Caution Versus Chaos

Why isn't the U.S. doing more? Why doesn't the Clinton administration send in ground combat troops to bring stability and restore the peace? Why not use U. S. combat troops in Africa, just as they are used in Kosovo, in Europe? Why are things moving so slowly?

These and similar questions are being asked at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon by reporters watching Clinton administration officials scramble to find a way to restore peace to Sierra Leone.

Rebels have been holding some 500 U.N. peacekeepers hostage in the bush for almost a week now.

It was just a year ago that a cease-fire was brokered between the government and rebel leader Foday Sankoh, head of the Revolutionary United Front.

That stopped a particularly cruel variety of civil strife in West Africa, which featured Sankoh's troops hacking off limbs of innocent civilians—including young children—and committing an untold number of rapes and murders.

A regional political organization, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), took the lead last summer in getting the government and the RUF to sign a peace deal known as the Lome Accords.

With the capture of the U.N. troops, most of whom are from Zambia, the current crisis has caused chaotic conditions and the evacuation of most of the Americans in Sierra Leone.

Though State Department spokesman Philip Reeker says the U.S. Embassy in Freetown is still open, only Amb. Joseph Melrose, Jr. and a small handful of diplomats remain.

So far, the U.S. has agreed to provide airlift capability to bring in combat troops from Bangladesh and perhaps from other countries. It may also provide logistics and communications equipment with a small number of personnel needed to operate the equipment.

But there is no talk of providing ground combat troops.

Officially, spokesman Reeker says, the U.S. is working with the U.N. and the international community, noting the current crisis is due to the failure of rebel leaders to keep the word they gave.

Diplomats point out that U.S. troops were used in Kosovo within the context of NATO, the regional organization in Europe which handled the military effort to get the Serbs out of Kosovo.

As one U.S. official says, "You have to be extremely judicious in how far you can go and how much force you can apply."

Another U.S. official, requesting anonymity, is more blunt: "We don't want to unilaterally impose our will on the players."

What is not pointed out so readily is another powerful reason the Clinton administration isn't discussing deploying ground troops: there is very little political support for the use of ground troops on Capitol Hill.

There are other reasons for the delayed reaction, and for the hesitancy to commit U.S. forces.

Responding to a crisis like the one in Sierra Leone is a little tricky and takes time to work out. The U.S. is trying to work with the U.N. and wit ECOWAS, which has a military component known as ECOMOG. We want to do this, said the official, "in a spirit of partnership."

There's also the question of logistics. Moving hundreds of troops—perhaps a few thousand soldiers—into Sierra Leone is not easy. Airport facilities are limited and there are problems with basic communications and having enough supplies on hand.

One U.S. official noted, it took several weeks to get help into Mozambique recently, and that was for disaster relief, not to quell a revolt by rebel troops holding hostages.

Another hurdle to jump is to figure out who would be in charge of the troops sent to Sierra Leone. Will it be the U.N., or ECOWAS? Diplomats in New York, Washington, Europe and Africa will need to sort that out.

So anyone looking for a quick fix will be disappointed. Working with partners—especially many partners—takes time. Remember Bosnia? Remember Kosovo? Remember last year and what it took to get the Lome Accords signed?

For the moment, chaos and uncertainty will prevail. Stability and peace will have to wait for another day.