US peacekeeping forces not peacekeeping

billybobskybillybobsky
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Saw this in the nytimes the beginning of the article is the kicker:

Quote:



U.S. Troops in Liberia Not 'Peacekeepers,' Pentagon Says

By DAVID STOUT



WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 ? The Pentagon said today that about 200 more United States troops could soon go ashore in Liberia ? but officials emphasized that their mission was not peacekeeping in the usual sense.



Rather, their purpose will be "to achieve a stable environment so that humanitarian assistance can be provided to the people of Liberia, and also to facilitate the transition to a U.N.-led international peacekeeping operation," Maj. Gen. Norton Schwartz said, his language reflecting the Bush administration's and military leaders' wariness on Liberia.



Has the political spin doctoring gotten so tough that even conventional accepted definitions are no longer respected? I mean what does it mean "to achieve a stable environment" if that does not mean peacekeeping?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Well I think the deal is that the Republican's made such a big stink about the US Peacekeeping forces in Kosovo that the idea of actually having to send troops on a similar mission to africa might scare their constituency.



    OR Republican's just have a big problem with the word peace. hehe.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Well I think the deal is that the Republican's made such a big stink about the US Peacekeeping forces in Kosovo that the idea of actually having to send troops on a similar mission to africa might scare their constituency.



    OR Republican's just have a big problem with the word peace. hehe.



    It's hardly sensible to go into a country that has just ousted a less than benevolent dictator..



    The US government is right in showing caution..the whole situation in Liberia is much too fluid & the US would not want to be seen siding with the deposed leader's group or the rebels...



    Peacekeeping is generally requested thru the UN but since there in no effective interim goverment in Liberia, this request is hardly going to come from them.



    So the cautious " softly " approach might have its detractors, but it certainly has merit in the long term..



    First thing is to disarm both groups or at least have them cease ( & withdraw ) all hostilities so that food & medicines can be supplied to the populace.



    This require "trust" from both sides...



    You'd hardly get that if you went in guns blazing...
  • Reply 3 of 6
    longhornlonghorn Posts: 147member
    Sounds like what they mean is that peace will be enforced so long as it has something to do with distributing food/water/aid to folks. However, they aren't going to be going out of their way to stop any and all violence in the country.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    in all honesty, they are enforcing a peace on this nation and hence they are peacekeepers. Peacekeepers do not have the obligation to go after those are causing the violence, their presence acts as a deterent as such. I am with the theory that Bush;s administration knows its constituency does not like the concept of peace keeping and nation building (well at least until recently) and that in order to pacify those voices they are claiming that these soldiers are not peacekeepers, but merely keepers of the peace. The Liberians want the US in Liberia, and that has been made perfectly clear. The US's troops remain in Afganistan and Iraq even without a legitimate intermediate government (in the sense that in both cases the people did not elect their respective leaders or administrators), so that argument is incredibly flawed. If we were to follow Aquafire's claim, then after we tople a government we should exit a nation as soon as possible until they have an authority that is legitamate and then we should send in the peacekeepers. What type of logic is that?

    Even in Liberia, where it can be argued weakly that the US was not responsible for the failures of that government, Bush did call for Taylor's resignation and did everything in his power to push him out. When such a request is made by the "leader of the most powerful country in the world," he should take the resonsibility to ensure that the country gets back on its feet, and this includes sending in people to peacekeep and admitting that you are doing as such.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    The key term here is "keeping". Its not "keeping" if there is nothing to be kept. I think the UN lingo for such actions are peace creating operations.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    It's hardly sensible to go into a country that has just ousted a less than benevolent dictator..



    On the other hand, commiting vast amounts of troops and hardware to actually oust a less the benevolent dictator is perfectly sensible.



    Forgive me if I'm uh underwhelmed.
Sign In or Register to comment.