by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 3, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

oised for yet another military mission, the White House now considers sending up to 2,000 "peacekeeping" troops to Liberia, the West African republic once founded by former U.S. slaves. Locked in an endless civil war—as other countries in sub-Saharan Africa—Liberia faces ongoing genocide, partly created by the bloody coup begun in 1997 by Liberia's current president Charles Taylor. With Bush already pledging $12 billion in foreign aid to Africa and with his first trip to the continent slated for mid-July, committing U.S. troops helps mend fences with the U.N. and European Union. Bitter over U.S. policy in Iraq, the U.N.—especially France, Germany and Russia—would like to see the U.S. join international peacekeepers in the region. Since 2000, over 200,000 Liberians have been killed and over 1 million displaced in brutal civil war. Though tragic, Liberia holds no real national security or economic interest to the U.S.

      Fighting the war on terrorism, the U.S. already has over 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Though Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld believes the U.S. can fight more than two fronts, committing U.S. forces to Africa wasn't high on his priority list. "The Pentagon is less interested, as it has plenty of forces deployed already," said a senior White House official, signaling Rumsfeld's reluctance to spread U.S. forces any thinner than necessary. U.S. forces already have their hands full, fighting emerging guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—especially Iraq, where the death toll mounts daily. "The humanitarian crisis clearly calls for some type of response," lending a tenuous rationale for committing more U.S. forces. Regional interests have little to do with sending more troops to yet another global hotspot. While there's no deployment order yet, pressure now mounts for U.S. intervention.

      Humanitarian crises occur daily all over Africa and indeed other parts of the globe. Yet the U.S. must pick and choose its battles, especially given current troop deployments. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a native of Ghana, shows his gamesmanship on the eve of Bush's first trip to Africa. Annan, who vehemently opposed U.S. involvement in Iraq, seeks to regain leverage by throwing down the gauntlet to the White House. Annan urged Bush to commit troops in Liberia, not because he fears a widening humanitarian crisis but because he wants to reassert U.N. influence over U.S. foreign policy. Rumsfeld's initial instincts were correct, resisting Annan's push for U.S. troops in Liberia. Annan cleverly pulls the "race card," pressuring U.S. intervention on the African continent. Highlighting Liberia's connection to U.S. history makes the White House look insensitive for passing on the opportunity.

      Denying that sending troops to Liberia spreads the military too thin, the Pentagon called the idea "just ridiculous" that U.S. forces are currently over-committed. Sending 500-2000 troops to Liberia "is chump change, that's way to the right of the decimal point," said John Pike, a military analyst and director of Global Security.org, a pro-military Washington think tank, claiming the military has plenty of idle troops twiddling their thumbs waiting for a mission. Pike's proclivity toward blindly injecting U.S. troops doesn't take into account a reasonable standard before putting American youth in harms way. Already committed to casualties in Iraq, the White House must pick deployments wisely, not because the Pentagon can't handle it but what's appropriate to U.S. interests. Putting U.S. forces at risk not only endangers troops but creates unwanted liability for the White House busy justifying the current mission in Iraq.

      No matter how you spin it, the use of the U.S. military involvement should pass the test of national security. Humanitarian concerns are best left to foreign aid and non-profits closely tied to important groups and causes. In what has to be a colossal Orwellian flip-flop, the White House went over the top. "The most careful judgments have to get made where the situation is not only involving a matter of clear military issue, but also where a humanitarian issue comes into play," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, getting close to a much-deserved early retirement. Bush's doctrine revolved around using the military "to fight and win wars," not "humanitarian" missions or "nation building." Current involvements Iraq and Afghanistan—costing almost daily American lives—center almost exclusively on "nation building," though it's easy to relate it to the global war on terrorism.

      Committing a few thousand U.S. troops to Liberia won't solve the region's endless tribal warfare or humanitarian catastrophes. Nor does it satisfy the "Bush Doctrine" of using the military "to fight and win wars," not providing a global police force where sovereign governments can't maintain law and order. "And these are close calls. These are difficult calls," said Fleischer, justifying the next impending deployment of U.S. forces. There's no ambiguity about the U.S. military being used to protect U.S. national security. No matter how tragic the situation in Liberia, no American forces should lose their lives to satisfy the U.N.'s need to influence U.S. foreign policy. As casualties now mount in Iraq, the U.N.—especially France, Germany and Russia—will be the first to tell the U.S. "we told you so." If the White House commits troops to Liberia, it shouldn't be because of U.N. arm-twisting.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.