TheOtherView
Opinions from around the country

Important intervention in Liberia put on hold
Only 11 days after making a much-welcomed arrival in Liberia, the 150-man U.S. Marine contingent returned to their ships, leaving thousands of Liberians in confusion and despair as President Bush and the Pentagon reconsider an active role in the chaotic nation.

Let’s hope the hesitation is only temporary. Already, Bush’s commitment to Africa coerced former Liberian president and indicted war criminal Charles Taylor to flee, expediting a much- needed temporary peace from their 14-year civil war. A well-executed deployment could go even further in finally ending the nightmare in Liberia.

No one should blame American leaders for being cautious in light of what happened in Somalia in 1993. But Liberia is a much different situation. Both sides participating in the civil war have requested American intervention. There will be no need to remove a ruling warlord as American soldiers attempted to do on that fateful mission in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Nor will this peacekeeping mission become another present-day Iraq. Liberia is one of the few places in the world where unabashed admiration toward America outweighs cynicism. And the United Nations and West Africa have already pledged their support in peacekeeping and nation-building, reducing the possibility that America will be in the same kind of morass it is currently involved in with Iraq.

Although action in Liberia would certainly bolster America’s proud reputation as the nation who acts decisively when humanitarian action is needed, it would not force America into the unwanted role of the world’s policeman. Liberia was founded by freed slaves under the patronage of former President James Monroe and adopted a flag and constitution patterned after ours. Traditionally, it has been a valuable exporter of rubber. More recently, it was a close African ally during the Cold War, allowing America to use its territory for bases and voting along with America in international forums.

The most immediate benefit of intervention, though, is the possibility of ending a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions more. Bush is justified in being hesitant. And he is correct to hint that America’s involvement will be limited in scope: American soldiers should be brought in only to halt the fighting — let the U.N. and West Africa do the nation-building.

This is a staff editorial from the Iowa State Daily at Iowa State University.
This editorial was distributed by U-Wire.