regional conflict

Remove all ads!

I think it went well beyond green light and included active support and encouragement.

A leopard cannot change its spots. The conduct was different, but there is a distinct direction to all of this that suggests more than accident to me.

[ January 08, 2007, 10:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Plus, if America was elbow deep, wouldn't our humble leaders loudly pronounce their success to all who would listen? Islamic extremism is something which most people view as ...'extreme', and politicos stay in power by swatting the peoples' spiders. I'm surprised we don't have "advisors" there right now, advising the Somalis on how we may take credit for beating back the hordes of Mecca-facing boogeymen.

But since the West doesn't seem to want to show a face at the party, their absence is a bit conspicuous. I mean, we are always everywhere it seems... Maybe the Somalis don't want to dance with kiddie-gloves, so we are being kept out for privacies sake.

 

Open US involvement would delegitimise anyone fighting the islamic courts. The argument that those opposing the Islamic courts are US stooges is a much harder sell, if the US keep a very low profile. Being quiet about it isn't only sensible, it's crucial for success. It also tells you something about US standing in the region.

The US have a different religion, colour of skin, culture. Neighbours are always better at policing. Lebanon only came to fragile stability after Syria took control with an iron fist. They are much more familiar with the people and their culture. And they got away with measures the Israelis could not, because they were not actually foreigners, at least not to the extent the Israelis or Americans and Europeans are.

You find the problem in Iraq, and especially visible in Afghanistan, where the pro-western government is accused of being just that, a US stooge. US and NATO presence lends credibility to that argument. Not to mention Hamid Karzai, once a US oil man working for UNOCAL. Especially for Kharzai, who's very visibly protected by US-paid-for bodyguards (iirc from Blackwater) that's a case easily made.

[ January 08, 2007, 00:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

No. It is not. I am talking practical issues here. You only happen to not like it and interpret is as proof of my supposed anti US bias.

You underestimate US reach, and ambition and determination of this administration. You have an idea how CENTCOM's AOR, and AOI look like? Look at a map, man. The US military is a serious institution. That isn't just a nice map. They're serious about it. And when they send a Joint Task Force to the Horn of Africa during the GWOT that is dealing with Islamist Terror, I don't expect them to sit idle when an Islamist regime takes root in neihbouring Somalia - not after an Islamist regime in Afghanistan supported Al Quaeda.

A second look at a map should illustrate what I meant with 'isolating the battlezone'. We have a US base in Djibouti. Ethiopia, US ally, is attacking, Kenia, US ally, is closing the border and a US naval blockade is cutting off from the sea. When the navy is blockading the sea, the Marines in Djibouti will take care of Djibouti's borders. All that's just too beautiful and coordinated to be accident.

US standing today is poor, like it or not. Open US involvement does delegitimise those the US support and it does fuel enemy propaganda, especially as far as Islamists are concerned. Already Ayman al-Zawahri called for Islamists to rush to Somalia. How much more pull would his call have if Marines were marching through the slums of Mogadishu, and not Ethiopian troops? I only accept that as a fact.
In fighting a supra-regional insurgency, and that's what Al Quaeda is, it is essential to deny the enemy good propaganda. I see it with relief that apparently that has been understood at least on the professional level in the US.

A great way to mobilise your enemies is to sound the trumpet and declare: "We're coming for you!" It also gives the signal: 'Bury your arms, wait out the attack, and fight on tomorrow.' Another reason why being quiet about it is a great idea. This war, however, war came pretty much out of the blue. That means OpSec was pretty good, surprise was maintained.

There are other side benefits I didn't mention because they're so obvious: Sending in Ethiopians avoids another Black Hawk Down. If things go bad, US soldiers don't die - considering the casualty debate in the US a political advantage, and a very palpable one as far as the soldiers are concerned. Also advantageous is that it is no formal US war and thus can be handled through the more discrete intelligence, aid and military aid channels and doesn't need to pass congress. That helps keeping it low profile. It also eliminates the need to propagandise the war to win public support. Last, it is also way cheaper than sending in US troops, and thus doesn't draw away funding from the big wars the US is fighting.

Another misperception I see here is that people think that because the US government doesn't talk about it loud or explicitly, it's not happening. This is an administration, not a politician acting.

This here is not conspiracism. It's a conclusion based on means, strong and numerous incentives and an overarching goal. I'm making the stronger case, and it doesn't even make the US look bad.

[ January 08, 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well...

U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Somalia


An American gunship apparently fired on a target believed to be al-Qaida. I wonder why we would involve ourselves on such a small scale. Kind of seems like a "penny ---> pound" situation to me.

 

It's my judgement based on the available information. As a result of inevitable government secrecy here there is not much information available. Innuendo is as good as it gets until the first bios come out.
I remember that in 2002/2003 I said the mobile bio labs story brought up by Powell in his discgraceful UN show was nonsense. Iirc you doubted it, it was all innuendeo after all. Well, the mobile labs were nonsense. I have a 95% chance of being correct That is pretty good, I think.

As for criticizing the US here and praising it there - questions of morality aside, there is a difference between ruthlessness and recklessness.

Going after Al Quaeda and killing leaders is ruthless, instingating a proxy war between Ethiopia and Somalia is ruthless too. Ruthless things aren't nice, but sometimes inevitable - as it was probably inevitable to invade Afghanistan and to crush a nascent Islamist state in Somalia.

The US invading Iraq, or striking Iran (atm IMO 80% chance the US do), or trying to instingate a civil war between Fatah and Hamas (Elliot Abrams' current pet project) is reckless. Torture is reckless. Reckless things blow up in your face. Look Iraq. Look torture.

 

A good way to stop terrorism would be to stop participating in it Mr Bush

 

Now that's too easy, Barmy

 

Really? Maybe we should just invite them over for a few beers or some coffee and cake...then they will stop killing Americans because we are such nice people....

 

"Boy, if you're gonna be in a gun-fight, don't show up with your Ruth."

---LNT's papa

(my grandmother is named Ruth)

 

Chandos, call me old fashioned but IMO extra-judicial killings are ruthless.

 

Ruthless? Ah, but so is Al Quaeda. Sometimes you just have to fight the enemy the way they fight you. Nobody ever won a fight by being nice.

 

And nobody ever beat terrorism by using bombs.

 

Or by out-torturing them. Or out-slaughtering them. The Allieds didn't win WW-II by out-concentration-camping the Nazis, or Japanes for that, either. Nuremberg suggests pretty much the opposite.

I absolutely concede that ruthlessness is at times a required quality. I'm realist enough to not to condemn that per se. But it is a question of how far you want to go down that street, not to mention utility.

[ January 10, 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I'd be interested to know how to defeat terrorism, then. Talk? If so then just leave it to the useless, impotent UN. You'll get plenty of talk then and not much else.

When fighting the Japanese in WW2 we found out that we couldn't fight them the same way we fought the Germans. The Japanese neither gave nor expected any quarter in combat. Those that fought them were forced to adopt the same policy, no quarter. To to anything else would be folly; a death sentence. Hence, combat was reduced to its most primitive, brutal form. It is no different with terrorists. They're not going to play nice just because we'd like them to.

 

Don't let it effect your day to day life, the best way to defeat terrorism is to ignore it so they know they are having absolutely no effect. Britain have always dealt with terrorism that way in the past, successfully.

 

Al Quaeda, or Islamism, are a supra-national insurgency.

You're talking about ... attrition, physical annihilation? In this fight this leads to a US defeat, not victory. I certainly don't want to see that happen, and you probably much less.

I'll leave it to this Green Beret to say how to deal with it (I took the liberty of copy-pasting his opinion from a blog). Commenting on the proposed strategy de jour for victory in Iraq, the so-called 'surge', or, in other words, escalation:

I think he's very correct.