| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| Prendergast sez fall of Mogadishu represents a US failure |
| 2006-06-07 |
| It was before "Black Hawk Down," before Somalia became the only country in the world without a government, that I took my first trip there. It changed my life. This was in the mid-1980s, when the United States was underwriting a warlord dictator in support of our Cold War interests, at the clear expense of basic human rights. As a young, wide-eyed activist-in-training, I couldn't accept the idea that my government would use defenseless Somali civilians as pawns on its strategic chessboard -- in a strategy that ultimately produced only state collapse, civil war and famine. Twenty years later the enemy has changed, but the plot is hauntingly similar. In recent trips to the capital, Mogadishu, I have seen evidence of U.S. support to warlord militia leaders in the name of counterterrorism operations. Since the beginning of the year, pitched battles between U.S.-backed warlords and Islamist militias in Mogadishu have claimed hundreds of lives and displaced thousands of families. Now "our" warlords -- and by extension our counterterrorism strategy -- have been dealt a crushing defeat by the Islamists, as the latter have consolidated control of Mogadishu. Our short-term interest in locating al-Qaeda suspects has thus been undermined, and the risk of a new safe haven being created for international terrorists has been greatly increased. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #16 JFM, I could go w/that. The question is, is there a Massood type there? Personally speaking if I was POTUS for a day I would take off the gloves and go wetworks on all these f8cks. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-06-07 17:57 |
| #15 Ther question of Somilia is: How should we deal with AQ and islamo-fascisim who have sworn to destroy us and our Nation and whoa are at war with us? "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-06-07 17:54 |
| #14 Shieldwolf is right, the answer is to recognize Somaliland and Puntland, give economic assistance to them and damm the UN's whining about it. Somalia was a UN creation and Soviet supported. They created this mess. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-07 17:53 |
| #13 Why is this bad? All we need are GPS coordinates. It's going to come to that in the future. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-06-07 17:51 |
| #12 Broadhead I didn't say it was a good idea to send troops there just taht it was idiotic to let Somalia in Al Quaida's hands. A new place where to train and plan, just like Afghanistan was. THe idea was to findf the Somali Massood (ie a capable guy who is not too bad politically) and, unlike Massood, abandonned by the Clinton administration, arm him and crush the Islamists, all while fighting the political fight againt salfism, a thing neither the Bush and the Clinton have dared to do. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-07 17:38 |
| #11 I agree w/Beso&wolf. I don't particularly want to go that sh*thole and un-f*ck their dumb @sses. I have no problem helping anti-islamists w/weapons or SF training but no U.S. troops for that place. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-06-07 17:20 |
| #10 He worked for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. 'Nuff said about what this opinion is worth. |
| Posted by: Cowboy is a compliment 2006-06-07 16:05 |
| #9 Quit feeding them. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-07 15:15 |
| #8 You want to win in Somalia? Fine, Americans do not have to die to do that : arm the Somalilanders with captured stores from Iraq (Somalia was a Soviet client state and the weapons used are Soviet); purchase spare parts from Poland, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic for the vehicles; and help the Ethiopians setup a decent logistic train into Somaliland. Then recognize the Somaliland government as the legitimate of overarching Somalia, and give their troops training in Ethiopia. They would be able to fight and win at that point, and no Americans need die for that 3rd world sh*thole. Otherwise, stay the hell out unless or until there is hardcore evidence that the Somalis intend to pull a Taliban in regards to Al-Q. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-06-07 15:07 |
| #7 Please spare America the KIA/WIA price of "highlighting." Africa is a cycle of doom, heretofore, Afghanistan has been the same. You prefer a second 9/11? The WOT is first of all an ideological battle: it will be won when salafism in particular and Islam are universally hated and we haven't made a move about this. We should be helping those who fight Islam and taking advantage of any opportunity to expose its crimes. Africa seems me a good place to start even if I am not sure I would like to start in Somalia. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-07 13:52 |
| #6 Another reason to go to Africa is that it is the ideal place to highlight racist, arabo-fascist nature of Islam Please spare America the KIA/WIA price of "highlighting." Africa is a cycle of doom, heretofore, Afghanistan has been the same. The jury is still out in AF. If the world is NOT witting to Islam, not much we can add to the POI. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-07 12:25 |
| #5 Much of this guy's premise is bull. This war has many levels: economic; ideological; etc. But at the most basic level, it is a war of attrition...destroying the enemiesÂ’ men and material to the point they are no longer able to wage war. Holding a particular piece of ground is the least important. It's not unimportant. You still want to deny the enemy safe havens and the ability to regroup, but it's less important than other factors. Even in Iraq, it's not about controlling Basra or some other geographic site for its strategic military value. The purpose of a prosperous and democratic Iraq is on the ideological plane and to some extent, the so-called 'fly paper' effect on the attrition plane. Therefore, I see the recent Somalia events as not a success, but not a failure either. The combatants in Somalia would have been combatants if the U.S. was involved or not. At least this way, it caused the Islamonazis to expend more than they would have otherwise. If the enemy is fighting a war of attrition, you had better be doing the same or you will lose. |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-06-07 12:18 |
| #4 Here's the answer.... "live long and prosper" by staying the phuech out of Africa. More or less what the Clinton administration did with Afghanistan. Another reason to go to Africa is that it is the ideal place to highlight racist, arabo-fascist nature of Islam (think Darfur) and with time, have non Arab Muslims seeing the light about it. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-07 10:29 |
| #3 This is probably going to sound racist, I don't mean it as racist. Take a poll among non-african blacks and see how namy, if any, want to help "The Mother Country" Bet the numbers are very low, once away from that hell hole why return? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-06-07 08:31 |
| #2 Here's the answer.... "live long and prosper" by staying the phuech out of Africa. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-07 04:54 |
| #1 The U.S. counterterrorism approach in Somalia isn't working: Much as I don't like to hear it, this guy has a valid point. If we learned one thing in the last century, it is that supporting the bad guys will result in bad consequences. I don't have the answers, and I'm aware that it is not realistic to think we can micromanage world affairs. But he's right when he says that what we are doing isn't helping. So...back to the drawing board. We need a better way. Let's figure out what does work instead of supporting murderous thugs. We need to do something - but doing the wrong thing won't cut it. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-07 03:46 |