Two Military Actions, Two Continents
Published in El Nuevo Diario
(Nicaragua) on 22 Sep 2014
by Orlando López- Selva (link to original)
(Nicaragua) on 22 Sep 2014
by Orlando López- Selva (link to original)
Translated from
by Sean P. Hunter.
Edited by Emily France.
President Obama announced that he will send 3,000 American soldiers to Africa in order to assist in the fight against Ebola. The virus has caused more than 2,400 deaths in Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal and Nigeria. He also announced the formation of a military coalition composed of 40 countries in order to confront the Islamic State. In this action, only logistics, intelligence, radar and American airplanes will intervene. But there are already 1,300 military advisors in Iraq.
Sending troops to Africa for humanitarian reasons is good news that went unnoticed (or it did not make the impression it should have), due to the fact that other news was announced at the same time: the military strategy to "degrade and destroy the Islamic State" in Iraqi territory. And if Obama’s announcement regarding West Africa didn't cause a stir, it is because — although it involves American soldiers — it does not entail armed conflict. Sadly, Africa is less visible to the international press. Without a doubt, this action by President Obama reflects well on him. We assume that the contingents going to Africa are composed of medical personnel, nurses and healthcare workers.
Going beyond what may signify action, Washington is telling the world that it knows what it’s doing when it comes to aid. Or is Obama only interested in winning over that unjustly treated continent? The argument by the White House is that the Ebola issue is one of national security, and it is a valid one. However, the U.S. has made a few mistakes in their policies with Africa in the past: 1) When 19 American soldiers were killed in the Mogadishu, Somalia battle in 1993 while fighting warlords there, and 2) When the genocide in Rwanda broke out in 1994, during which the Hutu majority murdered some 800,000 Tutsi — the massacre was horrific — and Washington did nothing. All the U.S. did was regret the genocide and remain unaffected by that tragic, bloody disregard for human life. The episode has been compared to the Holocaust.
Why didn’t Russia, so proud of its giant army, send their men to help the Africans? Why doesn’t Vladimir Putin send his fellow citizens to fight against the Ebola epidemic, which has been so deadly for so many helpless and poor people? China already has a hospital in Africa for that purpose with 174 doctors and nurses. The point is that all action does some good, but must all action necessarily involve military resources? Obama is demonstrating that he can also risk American soldiers’ lives by requiring them to help and save others who are fighting a devastating epidemic.
It is true that a coalition is not needed; the issue is a humanitarian one. This does put the United States, already confronted with conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a better position — and they will see very soon that they'll be even more involved, again, in Syria! Paradoxically, if they enter Syria, it will be with the consent of Bashar Assad. A few months ago, Vladimir Putin himself persuaded Obama not to bomb the loyal forces of the Syrian president and ally to Moscow. Has the moral perspective of this scenario changed in less than a year? The point is that the U.S. will indeed do a favor for Assad, whom just a short time ago they classified as an "exterminator of his own people."
These are the twists and turns of the amoral art of politics! The other paradox is that American planes will attack the soldiers of the Islamic State, who have already taken control of a huge part of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The Islamic State, besides being a new enemy of Washington in the 21st century, already possesses an established caliphate (a political-social structure that many radicals support, but one that no Arab state openly recognizes). It is clear that although the two actions parallel one another and relate to security, one is very humanitarian and the other is entirely militaristic. But it is always deplorable when force is chosen over diplomacy. It’s obvious that the Islamic State is not tossing out caramel candies and is a declared enemy of Israel and the entire West.
Although it is not always the case, each time there is an international problem, the United States, having at its disposal so many valuable and capable human resources, only confines its missions to military ones. A counter-argument to this would be that only armies have the best and fastest equipment and logistics capable of deploying and setting up in any part of the planet. But isn’t now the time to conceive of other ways to help that do not involve sending armed and uniformed soldiers?
Sending troops to Africa for humanitarian reasons is good news that went unnoticed (or it did not make the impression it should have), due to the fact that other news was announced at the same time: the military strategy to "degrade and destroy the Islamic State" in Iraqi territory. And if Obama’s announcement regarding West Africa didn't cause a stir, it is because — although it involves American soldiers — it does not entail armed conflict. Sadly, Africa is less visible to the international press. Without a doubt, this action by President Obama reflects well on him. We assume that the contingents going to Africa are composed of medical personnel, nurses and healthcare workers.
Going beyond what may signify action, Washington is telling the world that it knows what it’s doing when it comes to aid. Or is Obama only interested in winning over that unjustly treated continent? The argument by the White House is that the Ebola issue is one of national security, and it is a valid one. However, the U.S. has made a few mistakes in their policies with Africa in the past: 1) When 19 American soldiers were killed in the Mogadishu, Somalia battle in 1993 while fighting warlords there, and 2) When the genocide in Rwanda broke out in 1994, during which the Hutu majority murdered some 800,000 Tutsi — the massacre was horrific — and Washington did nothing. All the U.S. did was regret the genocide and remain unaffected by that tragic, bloody disregard for human life. The episode has been compared to the Holocaust.
Why didn’t Russia, so proud of its giant army, send their men to help the Africans? Why doesn’t Vladimir Putin send his fellow citizens to fight against the Ebola epidemic, which has been so deadly for so many helpless and poor people? China already has a hospital in Africa for that purpose with 174 doctors and nurses. The point is that all action does some good, but must all action necessarily involve military resources? Obama is demonstrating that he can also risk American soldiers’ lives by requiring them to help and save others who are fighting a devastating epidemic.
It is true that a coalition is not needed; the issue is a humanitarian one. This does put the United States, already confronted with conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a better position — and they will see very soon that they'll be even more involved, again, in Syria! Paradoxically, if they enter Syria, it will be with the consent of Bashar Assad. A few months ago, Vladimir Putin himself persuaded Obama not to bomb the loyal forces of the Syrian president and ally to Moscow. Has the moral perspective of this scenario changed in less than a year? The point is that the U.S. will indeed do a favor for Assad, whom just a short time ago they classified as an "exterminator of his own people."
These are the twists and turns of the amoral art of politics! The other paradox is that American planes will attack the soldiers of the Islamic State, who have already taken control of a huge part of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The Islamic State, besides being a new enemy of Washington in the 21st century, already possesses an established caliphate (a political-social structure that many radicals support, but one that no Arab state openly recognizes). It is clear that although the two actions parallel one another and relate to security, one is very humanitarian and the other is entirely militaristic. But it is always deplorable when force is chosen over diplomacy. It’s obvious that the Islamic State is not tossing out caramel candies and is a declared enemy of Israel and the entire West.
Although it is not always the case, each time there is an international problem, the United States, having at its disposal so many valuable and capable human resources, only confines its missions to military ones. A counter-argument to this would be that only armies have the best and fastest equipment and logistics capable of deploying and setting up in any part of the planet. But isn’t now the time to conceive of other ways to help that do not involve sending armed and uniformed soldiers?