Rolling up Al Qaeda in Somalia

[Pekka]

Well, I've thought about this action, and I think, that depending what happens next, this might be a good thing.

As in, commitment to the operation. Not just random attacks, but if the ****storm should arise, I say go go go, get as many bad guys as possible.

I mean lket's face it. Somalia is a place, that is war ridden, inner conflicts have tored the country, and there will be no solution, this current situation will continue for the next 50 years.

So why not just shake it up a bit and see what happens. It might be benefitial.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiff, even in Afghanistan, most people were more than upset with the extreme Islamism being forced down their throats by the Taliban. This is one of the reasons the overthrow of the Taliban was so easy.

How come they're putting up an ever increasing prescence these days?

[germanos]

On topic: I hope that the propped up gov of Somalia will be able to take full advantage of the current advantageous situation.
With the sweap through the country I'm afraid though they they won't be able to. Do they have a sound plan for stabilisation? Or the necessary means to implement such plans?

With over a decade of anarchy and warlords it's going to be a monumentous task of re-establishing a central government.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't even know why you're making this partisan. I must have hit your weak spot, for you to get so defensive about it.

You're getting soft if you can't recognize an obvious trolling...

[Ned]

Originally posted by germanos


How come they're putting up an ever increasing prescence these days?

Anti-americansm? Xenophobhia. You name it.

It would be better if we could pull our troops out entirely and let the Afghan government fight the Taliban.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned


Anti-americansm? Xenophobhia. You name it.

If only xenophobia is enough to revitalize the fundamentalist Taliban, then I don't see how you can claim it's easy to overthrow them.

[lord of the mark]

overthrowing X != eliminating X

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiff, even in Afghanistan, most people were more than upset with the extreme Islamism being forced down their throats by the Taliban. This is one of the reasons the overthrow of the Taliban was so easy.

Indeed, especially in Kabul. However, it took more time than in Somalia for the Afghanis to tire of the Taliban, notably because their radicl Islam isn't as far off the mark of the local culture. For example, even without the Taliban, Afghani women continue to wear the Burka, unlike Somali ones.

You also raise a valid point by raising Afghanistan. Toppling the Muslim Courts in Somalia was quite easy, and not really that bloody (3000 deaths and a swift war are much, much lower than the worst-case scenario). The question is, however, if the US will be efficient at supporting the regular government (which is in control of the sole city of Baidoa), or if Somalia will continue to be a warzone torn between warlords. If it is the latter, it'll be a breeding ground for more terrorists and radicals, as well as a haven for foreign terrorists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed, especially in Kabul. However, it took more time than in Somalia for the Afghanis to tire of the Taliban, notably because their radicl Islam isn't as far off the mark of the local culture. For example, even without the Taliban, Afghani women continue to wear the Burka, unlike Somali ones.

You also raise a valid point by raising Afghanistan. Toppling the Muslim Courts in Somalia was quite easy, and not really that bloody (3000 deaths and a swift war are much, much lower than the worst-case scenario). The question is, however, if the US will be efficient at supporting the regular government (which is in control of the sole city of Baidoa), or if Somalia will continue to be a warzone torn between warlords. If it is the latter, it'll be a breeding ground for more terrorists and radicals, as well as a haven for foreign terrorists.

pardon, but I think it will have much more to do with the abilities of the local pols, warlords etc than with the efficiency of US support. If the Darrod (?) and Haniwya clans can make a deal, theyll be well on their way even if Paul Bremer is in charge of US support, and if they cant make a deal, even the most efficient US support wont help all that much.

Not everything on the planet revolves around the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well done to to Ethiopia. Just like Afghanistan, when you want results, don't use American troops.

I got news for ya, Sandy. There were Americans on the ground in Afghan. Spec ops boys were very busy.

Same guys may have been active alongside the Ethiopians in Somalia.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
pardon, but I think it will have much more to do with the abilities of the local pols, warlords etc than with the efficiency of US support. If the Darrod (?) and Haniwya clans can make a deal, theyll be well on their way even if Paul Bremer is in charge of US support, and if they cant make a deal, even the most efficient US support wont help all that much.

Any deal will necessarily involve that warlords retire, and to that effect, these ****ers will need a steady source of money and security. Something the west shouldn't be too moralistic about, and should contribute providing. I'm saying "the west" because a stable Somalia is of interest to everybody, but I'm mostly eying the US, considering its involvement (just like I consider that France should be the western power that pays most of the western bill for a stable Ivory Coast)

Besides, in a country that has been torn by about 16 years of clanic war, I wouldn't imagine that trust is running high between clans. A middleman might be used, and a middleman with power and money is better, if we are to grease the mechanism. True, we could send some Finn or something, but while such ombudsmen are generally nice and upstanding, they rarely result in anything.

Not everything on the planet revolves around the US.

Indeed, but when the US is a main actor of a geopolitical event, said event significantly revolves around the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Any deal will necessarily involve that warlords retire, and to that effect, these ****ers will need a steady source of money and security. Something the west shouldn't be too moralistic about, and should contribute providing. I'm saying "the west" because a stable Somalia is of interest to everybody, but I'm mostly eying the US, considering its involvement (just like I consider that France should be the western power that pays most of the western bill for a stable Ivory Coast)

Besides, in a country that has been torn by about 16 years of clanic war, I wouldn't imagine that trust is running high between clans. A middleman might be used, and a middleman with power and money is better, if we are to grease the mechanism. True, we could send some Finn or something, but while such ombudsmen are generally nice and upstanding, they rarely result in anything.


Indeed, but when the US is a main actor of a geopolitical event, said event significantly revolves around the US.

I doubt the warlords are going to "retire" most of them are clan leaders, and were the key players in Somali politics before they became warlords, and will remain so. the key negotiations will be for power in a new govt, not cash to get folks to retire.

And while the US probably has helped the ethiopians, I dont know we are the main actor.

And my sense is that, mistrust or no, it takes a local to understand all the complexities. I dont think the US should be doing that. I think, based on recent experience, in Iraq, and on our 1991 experience in Somalia itself, that we will misidentify the players and create more problems by making ourselves central to the political process.

Of course we should, and will, give economic aid.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Any deal will necessarily involve that warlords retire, and to that effect, these ****ers will need a steady source of money and security.

Without the warlords, who will be there to make a deal? The UIC and Puntland? I don't particularly like the sound of that.

Well, it's academic - the warlords are about as likely to disappear from the Somali scene as the Republicans from the American.

[Ned]

This is the way to handle AQ: get the locals to do it and keep the US military out of the country.

Much of our problem with the Muslim world is the presence of our military in-country. Regardless of the reasons they there, Muslims view them as some sort of modern crusader army and want them out.

Our greatest failure in recent history is leaving our troops in the ME after the Gulf War. Had we simply withdrawn, AQ may never have been formed.

[Arrian]

I'm late to this thread, but I'll add as simple: "Huzzah," if A-Q really has been "rolled up" in Somalia. Bravo. I sure *hope* we've scored a victory.

-Arrian