According to reports US Seals tried to storm a house in Somalia to 'target' an alleged member of the Shabab militants. The group which recently attacked the shopping mall in Kenya.
After a silent approach from the sea the Seals got caught in a fire exchange which lasted for an hour and in which helicopters were called in. Eventually the special forces had to withdraw, claiming that they killed someone, but apparently not the guy they were after.
A stark reminder that Somalia does not provide for 'happy hunting grounds' for special forces after the 'Black Hawk Down' massacre in 1993 where bodies of US soldiers were dragged down the streets of Mogadishu.
As recent as this January the French special forces had to withdraw from an attempt to rescue an 'intelligence agent' The 50 troops accompanied by helicopters met with much more resistance than expected. They lost two of their commandos.
With a very weak central government it's extremely difficult to get a hold on militant groups within Somalia. The successful attempt by the Kenian army to restore some order in the south, was the very reason the Shabab militants retaliated by attacking the Westport shopping center in the capital of Kenya. Now the attempt to pick up one of the responsible leaders failed.
The eye for an eye policy doesn't really seem to work; maybe nation building would do more to turn Somalia into a normal country #Politics
Nation-building? Let the nation build itself if it can stop squabbling long enough. I'm of the opinion that people with sense need to leave the country since there are not enough of them to retake it back from all these militias, pirates, and general ne'er-do-wells. Let them stew in their own juices; see if that teaches them anything.
"Special" forces are not the best to build a nation.
The timing of this is very suspect.
there's plenty of money for this?
+Jo Dunaway I don't claim to have the answer, but I would point out that "people with sense" don't often have the option of leaving the country. In addition to the fact that most don't have the resources for significant travel, the best they can hope for is a squalid refugee camp. That's if they don't get turned away or attacked at whichever border they try to cross.
When a country descends into chaos, the people least responsible for said chaos are often the most effected, and unable to do anything about it. "Screw 'em" is one possible answer to this issue, but anyone offering this proposal should be explicit that this is the approach they're advocating.
Wth are these guys doing overthere? What's the connection?
".. about Kenya or its role as American partner in keeping Somalia in a constant state of war..": http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-death-and-somalia
Somalia is the armpit of Africa. Warzone 101 was written on the streets. Piracy, warlords, and smugglers make it one of the least likely to advance in the near future.
#NeverLearn
Of course, let's just ignore them and let them have whatever brand of anarchy the strongest of them want. That is really working well so far.
Is this the kind of anarchy the Tea Party wants?
*This comment is not on topic: It's amazingly hard to tell if that pic is real or if it's from a video game.
Nuke it.
What the hell was America doing there anyway? This is not there fight
+Joel Webber, I bow to you..
+Joel Rogness I think its from the movie "black hawk down"
a must watch
+Marc Roelofs I explained the connection in my post: al Shabab originates in Somalia.
+Jason Hurtado Daniels The Tea Party wants a return to limited government and freedom. The commie controlled press and schools appear to have succeeded with you.
Somali pirates are already extracting a heavy price from Governments by way of naval deployment in the Arabian sea. It would be much cheaper to send troops into Somalia to clear the warlords. But American troops and their cowardice is not suitable. Unless you are willing to pay with own lives, you have no moral right to fight a war to stabilise another nation. Remote control wars can't stabilise nations since drones can't even hold an inch of territory. The aversion to getting your hands dirty is the reason the Somali pirates and warlords are laughing. If the Americans can finance the bills of UN troops, Indian or Pakistani troops can do the job.
+Able Lawrence In some sense it's not all that different than the "age of pirates" in the Caribbean. European powers were either unable or unwilling to get deeply enmired in the area as long as the sugar and tobacco kept flowing at an acceptable "tax" in terms of losses to pirates. That local colonies often lived in terror wasn't a big factor in their economic calculus…
Interestingly, despite their antagonism at home Indian and Pakistani troops are known to work well together on UN missions in Africa. In fact they have rescued each other from tight situations.
The point is that the price is paid by taxpayers and not by shipping companies or trading companies or insurance companies. Every nation from China to India and every one else has deployment near the horn of Africa.
+Able Lawrence Oh, without a doubt. This is a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Even if you ignore the humanitarian concerns, every company affected, paying its own security (and writing off losses) is likely much less efficient than a concerted effort borne by all of us (who are of course transitively affected). Throw in the nebulous but large costs of regional instability, along with a healthy dose of humanitarian concern, and the issue becomes quite clear.
Some good questions in the Guardian today: Are extrajudicial killings and covert kidnapping raids the best way of dealing with the problem? Why is the international response so feeble?"
+Max Huijgen Nein aber einer nuke bist gutte
+Able Lawrence you're mistaking the purpose of drone strikes if you think it represents cowardice. At the least – you're ignoring the deployment on going activity of US ground troops in the regional conflicts where drone activity is related. And you're ignoring recent history where US forces (along with their allies) fought conventional wars with surprisingly low casualties while gaining ground at a shockingly fast pace.
The other big piece being missed here is that conventional warfare does not mean stability. It hasn't in the middle east. And it is unlikely that there is anything special about Somalia that would lead one expect a different outcome. I would be very cautious about committing my country's troops to that region. Especially under the guise of national
pricepride.The region does need stability. But nobody is good at "nation building." Somalia gets limited attention because Somalia offers no solutions.
+Paul Hosking US abhorrence to own casualties as opposed to civilian casualties is well known. US has never been known to take higher casualties in order to avoid civilian deaths unlike the history of Indian peacekeeping troops who generally avoid heavy weapons in unconventional wars. Rather American troops wouldn't mind killing an entire family to avoid injury to own troops. This is a well known doctrine of us policies which is actually weakening American war efforts as opponents can guess the tactics.
+Able Lawrence that is a perception, but I'm not sure it is a rule. Drones aren't simply about avoiding casualties. A drone can linger in an area undetected for an extended period of time to observe and / or strike. Putting actual boots on the ground exposes a lot more risk to detection which not only risks lives of those troops but the possibility to kill the intended target. The US took that risk before drones proved to be effective. But as Somalia demonstrates, being on the ground is difficult when your target is well protected.
I do agree that the problem is what value US commanders put on "collateral damage." And more to the point of whether there is a larger picture where avoiding additional deaths (or at least a propaganda opportunity) is worth more than the possibility of killing a hard to get target.
Again – when it comes down to it, these situations are not about military might, prowess, or even some macho concept of bravery. Military force does not bring about the kind of stability Somalia needs. It can be the first step. But there's a lot more that needs to follow.
+Paul Hosking I think that +Able Lawrence is right that the value of 'foreign' or even 'alien' lives is considered to be extremely low by American commanders.
Very different from other army estimates, no doubt due to the ridicule thought that you can start wars without suffering casualties.
+Max Huijgen I doubt there is any perception that wars can be fought without suffering casualties. Every war the US has entered involves estimated losses. The US suffers losses (albeit usually lower than initial estimates). The concept that the US is too "cowardly" to suffer casualties ignores significant data to the contrary. Trying to equate civilian deaths to this concept misses what is actually going on. The valuation of civilian deaths is more to do with the nature of the fighting than inability to suffer loss. What's worse is such a mindset leading to this potentially tragic believe that another national military force willing to suffer more losses can force a peace where significant force has already failed. What you'll end up with is the same mess with a higher body count.
+Paul Hosking We are discussing civilian losses for every American life. Afghan or Iraqi lives mean little to American military.
+Able Lawrence Alright – let's say the US military has as low a regard for foreign national lives as being claimed. And let's assume that Indian and Pakistani military holds a higher regard for foreign national lives. What then? Do you expect Somali warlords and their forces to no longer blend in with civilian populations? Are they going to present a conventional battle front for a conventional stand-off with Indian and Pakistani forces? Do you, as I think +Max Huijgen was trying to make the point to me, expect no civilian deaths?
If you think drones and civilian deaths are the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, you're not paying attention. The problem is that something else has to come along as soon as conventional warfare ends. That something else has a limited period of time to be effective. _This_ is where the US failed in Iraq. Because like Iraq, if you don't provide, Somalia will provide on its own. And what it knows right now is what produced warlords and pirates.
+Paul Hosking Your success will depend on how much local population views you as your friend or the enemy. Suppose some one has information on their neighbor. They will never give you the tip if they think they are likely to use bombs. If you are more considerate, and more considerate to his house and the lives of his innocent neighbors, he might consider the terrorist as a greater threat and might report on him. Military effectiveness does not exist in vacuum.
+Able Lawrence I agree. But it isn't always that easy. It's not like the US military is oblivious to these concepts nor entirely inept at working with locals. The situation is more complex than just a desire to be considerate to someone, their home, and their neighbors. Look at high crime areas in countries that aren't war-torn and ungoverened. Police aren't going to come in and bomb your neighborhood. But you can't always trust that the Police are going to be there when the criminal decides to make an example out of you for having talked to the police. So you don't "snitch" and live with the crime even when that crime is a general threat to your well being.
Again – I don't buy that any given military force could storm Somalia, wipe out all the Warlords with conventional military action, and then win the peace by taking a bullet for the population. At best, you might be able to wipe out some warlords, disrupt others, and secure some areas. But after that initial shock, you'll need to come up with something else to hold the ground you've gained. And it better not be more military force – that's a one-trick pony (and places like Somalia have already seen the trick before).
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_collier_s_new_rules_for_rebuilding_a_broken_nation.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html