This kind of lunacy is precisely the problem with being the world's policeman. American forces and treasure should only be deployed when it is in our national interest to do so. If there is tribal warfare in Sierra Leone and Tribe A is killing Tribe B, what business is it of ours which tribe wins or how they do so, so long as the diamonds keep being mined and sold to us and so long as nobody shoots at Americans. (Before some of the children here accuse me of racism, I feel the same way about tribal warfare in the Balkans, except that at least Sierra Leone has diamonds, all the Balkans have are problems.) The world is and should be reverting to its pre-imperial state, where Exxon or Halliburton or Bechtel behave like the Dutch East India Corporation, setting up compounds on the coast or where the minerals are and dealing with the local chieftains as the situation demands.

Europeans have spent the better part of the last three centuries screwing up the world with an intervention policy jointly motivated by greed, arrogance, and philanthropy, do we really need to follow their example.

Anywhere this kind of thing is happening we have an interest.

Why?

If we were to address all the places where this nonsense goes on, we would soon be bankrupt and depopulated. This is a horrible world in which we live, where life is nasty, poor, brutish and short. It is the height of hubris to think that a few Marines or SpecForces can make even the merest dent in that. Somalia should have taught us that. The fuzzy-wuzzies are not intimidated when the US Flag shows up. And anything less than a serious committment to end the problem is not merely a cruel joke, but is a disaster both to the places we intervene and at home. Do you want to see body bags coming home with the bones of boys killed for pacifying Stanleyville or Freetown? I don't.

So? What's the point of our wealth if we don't do good with it. We were doing fine in Somalia.

Somalia was and is a [poor idea]. I have a friend doing 'contractor' work there as we speak.

You are probably the only person in America willing to sacrifice the lives and treasure that would have been sufficient to do the job. That is why we in essence fled with our tails between our legs. We fled, and everyone recognized that Somalia is at a potential Red Sea chokepoint. Our decision was to bulk up our presence in Djibouti, the former French Somaliland.

These are vast places with little to no infrastructure. Any intervention would be staggeringly expensive.

Bart -- We shouldn't have been there, but once there, fleeing was a disaster.

Bart:

Not the only person...

As for "lives and treasure", all that was necessary were a few tanks, and what's a hundred million or so to the US ?

Nothing, that's what.

I don't pretend that America could have re-made Somalia into a functioning state, but we could have helped many more people.

Similarly, in the Sudan, the US doesn't have to put an Army division in to maintain peace; we merely have to put in a few special forces guys to direct fire, a few C-130 gunships, and arm the guys getting slaughtered.

A permanent solution ?
No. But, it keeps people alive a bit longer, and that's all any human can be promised.

Bart:

At the kill ratios we inflicted in the Battle of the Black Sea we could have killed every warlord and all his men at a minimal cost even in American lives.

When we first went into Somalia, the mission was clearly defined; protect the food shipments and convoys and whack anyone who tried to interfere with them. We started getting into trouble when we changed the objective, but even that wouldn't have led to humilation if we had equipped the troops properly. Les Aspin got canned from the Pentagon in large part because he didn't send the tanks that our commanders in Somalia were pleading for.

Intervening in Africa in general is a troublesome proposition, but it should never be out of the question if the reason and the objectives are clear and stay that way. We have a plain reason in Darfur - people are being murdered en masse by the Janjaweed - and we should have an equally clear objective; smash the Janjaweed. The long-term political future of the people of Western Sudan is something they'll have to determine for themselves, but they'll have a much easier time doing it if they're not being massacred.

Joe:

As I recall from Mark Bowden's book, what they really could have used was those helicopters that are basiically just gun platforms.

Dave,

I have to agree with you. When the American flag is planted anywhere in the world, the moment it is removed it is seen as a defeat by our enemies. There is no question that our retreat from Somalia emboldened Bin Laden. This is precisely why we need be careful where we put the troops, because if the cost exceeds the estimates, we still must deal with the additional harm to national interest that retreat necessarily causes.

Michael,

I don't know what it would have taken in Somalia and I doubt it was only 'a few tanks.' What we should have done was firmly define our interest, approach the American people expressing what that interest was in simple and understandable terms, and then move forward. What was our interest? It was the protection of the airfields and port of Berbera, and the prevention of any nonsense in the Red Sea. We should have applied the mixture of force and negotiation to achieve that goal. To intervene in tribal and clan warfare is an invitation to disaster.

Sudan, 'a few SpecForces guys, and some C-130 gunships(I thought C-130s were transport planes), and arm the guys getting slaughtered?'
In the 19th century, the British thought that giving Chinese Gordon a few thousand Egyptian levies with a small number of British regulars would protect Khartoum from the Mahdi. The natives aren't intimidated by American uniforms. We must assume that in any intervention there will be fighting and there will be death. The region we would be policing is about the size of Pennsylvania, and has no shortage of violent Muslim thugs ready to kill us at any opportunity. Prepare for the worst and any better outcome will be a pleasant surprise. You have to explain to that mother in Grand Island, Nebraska why her kid had to get killed. And you better have a damn good reason.

OJ-Your statement begs the question, 'Why did we cut and run?'

One reality of fighting in places like this is what does it look like on TV. The people we are fighting don't wear uniforms. They are criminals but not nearly as fair-minded as the Penguin's goons on the old Batman TV show who wore black derbies and shirts that said 'GOON' on them. An attack on a military target will be followed by the TV cameras. The BBC, CNN, TF1, SDF, the CBC, ZDF, and every other network around the world will swing into action declaiming how the US massacred a bunch of civilians indiscriminately. The Arab League will put resolutions condemning us in the UN. If our kill ratios get too high, it is a lead pipe cinch that talking heads across the dial and the major American fishwraps will start complaining about our 'immorality' in fighting this 'war of choice.' This is what Israel faces. This is what we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What happens when we start fighting in the various holy cities of our enemy? To these goobers, every single city where a descendant of Muhammad may have been thought to buy a cup of coffee and a bagel is a holy place. If we start 'desecrating' Islamic holy cities, do we not risk the wrath of the always choleric 'Arab Street?'

Clinton inherited the policy--which the elder Bush was forced into by bad CNN photos--and never believed in helping them.

Bart:

C-130s are indeed primarily transport vehicles, but the AC-130H "Spectre" is outfitted with a 40mm cannon and a 105mm cannon, and can destroy any land or air vehicle, including tanks, as well as many ships.

Against massed troops, say, Janjaweed, it's the gaping Mouth of Hell.

oj's right, the kill ratios in Somalia were around 150/1, and if the American forces had had tanks, it would have been around 400/1.

You're right about the problems of policing the Sudan, which is why I don't propose to do so, merely kill a lot of the paramilitaries and leave.
Pretty much what Joe said.

As for a good reason to give a Nebraska mother about why her child is dead, many people, myself among them, think that ending genocide is a Hammerin' good reason.
It's certainly a better one than "So Americans can have cheap gasoline", which unfortunately has been too much the case over the past couple decades.

As a matter of fact, "So that others may live" is the best reason to die, especially if you're male.

As men cannot bring life into the world, and since we're both stronger and more ruthless, (as a rule), that's our primary purpose, to defend.

Just as women dream of a Knight in shining armor rescuing her, what man hasn't wanted to be that Knight ?

Nichael:

In another thread you're claiming that such deaths are inherently tragic, aren't you?

Michael,

Not me. I just want to be rich and safe, leading a quiet life with lots of classical music, good wine, and great food. Nobility is an over-rated virtue, while greed is under-rated.

Michael,

One other thing. If you go to some mother in flyover territory and tell her that her pride and joy had to lose his life so some gibbering savage could live, you might want to wear Kevlar when you do.

So, Michael, if it's so easy, why haven't we started?

What do we gain from delay?

oj:

Yes, most of them are, for their loved ones. However, they're not tragic to the ones doing the dying.
"Life is pain", to quote the hero of a much-loved movie.

Harry:

Beats me.
My best guess is that it would be inconvenient, seven weeks before the election, if somehow a lot of US servicemembers got killed in a third far-off land.
Bush is quite susceptible to charges of military adventurism, mainly because they're completely true, although not in the way that most critics believe that they are.

Bart:

In fact, I do lead the life you describe.
However, I'm not wed to it. The fact is, death comes to us all, and if in the end the sum of my accomplishments in life is that I entertained myself, and grew fat, I'll weep hot tears of despair, far too late.
Good music, good food, good drink... These are just to while away the time between efforts, not a life's goal. (Unless, of course, one is a composer, performer, or chef).

As for "flyover country", that's where I live, and happily so.

Not had to lose his life, but chose to risk it, and died.*
Gibbering savage, perhaps, but still my sister, for all that I'd rather she not be.
It's not so much that lives should be risked to save gibbering savages, as it is that lives should be risked to oppose their cruel slaughter.

My philosophy is much the same as that which you outline in your first post. However, I believe that America now has the capacity, in treasure and in technology, to avert with modest effort many of the horrendously evil events that in times past, we would either have to accept, or sacrifice much to stop.
In a land where the top four flavored sugar water producers alone combine to spend $ 650 million dollars annually to whip up demand for their, at best, entirely useless products**, and where in 2003 consumers spent $ 3.1 billion on downloading cell-phone ringers, because they didn't like the 20 that came with the phone...
Can't we find it in our hearts to spend a few billion to keep people from being killed ?!?

For what will it profit a man, if he should gain the world, but lose his soul ?
My motivations are largely religious, but even non-believers can see that in many ways, Americans live hollow lives.
This restores some meaning to the accumulation of wealth.

* To tie together some different threads, the servicemember's death is probably tragic for the Mother, unless she specifically approved of the goal and risk, but not for the servicemember, if he was willing, and not drafted or simply ignorant of what he was getting himself into.
Further, if he joined specifically to go liberate some oppressed peoples, it's a mature decision, but, if he joined to qualify for the GI Bill, or for the "glory" to be found in combat, it's probably an immature decision. Not wrong, necessarily, but immature.

** Not that I don't enjoy quaffing a large, slightly toxic carbonated suger water on occasion, but the only people who could truly benefit from drinking soda are starving people, very few of whom can be found in America.

Michael,

If you want to create an organization of international do-gooders to intervene in trouble spots around the globe and protect the oppressed from their oppressors, lotsa luck.

However, that is a very different matter from using 'American' treasure and lives. Your defense of using the volunteer military to enforce your ideas of social justice, while predictable, is inapposite. Americans are willing to enlist in the military not to do social work but to protect the nation from its foreign enemies. Tutsi, Hutus, Sudanese Muslims and certainly Serb Christians defending themselves from the Muslim savages of Bosnia, do not present a threat of any kind to us, whereas Saddam did and the Afghan Taliban crossed a very definite line.

My compassion for others is extremely limited. I think about my family first, then my fellow countrymen and given the things that we lack here, I think that military intervention to protect gibbering savages who hate us anyway(Iraqi soccer team bring up any memories) is far below the need we have for cheaper medical care, cheaper higher education and debt reduction.

We do not have sufficient treasure and we certainly do not have sufficient personnel to do the job you describe. Somalia should have shown us that.

Michael:

There's the problem.

To a liberal life is a tragedy, to a conservative a comedy.

The possibility of Africans doing it themselves.

Well, Michael, that was cute.

You may be right, though. Bush is an appeaser.

And, according to you, he'd rather be president than moral.

Bart:

I agree, I'd like to see Congress make it legal again for Americans to be mercenaries, and I further agree that an organization specifically devoted to killing evil-doers around the globe should be formed.
People who want to defend American soil can join the traditional military, people who want to kill other people can join the Expeditionary Forces.

Harry:

Not necessarily, he could be just pragmatic.
What's wrong with getting a crust of bread, when the alternative is none ?
Kerry's not calling for US troops to be deployed to the Sudan, and if he's elected, I'll swallow my tongue in shock if he sends any.