No 2003 US Intervention in Liberia

WI Bush didn't send 2,000-odd US Marines to Liberia as part of an international peacekeeping force? Most of them are still there, on ships floating offshore, though a small contingent remains at the US Embassy.

Would the threat of a solely West African peacekeeping force (led by Nigeria) be enough to put an end to the war? Or would the rebels continue their march on Monrovia? Might another power (like Britain or France) take the the US's "great power" role?

Any ideas?
You can also ask the question WI Bush decided to deploy that Marine intervention force with a more robust capability instead of imposing such a restricted mandate as was the case last yr ?

Well, if Bush decided not to intervene, that probably would've meant that theworld's view that the US doesn't care about Africa, would've been reinforced ahundredfold, yeah ? As for another Western power intervening such as Britain or France in the same way as Sierra Leone 2000 or Ivory Coast 2003 respectively, I don't see the Europeans as wanting to intervene in Liberia at all since it was always a US protectorate, and they would't interfere outside their own sphere of influence in Africa. And the Nigerians in the ECOMOG force in Liberia probably would've succeeded only in fighting the rebels to a stalemate, i think, based on ECOMOG's previous record during the Liberian civil war during 1990-96.


Hey, sup Melvin. Anyway I think that Africa is the last place in the world where there are true spheres of influence left even though the US consideres the planet to be in its sphere. I think we justify it by saying the former colonial powers know them better but then again, I honestly don't care about that part of the world so I'm not going to bother making a moral judgment on that. What I do know is that odds are, there is going to be another war there sooner or later and the bloodshead will continue.