Somalia, what's the answer?

[Lancer]

Terrorist training ground, possible hiding place of Bin Laden, run by gangs on a good day, extremeist moslems on a bad one. What to do?

[germanos]

Militairy invasion, obviously.

[SlowwHand]

Don't half-step this time.

[Pekka]

What to do.. difficult question. I don't consider Somalia a terrorist country even though it has terrorists. It has far bigger problems than that domestically.

Clans. That's one.

But will it stop? I don't think it will stop on its own. Military intervention, well, it would require huge commitments. The place needs to be taken over and the clan system needs to be demolished. Sounds like a tough thing to do, chances for success are slim to none.

We'll see how it goes in 200 years. Maybe things have changed. I doubt it.

[SlowwHand]

We'll see in 200 years? Pekka...

[techumseh]

Re: Somalia, what's the answer?

Originally posted by Lancer
Terrorist training ground, possible hiding place of Bin Laden, run by gangs on a good day, extremeist moslems on a bad one. What to do?

Start by renting "Blackhawk Down." Repeat.

[PLATO]

We could always pick a faction and heavily arm them to the point they kill off all the others.

Then we could watch them turn on us.

THEN we launch the military invasion.

I thought you guys knew this formula by now.

[Zkribbler]

For now: Nothing.

Our last best chance was supporting the anti-al-Qaeda locals. We tried that. But they lost.

If we now go in militarily, we'd get our heads handed to us. The area is just too anti-U.S.

Reminder:
Following the 9/11 attacks, I pointed out that the War on Terror would be decided on how that war was perceived by the world, especially by the Islamic world. If the war is seen (as it truly is) as religious fanatics vs. civilization, we'll win in a walk. But if bin Laden is successful in portraying it as Islam vs. Christian, then we'd end up in an endless, bloody stalemate.

The Grand Diverstion:
Bin Ladin's side got its biggest boost when Bush took his eye off of al Qaeda and attacked Iraq, a nation which, up until then, had been an enemy of al Qaeda (even tho Iraq was providing financial support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers). Now, U.S. troops are almost universally referred to in the Arab nations as "The Occupiers." And the specter of an Islam vs. Christian war looms.

We need to walk the tightrope of (a) withdrawing our combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible while (b) not permitted the duly elected government of Iraq to fall. This is one nasty balancing act, but not impossible.

Although al-Qaeda has now established itself in Iraq, and has some allies who want to both (a) drive the U.S. out of Iraq and (b) attack the U.S., most of the insurgents fall into three other groups whose main focus is on driving the U.S. out.

Some are Baathists who want to return to the old regime. Some are ****te nationalists, who want the U.S. out so they can establish a fundamentalist state a la Iran. And some are Iraqi nationalists, who just want the U.S. out.

So...once U.S. combat troops are out, these last three groups will have no further interest in the U.S. Because the current Iraqi govenment represents Iraqis, and the majority of Iraqis are ****te, the Iraqi nationalists and the ****te nationalists will find the current Iraqi govenment to be an attractive alternative to civil war.

This will lead to a final showdown between government forces on one side and Baathists and al-Qaeda on the other. This war could well be winnable.

Then Somilia:
Only after we establish our bona fides in Iraq, by withdrawing with no oil grants to ourselves and without leaving a puppet regime, will we regain the credibility to lead a war of civilization against religious fanatics.

That's when we can start making headway in Somolia. This is a "war" we can win using blue jeans, rock & roll, MP3 players, Hollywood movies and the internet. It's a war we can win using freedom and prosperity as lures because al-Qaeda's bloodsoaked manifesto is one of hatred and poverty.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
That's when we can start making headway in Somolia. This is a "war" we can win using blue jeans, rock & roll, MP3 players, Hollywood movies and the internet. It's a war we can win using freedom and prosperity as lures because al-Qaeda's bloodsoaked manifesto is one of hatred and poverty.

Culture victory

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Somalia, what's the answer?

Originally posted by techumseh


Start by renting "Blackhawk Down." Repeat.

wasn't that a jingoistic pro war movie? I never saw it but I'm surprised to see someone such as yourself advocating watching it.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
For now: Nothing.

Our last best chance was supporting the anti-al-Qaeda locals. We tried that. But they lost.

If we now go in militarily, we'd get our heads handed to us. The area is just too anti-U.S.

Reminder:
Following the 9/11 attacks, I pointed out that the War on Terror would be decided on how that war was perceived by the world, especially by the Islamic world. If the war is seen (as it truly is) as religious fanatics vs. civilization, we'll win in a walk. But if bin Laden is successful in portraying it as Islam vs. Christian, then we'd end up in an endless, bloody stalemate.

The Grand Diverstion:
Bin Ladin's side got its biggest boost when Bush took his eye off of al Qaeda and attacked Iraq, a nation which, up until then, had been an enemy of al Qaeda (even tho Iraq was providing financial support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers). Now, U.S. troops are almost universally referred to in the Arab nations as "The Occupiers." And the specter of an Islam vs. Christian war looms.

We need to walk the tightrope of (a) withdrawing our combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible while (b) not permitted the duly elected government of Iraq to fall. This is one nasty balancing act, but not impossible.

Although al-Qaeda has now established itself in Iraq, and has some allies who want to both (a) drive the U.S. out of Iraq and (b) attack the U.S., most of the insurgents fall into three other groups whose main focus is on driving the U.S. out.

Some are Baathists who want to return to the old regime. Some are ****te nationalists, who want the U.S. out so they can establish a fundamentalist state a la Iran. And some are Iraqi nationalists, who just want the U.S. out.

So...once U.S. combat troops are out, these last three groups will have no further interest in the U.S. Because the current Iraqi govenment represents Iraqis, and the majority of Iraqis are ****te, the Iraqi nationalists and the ****te nationalists will find the current Iraqi govenment to be an attractive alternative to civil war.

This will lead to a final showdown between government forces on one side and Baathists and al-Qaeda on the other. This war could well be winnable.

Then Somilia:
Only after we establish our bona fides in Iraq, by withdrawing with no oil grants to ourselves and without leaving a puppet regime, will we regain the credibility to lead a war of civilization against religious fanatics.

That's when we can start making headway in Somolia. This is a "war" we can win using blue jeans, rock & roll, MP3 players, Hollywood movies and the internet. It's a war we can win using freedom and prosperity as lures because al-Qaeda's bloodsoaked manifesto is one of hatred and poverty.

But is Iraqi Nationalists + Shiite religious extremists winning really a victory as far as we're concerned? We'd probably be much better off with the Baathists in power.

[Pekka]

Actually, cultural war will be one way I figure.. yeah,, that's not a bad idea.

Big Boobs, BBQ, fart humour, beer, strippers, drooling over new technology and actually USING IT, entertainment.. of course our cultures are superior.

Everybody likes IPods. Or what, no one likes music? This si trivial, they want the same things, except for extremists, who want to be spanked by dominatrixes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


But is Iraqi Nationalists + Shiite religious extremists winning really a victory as far as we're concerned? We'd probably be much better off with the Baathists in power.

maybe not in the long term. An incompetant successor to saddam could have ended up like the shah with a revolution that turned the state instantly into an "islamic republic" like post shah Iran.

Of course that outcome could still occur in the current situation but argualby it will become less likely if Iraq manages to eke out some sort of stable democracy. Most democracies in the region would probably be somewhat less likely to go fundy than a revolution overthrowing a dictatorship would be.

[techumseh]

Re: Re: Re: Somalia, what's the answer?

Originally posted by Geronimo


wasn't that a jingoistic pro war movie? I never saw it but I'm surprised to see someone such as yourself advocating watching it.

On the contrary, it was one of the better anti-war movies in recent years. A real cautionary tale, all the moreso for being a true story.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Somalia, what's the answer?

Originally posted by techumseh


On the contrary, it was one of the better anti-war movies in recent years. A real cautionary tale, all the moreso for being a true story.

hrmm. in that case it might be worth renting I guess. I really hate the jingoistic war movies though. I hope you're not glossing over any of that.