Bush should not take lead in quelling Liberian crisis

President Bush is in the west African nation of Senegal today, but he undoubtedly will be paying close attention to developments in Liberia, another African country along the west coast, which is in the throes of a civil war that could embroil the United States. We strongly oppose U.S. military intervention in Liberia, absent evidence that the unrest there is a threat to our security.
Prior to his departure Monday night for the eight-day visit to five African countries, the president refused to say what he intended to do about the troop deployment. A team of military experts is in Liberia to assess whether American soldiers should be sent as part of a peacekeeping force. Several African leaders have called on the United States to lead such a force by committing 2,000 troops.
Iraq
Given that some 200,000 of our men and women are currently trying to keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do not believe that another expedition of this kind is advisable or realistic. Troop morale in Iraq and Afghanistan is low and there is talk among members of Congress who have visited both countries that U.S. presence will be a long-term proposition.
Indeed, even Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are questioning the Republican president's view of what is taking place in that troubled part of the world.
As a result of the mounting American death toll in Iraq from the guerrilla warfare being waged by loyalists of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, members of Congress want Bush to first consult with them before making a decision on Liberia. While the president has the constitutional authority, as commander in chief, to send troops on peace-keeping missions, we believe this is a case where congressional input is essential.
While there is a bond between the United States and Liberia -- the African nation was created by former slaves -- the situation is so explosive that our young men and women would most certainly be in harm's way.
Before risking their lives, the president needs to explain to Congress why he believes such American presence is warranted.
If peacekeepers are needed, neighboring African countries should commit their forces under the auspices of the United Nations. America has too many irons in the fire -- a fire that is threatening to burn out of control.
Humanitarian crisis
We applaud the president for the attention he has paid to Africa, given the humanitarian crisis that exists in many countries as a result of civil wars, killer diseases, such as AIDS, and corrupt governments.
Bush can certainly use America's moral authority to rally the forces of change throughout the continent, but the deployment of troops is another matter. It doesn't matter that Liberian President Charles Taylor has accepted an invitation of asylum from Nigeria and says he will leave once Bush commits American soldiers to his war-torn nation.
If military involvement in Liberia is justified on humanitarian grounds, why not Congo or a dozen other African countries that have collapsed economically and socially as a result of ethnic strife?
At the very least, there should be a discussion in Congress about America's role in the world now that is the only superpower. And that discussion cannot take place without the president and his foreign policy team.