The left did not have a position on Ivory Coast's rebellion either, not the North American left. Ignorance is bliss seems to be the message. Liberia and Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire are very intimately related.

Pat Robertson was suckered into investments in Liberia. He is what's called a 'mark' for Taylor and So African freelancers like Shefer. Hardly a strategic issue for the Pentagon.
The US does have strategic interests in West Africa. Denying that is ingenuous--I agree. But, following unfolding geopolitics in Iraq, the EU, the rebellion in Ivory Coast, rape of resources in the Congo Basin, massive military investment in Latin Am. by propping up Uribe's new regime against FARC etc., etc., the strategic interest that prevails in W. Africa is to work out a modus vivende with France. The European split with Bush over Iraq is a more powerful issue than the African subregions.
France and U.S. are hand in hand in exploiting Chad's rich oil deposits and running them out to the coast through Cameroons. Nigeria is a big zone of influence for the U.S.
The big issues unfolding, for Bush, are elsewhere. He risks a delicate balancing act with European interests in W. Africa despite the public encouragement the European's are giving Bush to intervene.
France has too good a deal in Liberia exporting timber from the eastern Liberian ports and even through w. Ivory Coast to intervene directly. Global Watch (one of many NGOs) would be all over it exposing French duplicity with the Taylor regime should Chirac sent his rapid response squads into Monrovia.
What your feature misses is the complication of the US and France working out materially and strategically their separate and mutual interests in W. Africa.
I call this comment Trees + chickens because you are barking up the wrong tree and, for US and French interests the chickens have come home to roost in Monrovia, Liberia.
You have worked yourself into a corner that leftists especially should strive to avoid. Why not instead encourage people to get up to speed on the issues on-the-ground and theoretically.
My analysis is that at the end of the day the people of Liberia are at a delicate moment when there can be a peaceful transition to a new government or there can be horrible bloodshed in the streets and a violent transition.
A multilateral peacekeeping mission to Monrovia will help make that transition occur peacefully. Be it the US, Canada, France or the ECOWAS (west African) troops, peacekeeping forces will likely not be determinate for who's interest prevail in the region in the future.
Finally, I support an intervention to achieve transition but I also want C. Taylor to be brought before the Special Court convened in Freetown, Sierra Leone--no matter which Western power sponsors the intervention. The main W. African states that don't have filthy-dirty hands in Liberia (as far as I know)are Mali, Ghana, maybe Benin. The rest have bad records vis a vis their troops, presidents and interest and recent Liberian history. I'm afraid you would have to have a Western power firmly involved in any "rescue" of innocent lives.
[-- on the matter of your article as an indymedia feature -- why not work it out with them ? we all are voyeurs when it comes to dirty laundry in public places, but what do want us to do? send a protest letter?--]