Mader Blog

The situation in Liberia is now front page news as President Bush and his administration debate intervention. It’s hard to say exactly why the crisis has garnered so much attention – the country isn’t strategically important, and the humanitarian crisis, though not to be understated, certainly pales in comparison to that of the DRCongo. Perhaps the summertime news-lull has elevated a peripheral issue to center-stage. Perhaps the focus on Liberia is a testament to the successes in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider war on terror. Or perhaps the decision to intervene in Liberia really does merit front-page status in a way that even the UN mission to Congo didn’t.
I’ve been talking about Liberia for a few weeks, although even I was years too late on Africa, and so I’m certainly glad that the region is now a subject of discussion and debate. I’ve also called for intervention in the region. But now that intervention seems possible – and even likely – I find myself hesitant, second-guessing my assumptions and arguments.
In part I’m surprised to find myself in the company of an unlikely group urging the United States to intervene. The UN, the French and the liberal chattering-classes have decided that intervention is America’s moral imperative – a fortiori given Liberia’s historical connection to the United States. There’s much to be written on the social-democratic aversion to interest-driven conflict given the apparent – and repeated – willingness to engage in wars for little other than emotional reasons. As the Wall Street Journal editorializes, the left’s eagerness for intervention suggests that “liberating Iraqis from a dictator was an act of imperialism, but sorting out a civil war in West Africa is now America’s moral obligation. We suppose,” the Journal continues, “we should be grateful that the French and U.N. have rediscovered the virtues of American power.”
Indeed. But while the left’s calls for intervention may be hypocritical, they aren’t necessarily wrong. The argument that humanitarian crises present a security threat isn’t entirely persuasive, but it has its merit. Moreover, the explicit connection that the President has enunciated between tyranny and terrorism suggests a necessary re-evaluation of the African situation. If tyranny breeds a hostility to democracy and allows the reallocation of resources to anti-democratic non-state actors, Africa must surely be a focus of concern.
If nothing else, Liberia presents an opportunity in a region that affords few. It would be extraordinarily difficult to occupy, say, Somalia, which has no state infrastructure to speak of. Congo, which more or less defines the Central African crisis, is orders of magnitude bigger than anything anyone’s prepared to deal with. But Liberia – which is relatively small, and therefore theoretically manageable, and which enjoys a relatively high degree of governmental organization – may represent a happy medium.
My hesitency, then, also isn’t driven by a fear that the US, even with an over-burdened military deploying a small-scale force, isn’t up to the job. My concern is whether, given the sudden calls for intervention from uncommon sections, and the desire of some administration members to do good by the ‘international community’, a US intervention will be done right. And a truly successful intervention will not follow the 1990s ‘peace-keeping’ rubrick. It must resemble, more than anything, trusteeship – what those same leftist cheerleaders, devoid of historical awareness, would undoubtedly call ‘imperialism’.
Moreover, such a project, once begun, would inevitably extend beyond Liberia – in part to achieve a proper stability in the initial target country, but in part to bring the benefits of such an endeavor to neighboring countries. At present there is absolutely no political will, not to mention military capacity, to engage in such a project. But once American troops have successfully pacified Liberia (something not to be taken for granted, but not to be unduly doubted), questions will inevitably be asked, and the temptation for expansion will be great.
The decision to intervene, then, may well be more important that it otherwise might seem. The President is therefore to be applauded for his cautious approach. If the Pentagon and the forces ultimately report that an intervention is inadvisable, proponents of African democratization should not be disheartened. If, on the other hand, an expeditionary force is deployed, we must be active in tracking its progress, and in making the case for a proper and therefore intermediate- or long-term mission. If the deployment is successful, and is of an appropriate size and mandate, it will fade into the background once more. If it is not, we can expect Liberia to dominate the front page once more – and we none of us will like what we read.
MORE: The Times says that President Bush is serious about Africa, and has proved it with both words and deed.
Add the Economist to the list of new-found friends, as they welcome the President’s focus on Africa with a feature story in the latest edition.
(18:15) In the Australian, James Morrow says that the left should stop being confounded by President Bush’s humanitarian actions. He ties Liberia into the greater African strategy that Bush appears to be following:

As former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Herman Cohen puts it, Liberia is a place where “everyone wants to be an American”. In short, despite the complaints of Pentagon officials that their forces are spread thin enough already, any action in Liberia would likely be quick and largely painless…
Besides the relative ease of sorting out the troubles in Liberia before handing it over to some sort of UN-led interim government (East Timor provides an excellent model for such a system), a US-led effort to stop the mayhem in Liberia would be an unquestioned humanitarian good; over 200,000 people have died in the dozen years of Liberia’s civil war. Bush, as a Christian, seems no longer content to let the US stand on the sidelines of human misery, despite his earlier rhetoric about humility abroad.
The notion that if the US can save lives somewhere, it ought to do so, rather than surrender power to international talking shops that settle for easy, feel-good solutions that do nothing to help ordinary people, has clearly taken hold in the White House…
Those on the Left who are driven mad by the man they derisively call “Dubya” and his use of US power should stop to consider their prejudices – and the alternatives. If they truly care about people, they might find that Bush isn’t so scary after all.

Indeed.