> Isn't the current development basically an extension of African Crisis
> Response Initiative (ACRI) and the like?
Afaik, the ACRI is basically just a program where we train troops, like we do almost everywhere in the world. It's one of our main connections to countries.
I think Liberia has to be understood more in relation to Liberia. The policy-making elite has always paid much more attention to it than the American media or public, and way more than its importance would seem to warrant. It's never been entirely clear to me why. Institutional historical memory? The fact that it's been a missionary cynosure for almost two centuries? From reading the papers, you get the impression this place pops up out of nowhere every five years or so, but in the foreign policy record you see a lot more continuity. Although, as I say, I don't really know why. I almost want to say that this is an instance where policy makers show more sentimental historical attachment than the public at large, most of whom have to be reminded every 5 years that America founded it.
A good history of our attentions, as well as of the country itself, is a 1995 article by Reed Kramer (a frequent talking head on PBS and CNN, he was also the animating spirit of very good Africa Notes/Africa News Service, which has since merged with INIS to become AllAfrica.com):
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/34/042.html
A shortened by half version, which leaves out the history of the country and focuses US foreign policy towards it, is at:
The then missing history of the country can also be filled in more amusingly by reading the Justin Raimondo column Dennis posted a few days ago, which is probably him at his best:
URL: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070703.html
Michael