Get your war on' down in the Horn

[merocaine]

The Guardian and other agencies on reaction to the strike and a little analysis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1986350,00.html

some choice quotes
'It is not known whether Abu Taha al-Sudan - a Sudanese explosives expert who is thought to head al-Qaida operations in east Africa, and to have been the primary target - was among the dead, or whether there were significant civilian casualties'

dang he got away....

'The Somali government, whose legitimacy was challenged by the rise of the Islamic courts movement in June last year, said it supported the strikes.

The US had "a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," the Somali president, Abdullahi Yusuf, told journalists in Mogadishu'

The US is bombing where did yeah say!...o sure thats fine.

'In 2005, secret service agents paid the hated warlords several hundred(the goverment) thousand dollars as an incentive to apprehend the suspects who, according to Washington, were being sheltered by the Islamic courts that had been set up to dispense justice in the absence of a central authority.

But as news of the US operation leaked to the streets, residents took the side of the Islamists, and helped drive the warlords from the capital.

The Somali people are with us!

'Matt Bryden, a consultant to the International Crisis Group, based in Nairobi, said the US might now have decided to act directly because the Ethiopians were having trouble picking off the "last bubbles of Islamist resistance" near the Kenyan border, which is closed.

"They [the Americans] must have believed they knew where the al-Qaida suspects were. It seems they decided to kill everything within a certain grid square and then find out what they had hit," he said

Kill em all and let God sort em out...

'Richard Cornwell, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said the strikes showed that cooperation between Ethiopia and the US over the Somalia incursion had been far closer than suspected, and was critical of the manner of the attack.

"The AC130 is an appallingly blunt instrument and I very much doubt it can be used to target individuals," he said. "To kill alleged terrorists regardless of collateral damage is highly hypocritical."

If it was'ent so tragic it would be comical, but it gets worse

'The Associated Press cited witnesses as saying 31 civilians, including two newlyweds, had been killed in the strike, by two US helicopter gunships. Reuters cited a local witness as saying between 22 and 27 people had been killed.'

and then

'The US attack helicopters were trying to kill Islamist militants, a Somali defence ministry official said'

Defence offical! come on this is Somalia! its some dude in combats fingering a glock.

In future I'm just going to listen to Pentagon briefings, at least they dont get hung up on the messy details.

 

[Rich]

Ok, Ok, you maybe right, but I'm not convinced, an alternative reading is this,
The Ethiopians know the Americans have the hots for certain islamists they believe are behind the embassy bombings in east Africa. They also know the Americans have a lot of assets in the area, the Ethiopians hoping to curry favor with the Americans supply the coordinates of the suspected Islamic hideout to the US. The Americans monitoring the area, and patrolling the coast in the hope of catching the same dudes suspect the information the Ethiopians are supplying is correct, with enough to go on the air strike is called.

Here's the timeline. #1 America makes nice again with Ethiopia during the GWOT. #2 America sends training personnel to Ethiopia. #3 America sends high end artillery pieces to Ethiopia, trains them how to use them, and gives them a bunch of cash to restock their Soviet made war machine. #4, The Ethiopian army, in an extremely efficient combined arms attack, over runs Somalia kicking the Terror supporting Islamic Fundamentalist Govt. out on its ass. #5, American gunships and naval vessels, in a coordinated strike, attack Terrorists who are on the run from the Ethiopians.

I mean this isn't a Einstein level mathematical equation here Merocaine. I had a gut feeling Yanks were deep into this from the start because I knew we were back in East Africa and I knew Somalia was on the cusp of becoming another Taliban style terrorist camp. It didn't take any great genius to figure it out and if I can keep ego out of the thread then you ought to be able to as well.

And your last post? I dont know what that is. I will add, and I mean no insult, you have an anti-American streak in you and it makes you a little irrational.

 

[merocaine]

you have an anti-American streak in you and it makes you a little irrational.

No, I'm not, I'm just very critical of current American forigen policy.


But may I point you to a post of your own.....

Its a pity the French, Germans, British, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, all of whom had vast colonial empires in Africa and raped the place for hundreds of years, have blank spots in their coverage of Africa. The French, to their discredit, had the largest Africa empire and raped the place the worst. Even today they dont hesitate to send troops to protect their national economic interests, which BTW doesn't include genocide. Ask any Rwandan tutsi that, "if you can any still alive that is".

Even still the French, with the great concern over the price of tungsten and other minerals, seem to find a way to get involved that doesn't include sending body bags home. They have a great talent for doing that.

Be that as it may I think the sons and daughters of these former Africa masters http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.ed...ialism1914.jpg should be parachuted in, and the wealth of the Euro-empires should be spent, to save Africans from themselves. Its not Americas concern.

I could say you have a deep seated anti european streak, coupled with a healty dose 19th centuary isolationism.
What I like is the outrage you have with the French for sending in there troops to protect there economic self interest...Rrrright cause no one else does that do they, least of all the US.
I could say something about america relationship with africa, but I wont because the past is the past right.
And that bit about raping Africa, wow, here I could say something very crass.

Cheers man

 

[Rich]

I have been to almost every country in Europe. Actually I am more understanding European sensibilities then most in my country. And the reason I pointed out both the historical effects of Euro-colonialism in Africa, and, the speed at which the French use force to protect their own interests, was to highlight Euro-Hypocrisy regarding American actions.

Of course in the post you quoted me on I wasnt specifically speaking to you in the first place. But your right, I do have a De Gaulish streak of Isolationism.:vamp

Back to Somalia, now in the 2nd day of Yank "Helicopter strikes"? Do you now agree with me?

 

[FutureTank]

And that bit about raping Africa, wow, here I could say something very crass.

The Europeans care more about Africa. They went to Africa to rape while Americans had the Africans brought to them for raping

However it seesm to me that from the media it appears Africans do a whole lot of raping on their own, including girls as young as 6 yo:shudder

 

[merocaine]

Back to Somalia, now in the 2nd day of Yank "Helicopter strikes"? Do you now agree with me?

No, the more i read about this the more it looks like the Americans are as suprised by the Ethopian sucsess as anyone else.
If this was put together with American training tactical planning and close cooperation

1/Why was'nt the coast sealed? 3 ships are not a cordain sanitare.

2/Why was'ent the Carrier task force in position at the start of the conflict?
It only got moving after the war had begun.

3/Why are the only air assets the local Sforces from Camp D, and a couple of Choppers.

If all this was planned, why so few assets, and why only coming in to the fight now?

One thing more, The Islamics reteated to the south, there were numerous media reports of long colums of jeeps and technicals heading south. If the States was ready to go they would have wiped out that colum, (game over ICU), just like they wiped out the one the other day. But the werent ready to go, they were still trying to figure out what to do about this.
And this airstrike, if you were planning to take out a High level Al Queada Operative, why use Puffy, why not a jet? I would have thought that if you'd have at least a few more air assets on station if you thought the Sh*t was going to go down.

So in short no I can't say I do agree.

As a point of clarifaction it was just me and Big E posting on the thread when you posted your spiel, so I guess Big E must have been guilty cause I dont think I'd come out with any euro hyocrasy at that stage
And I dont think anyone had critized the US either.
So who's being irrational?

 

[contedicavour]

I'm wondering how effective the US airstrikes are, and if they bring more gains than risks by inflaming Somali public opinion against the US...
There is a big majority of people who don't care whether it's Yusuf's TNG or the UIC who govern them, provided they can live and trade in a decently secure environment. They are all however very nationalist and react badly to any foreign aggression, even if it is carried out for good reasons such as wiping out terrorists.

I think the US policy towards the Horn of Africa isn't subtle enough, it's too black or white and can very easily be manipulated by local forces.

I still remember the mess in 1993 - the US got manipulated and caught into a horribly complicated civil war.

Ideally the priority is to help ensure stability and some form of economic development without labelling everybody as good or bad, or otherwise you end up supporting warlords...

Right now what's urgent is to strengthen the TNG's army so that it doesn't have to rely on the Ethiopian army or on the warlords' militias for its own survival. Sending over some M60 or Leo1 MBTs for example could calm down militiamen on technicals willing to kick some fuss.

cheers

PS : please nobody accuse me of anti-Americanism, I'm very pro-US, but the lack of subtlety by people in State Dept and the Pentagon is saddening.

 

[merocaine]

Right now what's urgent is to strengthen the TNG's army so that it doesn't have to rely on the Ethiopian army or on the warlords' militias for its own survival. Sending over some M60 or Leo1 MBTs for example could calm down militiamen on technicals willing to kick some fuss.

Yeah have to careful here, Somalia's a tribal affair, by backing the TNG with tanks and cash you could (prob would) fuel a civil war.
Cause in effect at the moment the TNG is a tribal milita.

 

[contedicavour]

Yeah have to careful here, Somalia's a tribal affair, by backing the TNG with tanks and cash you could (prob would) fuel a civil war.
Cause in effect at the moment the TNG is a tribal milita.

I agree that clan distinctions are key to understanding the Somali equation. Or even sub-clan. The prime minister, Gedi, is a Hawiye, Mogadishu's main clan, but has fallen out with them when they supported the UIC.
However, right now there are 3 armed entities in Somalia : the TNG troops, the warlords' militias, and the remaining UIC, some in the bush close to Kenya and some hidden in Mogadishu.
It is true that to some extent TNG troops and warlords' militias have men in common, but it is key, symbolically, to have the TNG's forces look unbeatable and sole in command. This in order to accelerate the departure of Ethiopians and limit the risk of civil strife or back to the old world of warlords' districts.
Besides, militias don't know how to keep operational MBTs, even the simple T55s that were in Siad Barre's regular army in 1991. So if Leo1 or M60s (there are hundreds of both in Italian army stock - and the Leo1 especially are still in good condition) were to be hijacked by militias, they wouldn't remain operational for a long time.

cheers

 

[Tasman]

PS : please nobody accuse me of anti-Americanism, I'm very pro-US, but the lack of subtlety by people in State Dept and the Pentagon is saddening.

Good point contedicavour.

In a democracy we should all be able to criticise government actions, including our own, without being regarded as anti the country concerned. I am critical of many things my (the Australian) government does but I would quickly get into a 'punch up' with anyone who said I wasn't loyal to my country. Likewise I am very pro Australia's alliance with America and grateful for America's role as a superpower in keeping rogue states in check, but at the same time that doesn't stop me from criticising aspects of US policy. Heck, half of America's own citizens are critical of some of these policies.


Cheers

 

[Rich]

Originally Posted by contedicavour
PS : please nobody accuse me of anti-Americanism, I'm very pro-US, but the lack of subtlety by people in State Dept and the Pentagon is saddening.

Likewise I am very pro Australia's alliance with America and grateful for America's role as a superpower in keeping rogue states in check, but at the same time that doesn't stop me from criticising aspects of US policy. Heck, half of America's own citizens are critical of some of these policies.

I'm basically Pro-Italian and Pro-Australian but the lack courage and deciveness in the Italian Government is really saddening. Boy, I remember when your Govt. let those Archille Lauro terrorists go to kiss up to the Arab dictatorships. Remember? The old Jewish American in the wheelchair the terrorists shot in the head and then threw overboard? Our F-14s forced an airplane carrying the killers onto Italian soil and the Italian Govt. refused to extradite them and let them go instead. Very saddening.

I'm very Pro-Australian but at the same time sometimes occasionaly criticize their Governments Policies. I must admit tho Aussies are very popular here in America. They were even before they showed their courage in the GWOT.

 

[radiosilence]

Yank C-130 gunships are thumping terrorists in southern Somalia, after first tracking them with Intelligence aircraft. We reportedly killed the head of Al Qaeda in East Africa.

I hate to say "I told you so".

Looks like the initial reports were incorrect.

The US air strike in Somalia missed its main target of three senior al-Qa'ida members, American officials admitted yesterday,.....

link

 

[caksz]

Looks like the initial reports were incorrect.



link

The hatred to US will pile up and they recruit some new militia due to the attack , the conflict continues

 

[contedicavour]

I'm basically Pro-Italian and Pro-Australian but the lack courage and deciveness in the Italian Government is really saddening. Boy, I remember when your Govt. let those Archille Lauro terrorists go to kiss up to the Arab dictatorships. Remember? The old Jewish American in the wheelchair the terrorists shot in the head and then threw overboard? Our F-14s forced an airplane carrying the killers onto Italian soil and the Italian Govt. refused to extradite them and let them go instead. Very saddening.

.

Oh yes I remember. The govt was run by a centre-left coalition led by Craxi (himself a Socialist with a long history of pro-Arab foreign policy). No wonder no efforts were made to act against those terrorists.
You'll also notice what has happened since the recent change of government, from the retreat from Iraq to the complaints vs US foreign policy.

However this thread is about appropriate policy to stabilize the horn of Africa. Given Somalia's recent history, flexing muscles is only part of the solution, and can even prove to be counterproductive is there isn't adequate political preparation. Unless the US is planning to keep a brigade or 2 permanently stationed in the area ... hardly feasible given the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

cheers

 

[shimmy]

Best Course for Africa

I feel that the best course for Africa is help from the UN not from any one nation.

 

[contedicavour]

I feel that the best course for Africa is help from the UN not from any one nation.

Right, but the UN relies on voluntary interventions from member states. If the US can't or doesn't want to intervene, the UN has to start pleading for help and assemble impractical detachments made up of tens of different armies with wildly different equipment and training levels.
Just look at the quality of most UN troops in Congo... mostly known for criminal behaviour and passive attitude towards guerrillas attacking civilians.
Right now no major Western country wants to risk intervening in Somalia. So the UN is relying on AU troops (from half a dozen African countries) probably funded by Europe and the US. A shame though that after months of discussions there isn't a single UN/AU soldier ready to reach Mogadishu.

=> In theory I agree with your sentence. From a practical point of view it still comes down to a single relatively well equipped army ...

cheers

 

[Tasman]

Right, but the UN relies on voluntary interventions from member states. If the US can't or doesn't want to intervene, the UN has to start pleading for help and assemble impractical detachments made up of tens of different armies with wildly different equipment and training levels.
Just look at the quality of most UN troops in Congo... mostly known for criminal behaviour and passive attitude towards guerrillas attacking civilians.
Right now no major Western country wants to risk intervening in Somalia. So the UN is relying on AU troops (from half a dozen African countries) probably funded by Europe and the US. A shame though that after months of discussions there isn't a single UN/AU soldier ready to reach Mogadishu.

=> In theory I agree with your sentence. From a practical point of view it still comes down to a single relatively well equipped army ...

cheers

I share your lack of enthusiasm for UN forces contedicavour.

IMO, what has been reasonably effective is where the UN has sponsored an intervention or peacekeeping force where one country has led the force and taken the initiative in negotiating its composition, rules of engagement, etc. An example of this would be the Australian led intervention force in East Timor in 1999, which seemed to me to provide a reasonably coherent force that was able to carry out its assigned mission. The trouble is what country would be accepted by a country like Somalia to take the lead that would actually be capable of doing the job?

Cheers

 

[merocaine]

Theres no point in sending in UN troops of any discription if there is no political frame work. If UN troops are sent in are they just going to be used as muscle for an unpopular goverment?
Althought I can to a certain extent understand the Piss on the UN attiude, it doesent change the fact that there is no other force in the world that can go in with the backing of the entire international community. If some goverments refuse to stamp out corruption, or pay there troops a living wage the UN as a whole should not be condemed.
Oz has done a great job in East Timor, and I agree there should be a lead nation in any peace keeping operation. But Somalia is not ready for peace keepers, its still at war as far as I can see.

Re: the congo, theres 4000 UN troops in country, a place thats bigger than france germany britian and spain combined. The local UN forces are out gunned and out manned by Ugandan armed militas, what do you want them to do, go to war? 10 UN troops were killed in ambushes last year when on patrol, they have a hard enough time keeping themselves alive let alone protecting civilians. The world doesent give a damn about the Congo, thats why the mission is a failure.

 

[Waylander]

And it is not as if this nice looking congo mission done last years by Spain, France and Germany changed anything.
They were there during the elections and now there gone. Business as usual.

But looked good at the newspapers as if the average population here in europe gives a shit about the congo.
"Yeah, we want to help as long as it is cheap and our boys don't get hurt."

The same with the Lebanon (If it comes to our operation there).

 

[contedicavour]

I fully agree that what's needed is a clear political framework, such as the one in Bosnia which ensured a clear peacekeeping job aligned with all formerly warring parties.
Though in the absence of such a framework, there's the need for one country (under the UN ombrella for political/ethical reasons) to lead a force. Even taking the example of the successful Australian mission in Timor, I doubt Australia was liked by the retreating Indonesian troops or pro-Indonesian militias. The mission still worked.
Hence, to bring back the discussion to topic, a determined mission in Somalia in support of the TNG could work out fine if the perceived strength is significant enough to thwart any attack against it.
When it comes to a choice of countries who could lead the UN intervention without generating strong hostility, I have in mind a Arab League / AU force with troops from Egypt to South Africa and Nigeria. A force of 10,000 with some tanks and armed helos, based in the main cities, can do the job, provided the TNG regular troops are equipped with some heavy materials in the meanwhile (hence my idea of Leo1 MBTs that are stocked in Italy)

cheers