For those of us who like to mark anniversaries (or at least remember the historical antecedents of what is happening in our world), here's a good one: fifteen years ago this week, in December 1992 (in other words, after he had lost the election to Bill Clinton), President George H.W. Bush committed US troops to Somalia. With weeks left in his one-term presidency
Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.
The deployment of 28,000 US troops was said to be the result of the "CNN-ization" of humanitarian intervention, and led to comedic scenes of peaceful beaches being stormed by fully armored soldiers, filmed by international TV news crews awaiting their arrival. Less than a year later (the troops were not, of course, sent home before the new president took office), the situation is anything but funny, and after the "Blackhawk Down" episode, President Clinton starts the draw down of American troops.
Fast forward to 2008, and we can take President George W. Bush at his word when he tells us that the commitment of US troops in Iraq "extends beyond my presidency." Indeed, while the world was watching the Annapolis Conference on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Bush Administration set the stage with the Maliki government to bond Iraq and the US forever. If November 2008 is to be Hillary Clinton's (or Barack Obama's, or John Edwards') big party time, they might want to prepare for the long hangover of extricating US troops from Iraq. They certainly won't be home by inauguration day 2009.
One place for the rest of us to start considering options is the current issue of Mother Jones magazine. I recommend buying their December issue, "Iraq Out Now! How?" It is replete with serious, balanced, scary facts on how even anti-war Democrats won't be able to push a magic "withdraw" button, Presidency or not.
Back to the "Somalia Effect." Since that fateful encounter between US Army Rangers and Somali warlord irregulars on the streets of Mogadishiu, the US has had an allergic reaction to whatever smacks of "humanitarian intervention" with its own troops in Africa. True, there have been initiatives ("ACRI" under Clinton, "ACOTA" and "GPOI" and "AFRICOM" under Bush) to train African peace keepers and generally engage with African militaries. But there has been a general convergence of African reluctance to accept US (and other non-African) troops on the continent, with American reluctance to do anything other than train, equip, and transport.
Whatever "enduring bonds" the Bush Administration and the Maliki government agree to in this last year before the US chooses a new president, chances are that the "Iraq Effect" will kick in once that new president finds a way to end this sad chapter of American history. Be prepared for another agonizing reappraisal of the Post-Vietnam type. One thing for sure: the Post-Iraq era is likely to last at least as long.