Another War at Somalia ?

[eddy_purpus]

Could this be possible?

[BlackPirate]

Naaaaah.Eritrea supports Al shadaab but not because it supports terrorism.It supports Islamists for geo-political reason chiefly because they dont want to see Ethiopia gaining influence in the region.

[Erik]

The US has ruled out sending its forces to fight insurgents in Somalia.

But the AFP news agency quoted a state department official as saying on Thursday that the US supply of arms and ammunition to Somalia would be doubled from 40 tonnes to 80.

Yes, let's arm those Islamists.

That could never ever possibly backfire.

[mrmouth]

Yes, let's arm those Islamists.

That could never ever possibly backfire.

The TFG has shown they will fight the radical element. The alternative is letting Somalia truly become another Afghanistan. The situation isnt perfect, but we cannot sit on our hands either.

[Homeros]

The TFG has shown they will fight the radical element. The alternative is letting Somalia truly become another Afghanistan. The situation isnt perfect, but we cannot sit on our hands either.

The US armed & trained the Afghani Muhajadin when fighting the Soviets. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

[mrmouth]

Well, in this case we are arming the transitional government of Somalia. They are actively fighting an Islamist insurgency. And doing so under the eye of the world, and US advisers on the ground in the region, if not Somalia itself.

Again, not a perfect situation. Flooding a country with weapons, where the insurgency holds more ground in the capital, then the government does, is always sketchy. But simply doing nothing, is not an option. The TFG needs weapons, so they will get them. While history has shown this can come back to bite us, it isnt written in stone either. And a good portion of the Afghan Muj that ended up getting direct support, actually fought against the Islamists.

Maybe it becomes a problem down the road, maybe it doesn't. What we do know right now, is that the world is so alienated by Iraq, that anything more significant, isnt going to happen. And we know that dealing with another failed state, is not an option. The US could go in with troops if it came to it, but we are not going to get any help from anyone else. We are going to continue to support the TFG, and continue to bomb these knuckleheads into the ground. Until perhaps the situation becomes so dire, that we do go in with a brigade.

[Homeros]

Well, in this case we are arming the transitional government of Somalia. They are actively fighting an Islamist insurgency. And doing so under the eye of the world, and US advisers on the ground in the region, if not Somalia itself.

Again, not a perfect situation. Flooding a country with weapons, where the insurgency holds more ground in the capital, then the government does, is always sketchy. But simply doing nothing, is not an option. The TFG needs weapons, so they will get them. While history has shown this can come back to bite us, it isnt written in stone either. And a good portion of the Afghan Muj that ended up getting direct support, actually fought against the Islamists.

Maybe it becomes a problem down the road, maybe it doesn't. What we do know right now, is that the world is so alienated by Iraq, that anything more significant, isnt going to happen. And we know that dealing with another failed state, is not an option. The US could go in with troops if it came to it, but we are not going to get any help from anyone else. We are going to continue to support the TFG, and continue to bomb these knuckleheads into the ground. Until perhaps the situation becomes so dire, that we do go in with a brigade.

I understand what you're saying and I totally agree that Somalia is a mess. It is, however, unwise to send more military equipment to Somalia. Those radical extremists didn't produce their weapons by themselves and its likely that (at least) a significant number will end up in the wrong hands.

The problem with Somalia is its hugely complex tribal system, they're changing sides all the time. Its far more effective to wait till there is at least some order and stability and then help to rebuild the country. That way you are encouraging them to do something different instead of butchering each other.

Extremist are only capable to stay in power when they're backed with enough firepower.

[Erik]

The TFG has shown they will fight the radical element.

For now.

But you don't know what will happen once your Islamist allies win the war and need a different use for all those weapons.

It's a very shortsighted attitude, just look at your dear allies the Taliban and Al Qaida.

The alternative is letting Somalia truly become another Afghanistan. The situation isnt perfect, but we cannot sit on our hands either.

No, the alternative is to send troops of your own, or from the UN or African Union.

[Dodge]

Yes, let's arm those Islamists.

That could never ever possibly backfire.

Well its worked in the past.

Oh wait.

[Norpheus]

When did Somalia have "Peace" in the first place?

[Tiberios]

When did Somalia have "Peace" in the first place?

Well they had more peace and progresse during this guy's reign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre


Anyway, just let Ethiopia deal with Eritrea. The US could just place some embargoes or something on them.

It's a very shortsighted attitude, just look at your dear allies the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Again, the US never gave funds to the Taliban as they didn't exist until 1994. They funded a wide variety of Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, not just the religious fanatics. Besides, Pakistan distributed many of the funds from the West to the various Mujahadeen groups.

No, the alternative is to send troops of your own, or from the UN or African Union.

There isn't much of an alternative as the UN in incompetent and so is the AU. And the AU are already in Somalia and has been since 2007. And guess what, they haven't achieved anything really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...ion_to_Somalia

[Acco]

When did Somalia have "Peace" in the first place?

Never, but there were peace talks which were later rejected by Hassan Adan, chairman of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia even though ARS diplomats accepted the peace agreement. And guess who's fault that was? Eritrea, who was coercing the Somali Islamist opposition group in order to mark the peace talks in Somalia a failure, and now they continue to fund insurgent groups and shelter al-Qaeda-linked Somali Islamist leaders. In my opinion, the United States shouldn't be threatening action, it should be doing action, because Eritrea is the real problem here.

[michael123]

Not more troops in more locations around the world... Stick a gigantic navy around the coast, and leave Somalia to fight it out. Might sound cold-hearted, but the west can't be the world's policemen and we can't keep pouring money and arms into the bottomless pit that is Africa.

[s.rwitt]

The US armed & trained the Afghani Muhajadin when fighting the Soviets. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

The US armed & fought with the Soviet Union when fighting the Nazis. At the time it seemed to make sense ...
The US colonists allied & fought with the British when fighting the French. At the time it seemed to make sense ...
The US allied & fought with the French when fighting the British. At the time it seemed to make sense ...
The US allied & fought with the Cubans when fighting the Spaniards. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

[Homeros]

The US armed & fought with the Soviet Union when fighting the Nazis. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

No it didn't. At the time the US and the USSR were already (ideological) enemies. Everybody knew that when the Nazi's were defeated the US and the USSR would become hostile again.

The main reason why the US shipped arms and equipment to the USSR was to let the Soviets do the hard work. If they didn't, it would have resulted in a lot more US casualties in Europe. Furthermore, Roosevelt believed Stalin when he was saying that free elections would be held in the 'liberated' (Eastern European) countries although other (more sensible) people (including the British) knew that it would not happen.

The US colonists allied & fought with the British when fighting the French. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

US colonists? You mean the British colonists. Not mentioning that they were more or less forced to do so.

The US allied & fought with the French when fighting the British. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

And it still does.

The US allied & fought with the Cubans when fighting the Spaniards. At the time it seemed to make sense ...

The US was never threated by the Cubans with their own weaponry. It was the US support for the authoritarian regime in Cuba and their displeasure with the new regime (which they tried to overthrow) that infuriated the Cubans. They looked to the USSR for support and it were Soviet missiles threatening the US.

The my-enemies'-enemy-is-my-friend theory is nothing more than outright stupidity. Its only looking at the situation today, without thinking what will happen tomorrow.

[Tiberios]

The main reason why the US shipped arms and equipment to the USSR was to let the Soviets do the hard work. If they didn't, it would have resulted in a lot more US casualties in Europe. Furthermore, Roosevelt believed Stalin when he was saying that free elections would be held in the 'liberated' (Eastern European) countries although other (more sensible) people (including the British) knew that it would not happen.

Nah, it was a part of the lend lease agreements, which also included sending war materials to the British and China. They were enacted by Roosevelt because at the time, the popular opinion were vehemently anti war. After the US entry into the war, it was simply supplies of war materials to the US allies.
It had nothing really to do with letting the USSR do all the work, it was simple assistance to the USSR.
It was the only real option Roosevelt had to support the British and the USSR before the US entry into the war.

US colonists? You mean the British colonists. Not mentioning that they were more or less forced to do so.

How were they forced excatly?

The US was never threated by the Cubans with their own weaponry. It was the US support for the authoritarian regime in Cuba and their displeasure with the new regime (which they tried to overthrow) that infuriated the Cubans. They looked to the USSR for support and it were Soviet missiles threatening the US.

The my-enemies'-enemy-is-my-friend theory is nothing more than outright stupidity. Its only looking at the situation today, without thinking what will happen tomorrow.

I'm quite sure he ment the Spanish-American War in 1898.

[Homeros]

How were they forced excatly?

They were still British subjects and had to fight for King and Country.

I'm quite sure he ment the Spanish-American War in 1898.

Yes he did. But he was referring to the hostilities starting after Castro & Co.

[Tiberios]

Yes he did. But he was referring to the hostilities starting after Castro & Co.

and what does the US-Spanish war has to do with Castro?

[BlackPirate]

I dislike foreign interventions.They tend to complicate things

[Gumpfendorfer]

Well, in this case we are arming the transitional government of Somalia. They are actively fighting an Islamist insurgency. And doing so under the eye of the world, and US advisers on the ground in the region, if not Somalia itself.

Again, not a perfect situation. Flooding a country with weapons, where the insurgency holds more ground in the capital, then the government does, is always sketchy. But simply doing nothing, is not an option. The TFG needs weapons, so they will get them. While history has shown this can come back to bite us, it isnt written in stone either. And a good portion of the Afghan Muj that ended up getting direct support, actually fought against the Islamists.

Maybe it becomes a problem down the road, maybe it doesn't. What we do know right now, is that the world is so alienated by Iraq, that anything more significant, isnt going to happen. And we know that dealing with another failed state, is not an option. The US could go in with troops if it came to it, but we are not going to get any help from anyone else. We are going to continue to support the TFG, and continue to bomb these knuckleheads into the ground. Until perhaps the situation becomes so dire, that we do go in with a brigade.

Sad part is that under Bush they started to pay clans fighting the moderate Islamists who at one point and for very short time established some sort of rule over large parts of the country. Now they are looked upon as part of the solution, and they are, however the TFG is also rather clan based. Like everything in Somalia.

The extremist do not need to control the entire country, what they have now is enough to start destabilizing the horn of Africa, together with the regional powers fighting their proxies. Kenya is the most obvious target, with the extremist controlling the South it's almost a no-brainer.

Trying to get the Somalis to agree on something, think about Afghans, multiply it by a thousand, that's what your up against.

Best book ever for those interested is "warriors" by Gerald Hanley:

During the war, Gerald Hanley spent several years in the remote and scorching deserts of Somalia. The rigours of living in such heat, and the difficulties of attempting to control blood-feuding nomads, led to the suicide of seven fellow-officers. Despite these problems, Gerald Hanley writes with great affection for the local clans, an affection that is untainted by sentimentality. ?Of all the races of Africa, there cannot be one better to live among than the most difficult, the proudest, the bravest, the vainest, the most merciless, the friendliest: the Somalis.?

The author gives such a vivid description of their love of fighting, and their contempt for death, that the reader cannot fail to understand why it is nearly impossible to stop the bloodshed in modern Kalashnikov-filled, Somalia.

Actually the best book on Africa I've ever read. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warriors-Lif.../dp/0907871836