Ivory Coast

[Dayuhan]

So why it is not obvious to State if you want to avoid the "grass getting trampled" (and end up paying billions in humanitarian aid, reconstruction projects etc etc) you take the bad elephants out before they cause damage? Quick and clean.

Who decides which elephants to "take out", and who does the dirty work? Sounds simple enough, but preemptive whacking of leaders we think might do damage raises certain complexities of its own.

[JMA]

Who decides which elephants to "take out", and who does the dirty work? Sounds simple enough, but preemptive whacking of leaders we think might do damage raises certain complexities of its own.

Its been decided, in this case its Laurent Gbagbo. Decided by the UN, the AU, the US, France, Britain etc etc. The bad elephant has been identified.

Who does the dirty work? Why dirty work? Its an international duty towards the people of the Ivory Coast. Can't seem to get ECOWAS to put their money where their mouths are (after bellicose mutterings) and don't hold your breath for NATO countries... the Hungarians are still waiting from 1956 for help against the Soviets. Don't hold your breath for the UN... the people of Rwanda and Srebrenica are still waiting for the UN assistance.

So really there is no cavalry coming to the assistance of the people of Ivory Coast is there.

Short of looking for funding to send Executive Outcomes in to do the business the easy way would be to put a US$1m bountry on Gbagbo's head. I'm sure some bodyguard will go for the money.

The idea is to deal with the elephants before the grass gets trampled.

[Dayuhan]

Its been decided, in this case its Laurent Gbagbo. Decided by the UN, the AU, the US, France, Britain etc etc. The bad elephant has been identified.

Identifying a bad guy is one thing, deciding to "take him out" is another. Who do you expect to do that?

So really there is no cavalry coming to the assistance of the people of Ivory Coast is there.

No, there isn't. Who has interests in the Ivory Coast that would justify the expense of sending the cavalry? Whose cavalry do you think ought to ride to the rescue, and at whose expense?

the easy way would be to put a US$1m bountry on Gbagbo's head. I'm sure some bodyguard will go for the money.

Who do you think should offer - and pay - the money?

The idea is to deal with the elephants before the grass gets trampled.

In the unlikely event that the US or anyone else were to intervene, send cavalry, or start bunging cruise missiles about the place, wouldn't the intervening party be just more elephant trampling the grass? I don't suppose it matters much to the grass whether the elephant doing the trampling is good or bad.

It's all very well to suggest that "we" should go launching cruise missiles, but as far as I know we (the inmates at SWJ) are not in a position to do that. I certainly haven't any cruise missiles at my disposal, have you? Mostly only governments do, and they are somewhat restricted in where they can send them. The US isn't likely to be firing missiles at anyone unless they can at least muster a vague pretense that the target is a threat to US security. The potential for fluctuations in the global price of cocoa does not count as a security threat.

[JMA]

Identifying a bad guy is one thing, deciding to "take him out" is another. Who do you expect to do that?

ECOWAS have been huffing and puffing. But remember my point was it is better to take one person out with minimal collateral damage than to let him start another civil war.

No, there isn't. Who has interests in the Ivory Coast that would justify the expense of sending the cavalry? Whose cavalry do you think ought to ride to the rescue, and at whose expense?

ECOWAS was threatening military action. But I would agree that unless France or the EU put up the cash it will not happen.

Who do you think should offer - and pay - the money?

The country where Ivory Coast has money in the bank. Do the business then take the money from the account. I'm sure President Alassane Ouattara won't mind as long as he get his country back.

In the unlikely event that the US or anyone else were to intervene, send cavalry, or start bunging cruise missiles about the place, wouldn't the intervening party be just more elephant trampling the grass? I don't suppose it matters much to the grass whether the elephant doing the trampling is good or bad.

No. A targeted missile strike is quick and clean and if timed right can fix the problem right then and there.

It's all very well to suggest that "we" should go launching cruise missiles, but as far as I know we (the inmates at SWJ) are not in a position to do that. I certainly haven't any cruise missiles at my disposal, have you? Mostly only governments do, and they are somewhat restricted in where they can send them. The US isn't likely to be firing missiles at anyone unless they can at least muster a vague pretense that the target is a threat to US security. The potential for fluctuations in the global price of cocoa does not count as a security threat.

Cocoa? Yes then maybe Cadbury or Hershey would be prepared to pay so as to keep the cocoa price down and the flow of product stable?

What in my view should be done and whether it is ever done and by whom is not the issue here it is merely a recommended course of action (by me). And given the gross incompetence of the West (and old Soviets) in dealing with Africa over many years a clear change in policy is sorely needed... because in any event the West will pick up the humanitarian bill... and you see if they don't.

[M-A Lagrange]

ECOWAS was threatening military action. But I would agree that unless France or the EU put up the cash it will not happen.

The country where Ivory Coast has money in the bank. Do the business then take the money from the account. I'm sure President Alassane Ouattara won't mind as long as he get his country back.

I am afraid that there is a redundancy here: countries where Ivory Coast has money in bank and EU and France are the same.
And part from UK in an intend to defend catbury, no one is willing, especially the european country called France...

[Stan]

What in my view should be done and whether it is ever done and by whom is not the issue here it is merely a recommended course of action (by me). And given the gross incompetence of the West (and old Soviets) in dealing with Africa over many years a clear change in policy is sorely needed... because in any event the West will pick up the humanitarian bill... and you see if they don't.

JMA,

Not that I'm supporting your cruise missile purchases or anything, but would have to agree 110%.

If we could even slightly fathom the cost of Rwanda and Zaire in humanitarian aid over the last decade, we could have bought the two countries outright and started over again (as long as nobody was over the age of 5 )

Our policies are indeed sorely in need of change. There's none so blind as those who will not see !

BTW, leave your western mentality at the door.... Jungle Rules Apply

[Dayuhan]

But remember my point was it is better to take one person out with minimal collateral damage than to let him start another civil war.

My point was that to "take out" one person there has to be an order for which some individual somewhere has to be accountable, and that this sort of decision comes with major legal and political repercussions. Most nations with cruise missiles at their disposal have laws about paying to have people killed, and about removing money from bank accounts without the approval of the account holder. The decision to send a missile into an army barracks would have to be taken at the Presidential level, and the potential political liability would be... severe, to say the least. In what nation with the capacity to make such a decision do you think such a decision could be made legally and without unacceptable political blowback? Maybe the Russians or the Chinese could get away with it, but that would take some persuading. I doubt that they would give a damn.

Cocoa? Yes then maybe Cadbury or Hershey would be prepared to pay so as to keep the cocoa price down and the flow of product stable?

Wonderful idea... corporate capitalists pay to have an African leader killed to protect their profits. Lawyers and leftists around the world wet their shorts in spasms of ecstasy. Do you think any corporate executive or board is going to authorize a decision like that? You do understand, I assume, what the legal liabilities involved would be...

It ain't happening... and while changes in policy are probably needed, any proposed change involving unilateral intervention in situations where there is no compelling national interest for the intervening party is pretty unrealistic.

If we could even slightly fathom the cost of Rwanda and Zaire in humanitarian aid over the last decade, we could have bought the two countries outright and started over again (as long as nobody was over the age of 5 )

Our policies are indeed sorely in need of change. There's none so blind as those who will not see !

BTW, leave your western mentality at the door.... Jungle Rules Apply

I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

[M-A Lagrange]

I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

Well, a quick topof my skull calculation will make an average of 100 millions/years for 15 years... That would make 1 500 millions$.
Not overwhelming but still makes some money. I doubt that the cost of a reguiment overseas would cost that much more.
Don't forget huanitarian aid is not chea. An average cost for a 6 month project is between 300 and 500 thousands $.

And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one ). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.

[JMA]

My point was that to "take out" one person there has to be an order for which some individual somewhere has to be accountable, and that this sort of decision comes with major legal and political repercussions. Most nations with cruise missiles at their disposal have laws about paying to have people killed, and about removing money from bank accounts without the approval of the account holder. The decision to send a missile into an army barracks would have to be taken at the Presidential level, and the potential political liability would be... severe, to say the least. In what nation with the capacity to make such a decision do you think such a decision could be made legally and without unacceptable political blowback? Maybe the Russians or the Chinese could get away with it, but that would take some persuading. I doubt that they would give a damn.

You are now grouping everything said into one context.

The simple premise I am advocating is that it is better/more cost effective/more intelligent to target the leadership of the illegal organisation/the insurrection/the insurgency than to allow the whole nation to be sucked into a civil war (as in this case). Once that (simple) decision is made in principle the choice of methodology is a totally different matter.

Wonderful idea... corporate capitalists pay to have an African leader killed to protect their profits. Lawyers and leftists around the world wet their shorts in spasms of ecstasy. Do you think any corporate executive or board is going to authorize a decision like that? You do understand, I assume, what the legal liabilities involved would be...

You are wrong. Gbagbo is no longer an African Leader but is now no more than a criminal (like Charles Taylor). Thankfully I fall into the small group whose life and actions are not governed by lawyers and leftists. (you obviously missed the tongue in cheek nature of that comment - I must really remember to use smilies)

It ain't happening... and while changes in policy are probably needed, any proposed change involving unilateral intervention in situations where there is no compelling national interest for the intervening party is pretty unrealistic.

Come on you can't be serious. What was in the compelling national interest in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

The exact cost of humanitarian aid? It you want to know you must find out.

The point I am making is that a strike against an individual is more cost effective in both human and financial/economic terms as allowing matters to slide into civil war.

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

It seems that you are blissfully unaware that the US (certainly) and maybe the EU (but certainly the individual states from time to time) have indulged in behind the scenes extra legal activities.

But in this case we have a person who lost the election refusing to yield. That makes him a criminal. That makes a George Bush "dead or alive" reward quite acceptable.

[JMA]

Well, a quick topof my skull calculation will make an average of 100 millions/years for 15 years... That would make 1 500 millions$.
Not overwhelming but still makes some money. I doubt that the cost of a reguiment overseas would cost that much more.
Don't forget huanitarian aid is not chea. An average cost for a 6 month project is between 300 and 500 thousands $.

And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one ). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.

What costs $100m per year? Just Ivory Coast itself?

The UN Humanitarian Appeal 2011 is for $7.4 billion. That figure does not include what the EU or individual governments contribute directly.

So we are back to JMAs Law: a cruise missile in time saves countless lives and millions in future aid.

[M-A Lagrange]

What costs $100m per year? Just Ivory Coast itself?

The UN Humanitarian Appeal 2011 is for $7.4 billion. That figure does not include what the EU or individual governments contribute directly.

So we are back to JMAs Law: a cruise missile in time saves countless lives and millions in future aid.

I was responding to Stan. 100 million/year is the humanitarian budget of USAID for DRC.
If you include other agencies, you go up to 300 million/year.
Just USAID + EU + DFID= 250 millions/year

Saving lives in sierra places is costly!

[JMA]

I was responding to Stan. 100 million/year is the humanitarian budget of USAID for DRC.
If you include other agencies, you go up to 300 million/year.
Just USAID + EU + DFID= 250 millions/year

Saving lives in sierra places is costly!

Ok, thanks.

So the costs are really phenomenal.

In Ivory Coast the deaths are already over 200 (anyone want to place a cost on that?) and the refugees UNHCR are handling are 22,000 and set to rise to 30,000 shortly.

But all we hear is talk, talk, talk from the diplomats and politicians.

[Stan]

Hey Dayuhan,

I'd be curious to know how much has actually been spent on humanitarian aid, and how it stacks up against, say, the cost of keeping a substantial number of American troops deployed in one of these places. I've never thought the US aid budget was exactly overwhelming.

Ill have to look for the figures in some very old files, but I can give you an idea as to just what the USG did with not only humanitarian support, but also simultaneously providing deployed troops.

We flew fire trucks (to pump and purify water from a dead lake) from California on C5s, deployed and housed troops from Italy, and flew in aid on C130s all in less than two weeks. I rented several acres of land (coupla million) and had to bulldoze the bodies and other undesirable things off it first. I'd have to say in the course of that week alone I blew 50 million using my telephone

One of the problems in these scenarios is that playing by Jungle Rules is politically unacceptable in the US and the EU... and there are all too many people just waiting to hit the media with any evidence that we're playing by those rules. If our domestic audiences won't allow us to play by the rules that prevail on the ground, we're better off not playing at all.

I couldn't agree with you more (then and now). It's not at all PC, but it is reality.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

And by the way, playing by the jungle rule is exactly why Eu and US had an almost "cold war" like through proxy in DRC for 15 years (Ok Stan you can shoot at me at sight for that one ). European countries (mainly France and UK) do play the jungle rule game pretty well.

M-A,
That's exactly what I wanted to say... We don't know how to play by the local rules. And, I agree with Dayuhan - if we don't want to play that way we shouldn't be there with our diplomatic Bravo Sierra speeches.

[M-A Lagrange]

Hey Dayuhan,
Ill have to look for the figures in some very old files, but I can give you an idea as to just what the USG did with not only humanitarian support, but also simultaneously providing deployed troops.

We flew fire trucks (to pump and purify water from a dead lake) from California on C5s, deployed and housed troops from Italy, and flew in aid on C130s all in less than two weeks. I rented several acres of land (coupla million) and had to bulldoze the bodies and other undesirable things off it first. I'd have to say in the course of that week alone I blew 50 million using my telephone
I couldn't agree with you more (then and now). It's not at all PC, but it is reality.
Regards, Stan

Actually, the US last year, just for humanitarian aid in DRC had a nearly $70 million. DFID, had near $60 million and Eu near $50 millions.
That does not include the funds for bilateral cooperation and other things. I am sure the budget in Ivory Coast is also close to that.

And phone can be extremely costly. I remember a bill of 1500 euros (2000 something $) for 24 days in Lebanon in 2006. And that was just me, you had my team of 4 people...

Figures of humanitarian aid are just crazy.

[Stan]

And phone can be extremely costly. I remember a bill of 1500 euros (2000 something $) for 24 days in Lebanon in 2006. And that was just me, you had my team of 4 people...

Figures of humanitarian aid are just crazy.

M-A,
I didn't mean the phone calls were 50 million, but using the phone to call in support and flights which came to over 50 million. TelCel in Goma was $6.00 a minute back then, and you had to provide an initial deposit of $6,000.00 before they would connect you.

I had six phones (one for Mrs Gore who never showed) which we used so much I ended up wiring SATCOM lithium batteries so we could talk for 10 days without a recharge

Now that we're onto minuscule charges, I should note just how much overflight and landing costs were. Most of our bills for one month with 3 to 5 flights a day always had 6 zeros. Seemed the Zairois were fond of zeros

We won't talk about how much 120,000 pounds of Jet A1 cost per aircraft... it would scare you to death !

[JMA]

M-A,
I didn't mean the phone calls were 50 million, but using the phone to call in support and flights which came to over 50 million. TelCel in Goma was $6.00 a minute back then, and you had to provide an initial deposit of $6,000.00 before they would connect you.

I had six phones (one for Mrs Gore who never showed) which we used so much I ended up wiring SATCOM lithium batteries so we could talk for 10 days without a recharge

Now that we're onto minuscule charges, I should note just how much overflight and landing costs were. Most of our bills for one month with 3 to 5 flights a day always had 6 zeros. Seemed the Zairois were fond of zeros

We won't talk about how much 120,000 pounds of Jet A1 cost per aircraft... it would scare you to death !

And remember it was the same country ripping you off for among other things overflight and landing rights etc etc that you were jumping through hoops trying to help. As they say...

[M-A Lagrange]

Stan,

I wasn't talking about that crazy phone call during which I was given 2 min to find ideas to spend 500 000$.

To come back to Ivory Coast, Bagbo seems to have win the first game as Outtara is trying to give an hand and the ECOWAS negotiators are back.

[Dayuhan]

The simple premise I am advocating is that it is better/more cost effective/more intelligent to target the leadership of the illegal organisation/the insurrection/the insurgency than to allow the whole nation to be sucked into a civil war (as in this case). Once that (simple) decision is made in principle the choice of methodology is a totally different matter.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that both decision and method are subject to legal and political constraints.

I also have to wonder if removing a leader will necessarily solve the problem. If we blow up Gbagbo, does Outtara peacefully become President? Or does the other fruitcake, Charlie B. Goode or whatever his name is, lead the mob in storming the Golf Hotel and sending Outtara back north in 57 separate mason jars?

Thankfully I fall into the small group whose life and actions are not governed by lawyers and leftists.

I'm there too... not leftist nor lawyers, the media or public opinion. Not my problem. Of course we're also not elected officials and we don't have our fingers on the cruise missile button. The people who are in that position have to deal with constraints that do not apply to you and me.

Come on you can't be serious. What was in the compelling national interest in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Congress thought there was one. You and I may or may not agree, but they decide. I don't see them, or Obama, or anyone, deciding to send missiles to the Ivory Coast.

The point I am making is that a strike against an individual is more cost effective in both human and financial/economic terms as allowing matters to slide into civil war.

If a civil war is really that imminent, removing one individual is as likely to set it off as to stop it... and again, decisions to "remove" an individual are in the real world subject to legal and political constraint. Those constraints can be overcome if it's something we really, really want to do... but we don't.

I've had occasional fantasies about solving problems with high explosives myself. Easy to think about, but since we all know it isn't going to happen, why bother discussing it?

The calculation of humanitarian aid vs intervention is not just based on money. Aid makes us feel good, intervention makes us feel bad. Politicians like their constituents to feel good.

It seems that you are blissfully unaware that the US (certainly) and maybe the EU (but certainly the individual states from time to time) have indulged in behind the scenes extra legal activities.

That's worked out ever so well in the past... or hasn't it? Saying it with missiles isn't exactly "behind the scenes", and there's a serious deficit of plausible deniability there. Political costs, political benefits.

[M-A Lagrange]

What ever you thought about (assassination, cruiser missile…) it’s too late.
Outtara supporters have decided to fight back. This, according to my academic and field knowledge, is called civil wars or at least the premises.

Ivory Coast policemen die in clashes in Abidjan

At least two police officers have died in fresh fighting overnight in Ivory Coast's main city of Abidjan, in a stronghold of Alassane Ouattara.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12170838

In French speaking media, the body count is already at 4 to 5 policemen. According to some interviews, population in pro Outtara part of the city where it is happening said: they come to kill us why should we not defend our selves…

And frankly, why should they not defend their selves?