Finally, the world has stopped gaping and started acting to end the holocaust occurring in Somalia. The announcement that the United States is offering up to 30,000 troops to aid Somali relief efforts is a sign that the logjam of inaction and incompetence may finally be breaking. This is something we should be thankful for.

The Somalian famine is unquestionably the most horrendous situation in the world right now. Already, hundreds of thousands of Somalis have died from starvation and disease and several million more are at risk, while adequate food and supplies sit unused in ports on the Somali coast.

The massive and impressive world effort to bring food and medical supplies to the east African nation has been stopped in its tracks by roving gangs who make the delivery of food to the interior impossible.

For months it has been clear that the only solution is to supply enough military power to force the convoys through. Yet all the United Nations has been able to muster is 500 Pakistani guards, all of whom are holed up in barracks, completely unable to deal with the armed gangs.

Several other nations have pledged troops but have withheld them for fears about the very security they were meant to provide.

That makes the U.S.'s new pledge for troops welcome, especially since it is coupled with the necessary willingness to compromise on who controls the allied forces when they are in Somalia. While the U.S. will probably retain control in this case, their apparent flexibility is helpful.

The massive new infusion of troops will enable relief workers to reach areas previously untouched and to bypass the local militias, who "requisition" large chunks of the food intended for the starving. The New York Times reported Wednesday that up to 80 percent of the food passing through the capital of Mogadishu simply disappears. For the people of Somalia, these troops will be a godsend.

Yet doubters are already popping up. They ask whether military force is the answer and how the U.S. will get out and who will reinstitute government in Somalia. Many of their questions are valuable and need to be examined.

But the bottom line is that thousands of people are starving to death every day because bullies with guns won't let supplies through. The objective at this point is to get food in as fast as possible.

The questions surrounding the U.S. proposal can be answered with another one--how can we not do this?

The larger and deeper question the world must face is why has this taken so long? Until President Bush made his announcement, the relief effort was foundering with little prospect for improvement. Just as in the Persian Gulf War, American leadership is the main force for progress.

But relief for a crisis like the one in Somalia should not be dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. president, which in this case came months late.

The two main stumbling blocks to quicker action in Somalia were the lack of troops available to the United Nations and doubt over the appropriateness of intervention in a civil dispute. The U.N. needs to provide lasting solutions to them if similar disasters are to be avoided.

The issue of troops and who controls them has always been a central one to the U.N. Few nations have been willing to surrender control of their forces, and so U.N. missions have always had to bargain for manpower, significantly slowing reaction time.

Reluctance is natural--no country wants to have its citizens involved in situations it has no control over. Yet there is room to find a solution.