What was supposed to be a brief U.S. humanitarian intervention in Somalia appears to have changed into a protracted combat scenario, as U.S. helicopters and fixed-wing gunships pounded targets in Mogadishu, Somalia, in reprisal for the murders of 23 Pakistani peacekeepers and the wounding of 3 Americans in early June. American soldiers on the scene generally believe the United States has "worn out its welcome" in Somalia, but the Clinton administration, in its effort to bolster the United Nations, may be committing U.S. troops to an increasingly dangerous and perhaps insoluble mission while losing public support for Operation Restore Hope. Some conservatives, accepting what is popularly touted as the end of the Cold War, had been willing to embrace almost any new role for America's armed forces for the sake of finding a "post-Cold War" rationale for robust defense spending. This mentality helped produce a precipitous and surprisingly broad-based endorsement of former President Bush's Somalia rescue mission, Operation Restore Hope, despite its heavy cost of about $30-40 million a day. Undoubtedly relentless television footage of emaciated Somalis had a profound impact on U.S. policymakers. Pressure to "do something about Bosnia" may also have forced the easier and politically more acceptable Somalia option.
Historically the U.S. military was used only to defend vital national interests or the safety of Americans overseas, and only as a last resort when diplomacy or economic sanctions had failed. Bush's surprise decision last Thanksgiving to send some 20,000 troops to Somalia, a Muslim nation of some 6.5 million people, represented a radical and perilous break with traditional uses of U.S. military power.
Not all conservatives applauded Bush's move. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyoming) counseled against "media-driven" interventions. Support for Operation Restore Hope continues to erode, with two resolutions introduced in Congress calling for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces: one in 6 months, the other in 12 months.
WEIGHING THE COSTS
The expense of the Somalia mission must be weighed soberly against other defense and domestic spending priorities. Do defense advocates support the transfer of $750 million from "Star Wars" research and other areas of defense spending, including the Marine Corps budget and military training funds, to finance the humanitarian effort in Somalia? Would liberals support cuts in domestic programs to pay for expanded humanitarian aid to Somalia?
Can the U.S. military afford to indulge in philanthropic impulses, or will doing so jeopardize its primary requirement to maintain combat readiness? The Pentagon took
...
