Afstan: Somalia revisited?

The Globe and Mail chose not to publish this letter taking on the fact-challenged St. Rick Salutin:

Rick Salutin writes about the Canadian mission in Somalia (Afghanistan: Who are the heroes here? April 16) that "Canada went there to back up a U.S. invasion, designed to show American ability to impose its control anywhere, as the world’s “sole superpower,” after the Soviet Union imploded." Stuff and anti-American nonsense.

Mr Salutin just cannot let facts intrude on his ideological bias. The U.S. operation in Somalia supplemented a UN mission already in place; the operation was undertaken with the unanimous authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. acted not to demonstrate its unchallengeable power but rather to deal with the prospect of mass starvation in Somalia.

What more could Mr Salutin ask to justify the legitimacy of the American military action? And Canadian involvement (already long in planning before the US decision to intervene)? Were not such action and involvement the essence of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that so many Canadians support? And perhaps at the same time a cautionary example about how difficult humanitarian intervention can turn out to be?

References:
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres794.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n49_v3/ai_13307722/
http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol3/v3c24be.htm

Related:

Afghan detainees: Who's the mouthpiece?