kathy:

Good one!!

I made comments about this issue a few days ago, here.

My opinion has not changed since. We simply need to conserve our forces at this point, or raise more, because we are overextended, and will be until either Iraq settles down or we resolve (or pull out of) Korea, so that we don't need to maintain a reserve for action there. Without that, we have to pick and choose very carefully. While there's a case for intervention in Liberia, that case is not strong enough to overcome the strain it would put on our ability to react to other crises in the world.

Will we have to work on Africa after the Middle East? Almost certainly, because it is almost certain that as we drain the Middle Eastern swamp, the vermin will move to the lowest ground they can find. After the Middle East, that's Africa. After Africa, it's SE Asia. We're going to be at war for a long time. It may appear at the moment to be a series of small wars, but in aggregate it's going to be along the lines in size and complexity to the 30 Years' War.

Taylor is bad but I just do not see who would replace him.

Troops ain't the problem! We have a MEU off the coast (I hope) and the entire 2nd Marine Division that begged out of all training for the rest of the FY (and mayber the first quarter of the next).

One MEU could do a lot, if it was allowed to. In other words send in the Marines to kill those who need killing, destroy the effective of all forces in Liberia that oppose peace, and act as a brutal reaction force for the West African forces (that have been trained by the US, the brigade headquarters by Marines) that would keep the peace.

It is not the number of troops, but what we will allow them to do. Under the UN you are suppossed to do nothing without approval from UN headquarters and UN HQ really dislikes western forces attacking African ones.

In short, we have strategic reasons to be in Liberia (see Thomas Barnett's views at www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm) and we have the needed forces, if we let them do what needs to be done.

I believe that we do have interests there, and by there I mean Africa as a whole. They have minerals, natural gas and oil to export.

However, I think that the most important argument for going is that we've been invited. Does that mean the roads will be strewn with flowers for our troops? I don't think so, but with regard to Lancer's point, we'll have a lot more lattitude to do what needs to be done there than we have/had in Iraq.

I've been inclined towards a semi-isolationist position for a while but I wrote to a friend a before the war that IMHO, an America with a sure supply of the natural resources needed to keep our economy clicking would be one heck of a force for change in the world. The pressure that we've been able to bring to Syria and Saudi Arabia is the same pressure that it would be great to be able to bring to bear on people like Mugabe.

I suggested yesterday that the situation in Liberia might be a good one for splitting the difference. Sending in the US military to provide an essentially advisory role to an African peacekeeping mission would gratify Liberians and interventionist left-leaners, who want to see a US contribution, and vindicate those on the right, who have repeatedly called for a African leadership towards stability. Clearly, Taylor is a focal point, and his removal should be guaranteed in keeping with any US contribution. Likewise, the situation in the Congo must be brought under control in conjunction with that in Liberia. War has spread through West Africa from nation to nation like an epidemic, and it requires wholesale eradication lest it flare up again. For that reason, action represents a long-term commitment.

I'm also interested in the humanitarian benefits of intervention, as Bush's Africa policy appears to be centered on humanitarian ends (surprisingly enough). Totten might disagree (or agree and call Bush simplistic), but as a taxpayer, I would like to see US funds invested wisely. Do anti-Aids and anti-famine spending generate better returns, or are they futile unless war is eradicated? I would suggest not, though combat and despotism are certainly to blame for famine. Moreover, the question of generating goodwill must be brought to bear; I'm inclined to name USAid as more effective in that vein than the USMC.

My modest proposal for Liberia: Use a private army.

It would be cheaper. It would spare the already overstretched US Army.

Randall,

I commented on that in The American Ground Troop Shortage. Neither party wants to go there.

Besides, the whole point of Liberals supporting a Liberian intervention is that it doesn't contribute to the War on Terrorism.

It is how Liberal Chicken Hawks show off their chest hair without toggling over the Democratic Activists against them.

Given the shortage of American ground troops, their deployment anywhere must meet these tests:

1) Does the troop deployment kill terrorists or destroy terrorist supporting states.
2) Does the troop deployment directly reduce the threat of a WMD attack on the American homeland.
3) Does the troop deployment reform Arab-Muslim culture at gunpoint.

Liberia fails all these tests, so we should not go.

Question: if Taylor can be convinced to step down of his own accord, is there still that strategic interest?
I ask because you look at Iran and there was a strategic interest regardless if Saddam was still in power or not (and even more so if one of his sons was in power). There will still be a strategic interest in Arabia if the Saudi Hillbillies hand over some power. I'm trying to work through a corrupt and antogonizing system versus someone who has corrupted the system... and if there is really any difference between the two when looking at strategic interests.

Trent,

I think we ought to talk up the private army approach. Just because it is not in the mainstream of political discussion about Liberia does not mean that a lot of blogger hawks couldn't put it there. We just need to get enough people in blog land to say it is a great idea. That will get people in the mainstream press talking about it. You and Tom Holsinger ought to write articles about private army operations. Peter W. Singer's article is a good starting point.

As for the Liberal argument that there really is a big Al Qaeda connection with Liberia: I think they are stretching. Liberia isn't a training camp for Al Qaeda. Ryan Lizza's argument in The New Republic is bogus. If we want to argue for military intervention in a state whose denizens have Al Qaeda ties then there are easily 100 times more connections going into Saudi Arabia than into Liberia. Yet the liberals are not arguing for an invasion of Saudi Arabia.

I agree with you on your tests. Liberia doesn't matter on any of them. It also is not that important in terms of oil and Western African stability. Nigeria is not going to be destabilized by events in Liberia.

Plus, even if one was to accept the humanitarian argument then troops from other countries or a private army ought to handle Liberia. The US Army already is far too small for the more important tasks assigned to it.

Randall,

You are not thinking it through.

Follow the money.

The reason Executive Outcomes worked in Sierra Leone was that there was no American involvement and it happened completely below the radar screen of the Western press.

There are also too many NGO parasites who are on the U.N. 'international disorder' aid gravey train to allow private military companies to usurp their role. That was the real reason why Executive Outcomes was first driven out of Sierra Leone and later outlawed by South Africa.

The moment American government money is involved with armed private military companies, Democratic congressmen, media types and the NGO's that push their buttons become involved and make such interventions high profile.

Another skilled Democratic President like Clinton might be able to neutralize all that but a Republican President never will.

President Bush will never have the flexibility to use MPRI in Croatia the way President Clinton did. You have too many leftists and leftist dominated NGOs itching to sic the International Criminal Court on all the non-American mercenaries for "war crimes" real or imagined the way Jenin was used against Israel.

Thwacking on American paid mercs is too great a leftie political grand standing and NGO fund raising opportunity to be missed.

Trent,

I'm quite aware of all the objections and all the objectors. But hey, pre-Thatcher the idea that large numbers of industries should be owned by the state had enormous legitimatcy in many countries.

The marketplace has been considered in the not-too-distant past a morally unacceptable tool for all sorts of social goods. But then a breakthru was made and marketplace solutions became commonplace. Here's a situation where many lefties want the US to intervene. Let us say loudly we will pay for private organisations to do the job.

We might even want to say that we'll even do it thru the UN with the UN contracting with the private organixations. Make the UN support capitalism.

The US has a great opportunity to promote privatization. It ought to do so.

Here's another proposal: The US could offer Russia money to send their soldiers to Liberia. Russia would get to strut on the world stage. The US could pay them more cheaply than the US could do it itself. The French and Germans would then be put into the uncomfortable position of complaining to their Russian UN Security Council allies if they don't like how events are unfolding.

BTW, as for the post topic: Michael Totten are trying to sell a national interest argument for Liberia where none exists.

Liberia is not some important Al Qaeda center of operations. The cited Al Qaeda angle is pretty small.

A stronger case for Al Qaeda presence could be made for both Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Do these guys want to argue for US invasion and occupation of Saudi Arabia?

Another justification for intervening in Liberia:

The US-led war in Iraq damaged US's diplomatic standing in many countries in the world. The war was still justified in my opinion, and the damage was caused more by the craven opportunism of key allies than American bellicosity, but the diplomatic rift remains. Placing a relatively small (by US standards) number of troops in this region under UN command is a sort of fig leaf that doesn't force the US to compromise its security interests in Iraq (including our very reasonable desire to punish France by shutting them out of the postwar reconstruction).