Back at ya !
Sorry, I did say no offense and, it is not a hit on you personally, rather your comments, which are based on proxy training (your words, not mine). Jungle training (the physical environment and not some actual forest or jungle) is a technical term for those that hang at the Embassy as if protected by some force field, all the while reporting on what their local cooks and gardeners tell them. Surprisingly, that info gets passed to DC as if the reporting officer really went out and did some factual research.Originally Posted by ganulv
I'm more than certain that your better half has seen quite a bit... But I'm not discussing this situation with her. I guess it's easy to watch TV and read publications without ever being there. I doubt it's that easy however to come to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not. Your comments about the French troops made me wonder what you based your comments on (as if you'd been there, done that).
I didn’t say you have nothing useful to contribute, but your comments about the French, in a situation I assume you know little about, got me going in a cynical path. Although I'm frequently accused of solving many Africa-related problems before they fester, I’m no firefighter. My point about the region therefore remains the same – nothing has changed and getting weak over the French troops protecting themselves in a country they have been in since before I was born tells me they know what they are doing.
I welcome your ideas on how to turn off places like the DRC and Ivory Coast so long as you don’t dump a “one liner” about your dissatisfaction on how the troops deal with a local situation while you sit comfortable at home behind the keyboard. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m a smart ass !
Touché
Not much other than several ethnic groups, their own culture, food, famous for something supposedly no one else has, kleptocracy and military dictatorship through the early 90s. I just described half of Africa where there are 400 tribes, and all the trappings and problems. That said you would have been more careful describing a cookie-cutter cure for the Ivory Coast a few posts back. No ?
Regards, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Hyvää iltaa,
I think I've worked out the problem
There is like a simulation exercise or some kinda of sanction exercise every year. It's like these dudes are either in the UK or Geneva most of the time
If we could get them farther south to JMA's place, he could whip them into shape, save cash on all that travel and get us some Tomahawks
Terv, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Carl,
So eloquently said in just one para !
It's like you were there or something
If you want to blend in, take the bus
That’s exactly the opposite of what I am trying to describe. What I am trying to say is that each situation needs to be looked at it in its own historical and social context. There’s no reason to try and argue that even as warfare goes warfare as done in Africa tends to be particularly foul (though not invariably—the Christmas War being one deviant case) but that doesn’t make the “we need to stop this before it becomes Rwanda” narrative tenable. That notion warps discussion of every tense situation that arises in contemporary Africa. Heck, it even seems to prevent some people from seeing basic facts. One thing I am trying to suggest on this thread is that the this-is-gonna-be-the-next-Rwanda isn’t the best option to predict what might occur in Côte d'Ivoire. The opposing factions can be characterized by ethnic and religious attributes, yes, but don’t 1) the degree of geographic segregation between the groups involved and 2) the fact that the groups involved enjoy the affiliation of military and paramilitary forces of broadly comparable strength make the Ivorian qualitatively different?That said you would have been more careful describing a cookie-cutter cure for the Ivory Coast a few posts back. No ?
I guess it's easy to watch TV and read publications without ever being there. I doubt it's that easy however to come to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not.You can say “no offense” and “I’m a smart ass !” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re using rhetoric to get away from addressing whether the use of further force is going to do anything but harm in this situation. What I have or have not experienced of this conflict in particular or of war in general has only so much bearing on how well I or anyone else is able to understand this or any other conflict. If it did then every professional soldier would have a clear and nuanced understanding of the political and historical context of the wars they prosecute.I welcome your ideas on how to turn off places like the DRC and Ivory Coast so long as you don’t dump a “one liner” about your dissatisfaction on how the troops deal with a local situation while you sit comfortable at home behind the keyboard. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m a smart ass !
In case it is unclear, “com[ing] to some conclusion that will resolve what decades have not” is exactly what I saying that the decision to use military force (or assassinate Gbagbo, etc.) will amount to. As for the French attacks on the Ivorian military assets, do note that I judged it to be justified (though if you really think it was mostly about self-defense I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you). What I called into question is whether it resulted in a strategic gain. As I said, hindsight is 20/20. I suspect that is why you have not and probably will not see a repeat.
Still "Hyvää iltaa",
though nearing the midnight hour.
No, I don't buy the "targeted sanctions" nor JMA's "miracle missiles" (though closer to the latter). My policy comes down to boots on the ground as a surer (not a certain) measure of "success" - "success" being defined by the underlying policy that drives the mission.
All that comes at a cost. In many cases, the fight is not worth the effort. We may differ in opinion on that one.
Regards
Mike
Good news for the people of the Ivory Coast... or is it?
The US President has said:
Is that so? So what will be the trigger for action?Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.
He went on to say in respect of Libya:
So what makes the Ivory Coast different?And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Realistically and beyond rhetoric, probably not much. Get a coalition together that's willing to put in meaningful (not token) participation, ask for US help, you'd probably get some. Wait for the US to charge out in front and cajole, coerce, and bribe others into joining, you'll wait a long time. Wait for unilateral US action, you'll wait an even longer time.
The world has seen way too much of unilateral US action and nominal coalitions driven purely by US initiative, putting a vaguely international facade on what is essentially an American action. Hasn't worked well for the US and it's generated almost entirely negative perceptions and responses around the world. The current President campaigned on a promise to change that, and appears to be trying to actually fulfill the promise. Shocking, I know, but it happens.
Certainly you can argue that these situations create a global responsibility and that the US has an obligation to support and where needed participate in multilateral actions aimed at meeting that responsibility. I can't see any even vaguely credible argument suggesting that there is a purely American responsibility there, or that the US has any responsibility to act unilaterally.
Here we go... wonder where he learned that?
Benin Opposition Leader Houngbedji Claims Presidency as Tensions Increase
Thanks heavens there are no western interests here.Benin’s opposition presidential candidate, Adrien Houngbedji, declared himself winner of the country’s March 13 election, disputing figures that put him in second place and out of contention for a runoff.
Stan, time to present him with a brand new jewel encrusted iPhone with a built-in GPS just in case something needs to find his exact position later
Last edited by JMA; 03-29-2011 at 01:22 PM.
No problem yet folks...
At a time like this it is hard not to question the sincerity of these words of Obama:Some 30,000 people are trapped in a church compound in Ivory Coast as fighting worsens in the west of the country, a missionary has told the BBC.
... an absolutely hopeless case...And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Agreed; I think we are all looking at cultural aspects herein while considering a course of action. I personally don’t recall comparing Côte d'Ivoire to Rwanda other than both being in Africa and both suffering from very similar circumstances requiring very similar techniques to resolve the current impasse. In fact, the two countries couldn’t be more different IMO. I don’t see genocide in the immediate future, but I do see a massive refugee crisis and subsequent humanitarian effort in the looms. The other common denominators are no balance of military power among the opposing parties and, little to no control over the current military forces. We are almost witnessing a typical African “payday to payday” social upheaval while we sit back and play the economic sanctions game via the UN.
No rhetoric this time around then – The time to fix the Ivory Coast with some dignity and lives saved is long gone and the political situation will carry on for years. One candidate will hopefully die soon while the other lives in relative luxury with 3 squares a day in a hotel suite he could never afford a single night in, and French military protection to boot. Both parties are doing quite well under the circumstances and have no need to depart. However, the population and military are not doing so well. Both are starving, but only one has firearms and a spiteful arrogance that we should be concerned with. Trouble is an air war can no longer cure this situation and similar to the DRC, there is no limit to how many UN troops you can adequately put on the ground and still fail miserably.
A particularly sore subject, which JMA might expand on depending on his current humor level today ! The fact is we do have professional civilians and soldiers with both experience and a clear understanding that would lead to a swift and far less painless outcome. The problem with that scenario is we are hamstrung by PC. Years ago those so-called swift resolutions took place via proxy armies and (ahem) contractors. We stayed out of the lime light and the job got done with less money and no frills. I’m waiting for the day such efforts make it to WikiLeaks. Good thing we didn’t have much of an internet then !
What decades have taught most of us is how to deal effectively with Africans and everybody goes home a winner. Assassinating Gbagbo would have solved many issues and fast. Too late, and we don't need another African martyr with his few loyal followers in the jungle waiting for their chance at governance.
My thoughts regarding your Arizona property for sale are…that your comments be based on experience and facts. As you have noted, you have not personally worked in nor witnessed civil war, social and political upheaval, or participated in a UN mission anywhere in the world. The French response was just as much self-defense as it was a measure of deterrent. To think it won’t happen again is wishful thinking and a smiggin naïve. For a soldier, that could be your final lesson.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan, it all about the inability to act timeously against one individual (and normally a few of his military cronies) with the subsequent cost to millions of people in terms of deaths or as refugees or in terms of general geographic instability spilling over into neighbouring countries. The Brits have just thrown 16 million pounds into the emergency aid pot for the Ivory Coast and there will no doubt be much more to follow from all over. It will become a largely avoidable bottomless pit for aid money and a humanitarian disaster. The financial and human costs are rising as we predicted.
Last edited by JMA; 03-29-2011 at 10:19 PM.
Why would we not be able to sit it out and watch? It's what we've done more often than not. We sat and watched 500,000 dead Indonesians and 2 million dead Cambodians. We watched dozens of tinpot dictators in Latin American kill anyone who disagreed with them... and once we stopped meddling, both SE Asia and Latin America slowly pulled themselves together and have made real progress.
We're sitting out and watching Somalia, Zimabwe, and any number of others, we can certainly do the same with the Ivory Coast. If the alternative is unilateral intervention, we will almost certainly sit it out and watch. If you assume that the US has an absolute responsibility to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, this is indeed quite despicable, but I can't see how any such responsibility can be reasonably said to exist.
It is possibly a wee bit Pavlovian, but whenever I hear talk of "fixing" other countries I get the urge to be far far away. Luckily in this case I already am far far away.
What jobs did we really get done? Look at those countries we "fixed" with proxies and contractors; what do they look like today? Did anything really get "fixed", or did we just slap a lid on and kick it down the road?
Early intervention and "fixing" problems before they get out of hand seem attractive, and make sense in the context of any given problem. In a wider picture they're not so attractive. Foreign intervention in general and US intervention in particular are typically not perceived as humanitarian - they are seen as neo-colonial power grabs aimed at expanding the influence of the vast pernicious corporate capitalist empire. That perception prevails even when the site of the intervention hasn't got any resource or market that's worth anything: logic is not a factor in this picture. For better or worse, the US government has determined that it needs to reverse the image of the US as ever-eager intervener of first resort, awaiting any opportunity to dive into the affairs of other countries. For better or worse, the current administration has chosen to try to reverse that image by working primarily through multilateral organizations and by treating intervention as a last resort, not a preferred option. Whether any of us agree with that or not is pretty irrelevant, the guy who campaigned on that platform won the election. Nobody should expect early interventions, or unilateral interventions, from the US any time soon, especially where the US has no interests.
I personally have to agree with that policy: I wouldn't call humanitarian intervention a bad thing, but if we treat it or accept it as a purely American responsibility we put ourselves in an impossible position. It's either everybody's responsibility or nobody's responsibility. The world at large has never appointed the US as global policeman and I can't see how it's in our interest to force ourselves into that role.
I don’t think what we’ve been doing (and still are doing) could be classified as sitting out and watching. If we do call it that, it’s getting pretty expensive (doing nothing in the region). If we call doing nothing in the Ivory Coast since 99 (exerting our political Sierra to save the Ivory Coast from the French), then you’d certainly be correct in your assumptions. Point is, if we jump in head first with our intended good will to hold free and fair elections in a country that has never had those then we should be ready to back our Bravo Sierra. The current administration will not sit and watch, which, I think they should. I’m not advocating US involvement – on the contrary, I am all for leaving it alone and spend our humanitarian money on our own population.
I know exactly where you’re coming from as I was far too close, way too many times when the USG came in waving our flag for democracy and slapping the dictators around in a foolish attempt to have them step down.
We accomplished what the current administration wanted to fix. Now, whether we can call it fixing things is another matter.
I think you may have mistaken my intent. I advocate we fix what we f**ked up and do it with a little more style than spouting political Bravo Sierra in a country that we concluded needed help becoming democratic. In Africa one does not sit and watch the pot boil over - cultural awareness = style !
I hope that works out to be true because from where I’m sitting the last four years are no improvement.
I personally would not call what we did and are purportedly doing to repair our image, as humanitarian anything. The military is not a humanitarian tool in the president’s kit bag. We have beltway bandits and NGOs to do the humanitarian thing. We are not global policeman, but we should be held accountable for our witless political Sierra and be ready to clean up where we blew it.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Personally I think the international community appears content to sit and watch Ouattara's forces conquer the country, unlike the last time. Whether the northern forces can do so without widespread human rights violations is the question.
Like was saying Staline in 1945 about Berlin: You can't ask a man to walk 5000 km under fire without having some fun on arrival point.
Never the less, it is Outtara interrest to hold tight his troops on that particular point.
Hey M-A,
Probably not, but I'll bet Gbagbo will take full advantage of the situation to include breaking his cease fire (well, once he returns from yet another funded convention this month). With his Young Patriots now called back into the action, the blue helmets will be really enjoying the fireworks !
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Well, I may disagree with you, just because I want to have a clinical view on the situation. And also, it's on the interrest of Europ and US to make sure that Outtara does not give a chance to Gbagbo to actually break the cease fire.
Tell me, is AU the new magic trick that US have found in Africa to withdraw?
I am quite amazed by all the efforts made by the US to pass the baby to that particular association of "malfaiteurs" all over sub saharian Africa.
It shouldn't be long now, M-A !
Forces loyal to UN-backed President-elect Alassane Ouattara have captured Ivory Coast's capital, residents of Yamoussoukro say.Good question. Let's see, we are the only non-African mission at the AU and have over $400 million invested in peace keeping operations, another couple of million "donated" to suport political affairsTell me, is AU the new magic trick that US have found in Africa to withdraw? I am quite amazed by all the efforts made by the US to pass the baby to that particular association of "malfaiteurs" all over sub saharian Africa.and $250K to (ahem) support diplomatic initiatives (that money was a real dumb idea !).
In sum, I'd say we own the AU
If you want to blend in, take the bus
I'm not that sure that owning such a baby monster means having control of it.[LIST=1]
Good question. Let's see, we are the only non-African mission at the AU and have over $400 million invested in peace keeping operations, another couple of million "donated" to suport political affairs
In sum, I'd say we own the AU
And yes, seems it won't take long now. But if I was Outtara I would go for the big price and heat the cherry on the top of the cake.
If it happens, anyways, that would be a good message for the continent: guys, now time to play fair! If you loose: you loose!
let see what it will bring in DRC.
To say nothing of ....
the 82 books donated by the US to the AU library this month. The salient question is whether a copy of the Federalist Papers was included.
OK, perhaps of more importance - JMA can tell us (emphasis added):
Regards25 March 2011
President Obama’s Message to Côte d’Ivoire
The eyes of the world are on Cote d’Ivoire. Last year’s election was free and fair and President Alassane Ouattara is the democractically elected leader of the nation. And I commend President Ouattara for offering a peaceful future for all Ivorians — an inclusive government, reunification and reconciliation.
Now Cote d’Ivoire is at a crossroad and two paths lay ahead.
One path is where Laurent Gbagbo and his supporters cling to power, which will only lead to more violence, more innocent civilians being wounded and killed and more diplomatic and economic isolation.
Or Cote d’Ivoire can take another path. Where Gbagbo follows the example of leaders who reject violence and abide by the will of the people.
Where Ivorians reclaim your country and rebuild a vibrant economy that was once the admiration of Africa. And where Cote d’Ivoire is welcomed back into the community of nations.
This is the choice that must be made.
And it’s a choice for all Ivorians.
I want to close by speaking directly to the people of Cote d’Ivoire.
You have a proud past, from gaining your independence to overcoming civil war. Now you have the opportunity to realize your future. You deserve a future of hope, not fear. You deserve leaders like President Ouattara, who can restore your country’s rightful place in the world. You deserve the chance to determine your own destiny.
It’s time for democracy in Cote d’Ivoire. And those who choose that path will have a friend and partner in the United States of America.
Mike
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks