** Visit AAM's new website! http://www.africanassociation.org **

To those not already waried by news of the Liberian
conflict, please read on.  The following OP-ED article by
Chester Crocker was taken from the New York Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/01/opinion/01CROC.html).

- Wilmot

*****************************************

August 1, 2003

A War America Can Afford to Stop

By CHESTER A. CROCKER


WASHINGTON

The news that peacekeeping troops from Nigeria and other
West African countries will head into Liberia next week
and that Charles Taylor, the country's thuggish ruler, may
go into exile at that time is to be cheered. But it should
not become an excuse for the United States to delay or
decide against sending ashore its own forces to ensure
Liberia's return to security and political stability.

Liberia is not just another African country. It is an
American creation, founded by former slaves 150 years ago,
reflecting our image and legacy. American leaders have
been ducking the Liberia challenge since Mr. Taylor
launched his rebellion in 1989. But President Bush (in
word if not yet in deed) appears anxious to break with
tradition. Nonetheless, a fierce debate continues within
his administration, hampering America's capacity to lead
and to bring relief to Liberia's suffering people.

Skeptics make a number of arguments. They argue that, with
plenty of work ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's
military is severely stretched and that another commitment
of scarce combat units is the last thing it needs. Some
fret about the possibility of getting sucked into a morass
and make allusions to Somalia and the hideous imagery of
"Black Hawk Down."

In addition, these doubters, hoping to avoid action, have
knowingly set the bar of conditions for American
deployment too high — insisting not only that West African
forces precede us and that Mr. Taylor depart, but also
that a stable cease-fire be in place among the Taylor
loyalists and the two major rebel groups.

But their main criticism has been that Africa simply
doesn't matter — that it is not, as candidate Bush put it
in 2000, part of America's "national strategic interest."
In other words, let the other Africans and the
postcolonial Europeans deal with it — even in a nation
whose capital, currency, flag and political structure all
bear an American imprint.

Some of these arguments make more sense than others. Yes,
American forces are stretched — but if they are too
stretched to spare the few thousand marines President Bush
has already put on ships headed to West Africa, then the
time has come for a major reassessment of America's
readiness for global leadership. If we worry about being
able to keep the peace in Liberia for a few months, we
should worry even more about the conclusions being drawn
from this uncertainty by our rivals and allies alike —
particularly the Chinese, the North and South Koreans and
the Japanese.

As for the Somalia analogy, it is simply a red herring.
Liberians are not warlord-controlled Somalis — they are
not spoiling for a fight, especially with the country they
have always looked to for partnership and even salvation.
For a better comparison, consider what happened in
neighboring Sierra Leone in 2000. Prime Minister Tony
Blair of Britain showed how 1,200 well-trained combat
troops, through a skilled, time-limited intervention,
could resuscitate a floundering United Nations operation
and bring political stability.

Most important, the Liberia crisis does, in fact, affect
significant United States interests. Our efforts would
restore order not just in Liberia but throughout a
troubled region whose stability affects American interests
in combating terrorism and promoting good governance.
Liberia is a specific example of the broader challenge
posed by failed states everywhere, which we are (slowly)
grasping are the incubators of almost every hostile
challenge to American interests and values around the
globe. And if Washington wants other countries to help in
sharing security burdens that fall on its shoulders in the
future, it is essential that it play a lead role in
Liberia today. Finally, this is about stopping, relatively
quickly, a humanitarian disaster at reasonable cost.

In some ways, the intervention has, in effect, already
begun. The American ambassador to the United Nations, John
Negroponte, is working on a resolution to give the
organization's authorization to the peacekeeping forces of
the Economic Community of West African States and any
other members of a coalition of the willing. This
resolution would also call for a follow-on, blue-helmeted
United Nations peace operation to shepherd the country
through reconstruction and political transition.

In addition, the American 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
will be in position to act within a few days. America has
committed $10 million for military logistics and support
to the African countries' initative. A seasoned American
diplomat and former Air Force major general, Jacques
Klein, has been tapped by the United Nations secretary
general, Kofi Annan, to run its Liberia transition effort.
American interests are represented by a gutsy, experienced
ambassador, John Blaney, who has put the heat on Liberian
factions to rein in their gunmen and kept the American
flag flying in Monrovia, the capital, despite pressures
from some in Washington to take it down and look away.

President Bush needs to recognize that the African
nations' decision to send in troops is our chance to act —
that making our role contingent on verified cease-fires or
on Mr. Taylor's confirmed departure would risk losing the
momentum gained this week and only encourage mischief
among the leaders of Liberia's armed factions, whose
control of their own forces is uncertain.

Liberians, at this point, are not capable of finding their
own way back to peace. They want American troops — not
just African neighbors — on the ground to ensure
even-handedness. A self-confident American administration
should not hesitate to have its forces deploy alongside
African troops to ensure that Liberia's 14-year nightmare
will finally end.


Chester A. Crocker, professor of strategic studies at
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, was
assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1981
to 89.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:

        http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html

AAM Website:  http://www.africanassociation.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------