If we could have identified the terror camps in Afghanistan and destroyed them from, say 1996-2000, would it have been worth the sacrifice of national resources, troops, and equipment? If the targeting prevented 9/11, then the answer would be yes.
Therefore, we should bomb Somalia.
Mogadishu has just been conquered by a loose union of “moderate” Islamic courts that press Sharia law, shelter terrorists, and seek to spread their degenerate ideology to neighboring countries. This is pretty much what the Taliban did in Afghanistan after the communist puppet government was driven out after the Soviets left*. So, if we identify centers of gravity in Somalia where terrorists are congregating –let’s hit them hard. I’ve even got a suggestion for the troops to task on this one –what’s the one Army unit that may just want to get a little revenge for something that may have happened in 1994 in Somalia? Let’s re-deploy the 75th Ranger Regiment to Somaila, backed up by a multi-national task force headed by the 10th Mountain Division. Let’s raid this failed state, destroy any terror camps that are established, and make no apologies for it.
If we can prevent another Taliban from rising, the costs of preventing another 9/11 far outweigh the deployment of combat troops to the region.
In conclusion, Let’s Roll.
**John Says** I strongly disagree with Charlie on this point. A heavy, brigade level presence in the abyss that is east Africa would satisfy no real strategic end, while enabling the loose confederation of Islamists to hit us the only way they know how: low-level, asymmetric warfare.
Furthermore, there are no real “centers of gravity” to hit in Somalia. The enemy is spread out amongst clans and tribes, blurring the lines between military units and civilian populations. The army is a sword, not a scalpel, better to keep the heavy lifters near the heavy loads: Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m not saying we should ignore the Horn. CIA paramilitary teams (like the Jawbreaker team in Afghanistan ’01) have proven effective in accomplishing US objectives in failed states in the past, and they can do so in the future.
We’ve learned this lesson already, revenge is not a strategy.
*(Charlie here) By the way, America drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan by providing Stinger Missiles to the Afghan Mujahadeen resistance. By training, equipping, and re-supplying the local fighters, the US won a proxy war against its current enemy, the Soviets. The big picture at the time showed this as a huge win for the US, easily comparable to the communists’ victory over America in Vietnam.
Maj P here… Good what-if from Charlie, and a point well-taken from John. I will say that not only is a large footprint ashore on Somalia unwelcome, it is also unnecessary. Geography provides us with a huge area– the Indian Ocean– from which to launch strikes at the time and place of our choosing, and we have the right forces for it. The solution is a balanced task force which would probably be primarily naval in character but would include elements from all the services, including SOF. Forces can be maintained indefinitely off the coast, over the horizon. Don’t establish a massive presence ashore; dash in, hit hard, and withdraw. Believe me, it works. In 93 the 24th MEU SOC hit target after target from the ships of the ARG, by boat, helo and AAV. We sustained those operations for weeks. We knocked the warring factions off balance, seized the initiative, supported relief efforts and coalition forces, all the while with a minimal presence ashore.
Just get the NGOs out of the area.
It’s their free food that is powering the jihadis.
Send them back to the farm.
Covert operations can handle what’s left.
I’m with John and blert. A friend of mine did CT work in East Africa all through the 90′s.
We (as in the USA) do not want to be there.
It would be far easier to simply interdict the place and let no weapons in.
Invade Somalia? Is this a joke? Why don’t we fly to Jupiter and punch out God too?
I’m amazed at the persistent belief that military power is America’s all-powerful tool that can fix anything. I would hope the Iraq debacle would have pointed out the absurdity of that position.
Try to keep in mind that “muslim” does not automatically equal “enemy.”
Josh, Islam is the enemy of all mankind. In any Muslim community there are radicals who seek to subjugate the world by force. Their aims and means are the same as the Nazis. What has happened to Jews and Christians after Muslims come to power? The same thing that has happened to atheists and free thinkers. They disappeared, forever.
The war on terrorism is bogus. What you see now is the PNAC plan being carried out.
P2OG is a group that is made stimulate terrorism for christsakes. Why do you think the war terrorism is supposedly going to take decades? Terrorism is used as a way to spread the wars. Do you research and you’ll find out that this is the truth.
This is not a left vs right issue. They are trying to fool all of us.
Charlie,
You wrote:
I would suggest reading up a bit more on the history of the Soviet-Afghan war and also looking a bit closer at the facts and connections surrounding the Afghan-Soviet war as well as what took place after the Soviets pulled out in 89. (The works of Les Grau are some to read.)
While most would agree that the US provided Stinger’s were important, the Stinger alone did not drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
“Although Stingers and Blowpipes could hardly be credited with ending the war in Afghanistan. . . .they forced an unmistakable reduction in Soviet aerial missions.” Dr. Robert F. Baumann, Russian-Soviet Unconventional Wars in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Afghanistan, (Leavenworth Papers #20, Combat Studies Institute, USA CGSC) pg.156
The billions in small arms, ammunition and aid that were provided by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Muj combined with the unifying effects of an “infidel occupier” had more to do with the Soviets withdrawal than with the surface to air missiles. The Soviets would eventually “do the math” and realize the costs out weighted the benefits of pushing on in Afghanistan. The Stingers simply sped up this process by a few years.
Bombing Afghanistan in 1996 would not have done as much as if we had established relations with them and perhaps assisted legitimate leaders to come into power and helped them rebuild their country. This would likely have prevented the pro-Al Qaeda Taliban from coming into power and providing OBL and his crew the free run of the place.
Even so… OBL would have likely just moved onto a more hospitable area.
If we want to get rid of the rats, we have to clean up the garbage dumps… simply poisoning (bombing) everything is not the solution.
Regards,
DA
Couple of other points I forgot to mention:
“…the US won a proxy war against its current enemy, the Soviets.”
Yes, we basically won a proxy war but left an unstable country full of arms, ammunition and radicals and fairly devoid of hope. This then turned into the swamp that allowed the Taliban to come power and host OBL.
So basically we helped kick the Soviets out by 1989 and left fertile ground for terrorist groups that sprouted in 1992-1994 and then came to bloom in 1999-2000, culminating in Sept 11th.
We should not be so quick to declare some things to be a “WIN” and then pack up and leave.
Long term consequences often follow.
What the term some have used? Blowback??
Look at how western powers meddled in Iran (Opn Ajax), that lead to a revolution which installed hard-liners who were pro-communist, so then we provide support in arms and technology to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as he fights Iran, in the hopes of their neutralizing Iran in the region.
Then guess who becomes the biggest problem in the region by 1990?
“The big picture at the time showed this as a huge win for the US, easily comparable to the communists’ victory over America in Vietnam.”
Doesn’t seem like Vietnam came back to bite the Soviets in the ass just over 10 years later did it?
Conclusion:
Things are far more complex than “bomb this” and “bomb that”. Military action alone and of itself often does not solve much. As an example, consider the SWEAT model the military uses to get urban areas running properly again… thereby helping to win over the locals.
While it is unquestionably very satisfying to have “done something” about a problem (especially if it involves blowing something up), we may often cause far more problems than we solve.
Also the divergent effects must be considered and mitigated.
Regards,
DA
The Romans learned along time ago that to keep the people in check, get them to support wars, military objectives abroad and to put up with just about any hardship and injustice you need an enemy.
Not just any enemy but a baby killing, strike anywhere, nothing like us, freedom hating, oppressive, false god worshipping (or godless) enemy that the dumb masses can hide in their beds worrying about at night.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the US elite knew that they needed an enemy, but in a unipolar world there wasn’t anyone to measure up to the task, no way to create the fear in order to push through dodgy legislation.
Then they found a new enemy, the CIA operatives and network were already in place, the Mujahadeen didn’t turn against the US, they were turned.
Everything from Osama Bin Laden to Zarqawi was manufactured to provide US children (and adults) with a Boogeyman.
I’ll leave you with some words from a Mr A Hitler from Austria.
“He had a reign of terror. He hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his terrorism he has succeded in reducing millions of his people to silence.The maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a force of danger . I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings”.
You see, its all been done before many, many times. Unfortunately in the US the masses don’t know their history, mainly because of the famous US ‘historical amnesia’.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF OVER AND OVER. IN ORDER FOR THIS TO OCCUR, THERE MUST BE WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE. IGNORANCE IS THE KEY.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE. IGNORANCE IS KEY.