Please use this item to discuss the UN/U.S. efforts in Somalia.

44 responses total.

(I notice that you entered a separate "voting" item to poll on this issue.
Would you like me to set up the "vote" program to let people vote on it
instead?)

   (thats an interesting idea.)

   I don't see why we're there now.  Its clear to me that we can't
possibly control the situation, and that we could easily develop
another Vietnam here.

   How many US troops have died there, now?

If we stay, more people - including Americans - will die, and we will
end up being hated by Somalians of any persuasion. If we leave, more
people, but not Americans, will, die, and we will end up being hated
by Somalians of any persuasion. I vote for the Third Option.

 Third Option -- Drop the Big One!

        I'm all for tryingto help people, but not at the great expense of
U.S. citizens, regardless of whether they are civillians or military.

        On Nightline last night, someone said that the problem with withdrawing
our people is that it sends a message to other little political hoodlums
that the U.S. might move in, but as soon as it gets dirty, we will retreat.

        That may be true, but the solution to that is to NOT send our troops
in in the first place.  It will also send a message that shows that we're
willing to spend all sorts of $$ to help a nation that we have no obligation to
 help, but if certain groups --minority or majority-- fight our efforts to
help, we will cease & desist from all humanitarian efforts.


        We have stopped the Somalis from dying of starvation, but there is
nothing that we can do to stop them from trauma such as bullet wounds. 

        We need to practice better 'political triage' when it comes to our
'humanitarian' efforts. I'd rather see my money spent in & on my country and
our national interests.  Somalia isn't one of them.

        When it comes down to it, I care more about 'us' than I do about the
Somalis.        If they're stupid enough to think that Aidid can feed & 
protect them, so be it.

        I wonder how many troops sent to Haiti for 'humanitarian reasons'
will die before they're pulled out in 6 months.  The 6 month deadline is
more like a pre-planned retreat, because government officials are expecting
more trouble similar to what ended up happening in Somalia.

The Third Option is to apply intelligence. I don't have all the information
about the social infrastructure of Somalia, but someone does. It should
be possible to found a responsible democratic government that would serve
its citizens, rather than playing into the hands of the clan rivalries.
If one isn't being successful, then not enough intelligence is being
applied. We are already getting stories of UN and US stupidity in both
strategy and tactics, probably because they have a too narrow view of
the internal structure and struggles. However, I don't have the answers:
I just remain convinced that it could be done peaceably.

I agree with Tim.

I don't believe it can be done peacably. There are too many power-hungry
maniacs with guns. Nevertheless, only a fraction of the Somalis wish
to attack and kill US soldiers. I think leaving is a worse option than
staying, for the reasons Hoolie related in #4 (from Nightline).
Not sending them in in the first place is not an option, so forget
that.

I agree with rcurl that intelligence needs to be applied. I also
think we need to disarm the maniacs, and that is no easy task. The
idea (we had once) of pacifying the country without disarming them
was a ludicrous one.

I am (for now) in favor of sending in reinforcements, as they are
doing. We need to apply force along with inteligence.

Except the part about "the big one".  Mostly we should set
realistic goals on what we can accomplish and stop sending
in American boys and girls because that's what the world
expects a super power to do.

srw slipped in.

Who armed Somalia in the first place?  Is Somalia making their
own weapons?

   The world armed Somalia.  For years many, many different organizations,
including private Americans sold arms.  All over Africa, really.  I believe
I know someone who engaged in this during the mid to late 70's, but he
was always cagey about what it was, exactly that he did over there.  Up
untill recently, if you had the money it was possible to get all sorts
of small-to-medium fire power.  The open-air arms market in Belgum was
a good example of that.

It should be added to #11 that the world nearly *forcibly* armed
Somalia. The country is located at the strategic "horn" of Agrica, so
the former Soviet Union, and the US, vied for influence in the area.
They vied with weapons. I think it was the USSR that had the best of
the last round of vying, until there was a revolution, and a clan took
over. They probably have more guns than trees in Somalia (I'm trying
to make a reasonable comparison - trees over 4" diameter).

 I'll link this over to worldnews

   I'm curious for the rationale for the two new yes votes in the
Somolia voting item.  Why absolutely yes?  What are we going to
accomplish?

What are we going to "accomplish" by withdrawing?

   The saving of American lives.  That isn't much in the grand universal
scheme of things, but I don't see what will be gained by their deaths.
Unless we're prepared to attack the entire country, how are we going to
control it to the extent that we could create a government there that
supposedly is the will of the people?
   I really hate saying this, but perhaps it was too early to attempt
the help.  Perhaps a lot of people should have starved first, such
that people in technicals wouldn't have been allowed to roam the
countryside.  Because as it stands now, we don't stand much of a
chance there with public opinion going the way it is, and the UN
will prove to be its usual emasculated self.

 Saving (U.S.) lives & $$, & putting both to work on matters that are less
deadly & costly, & have a better chance of reaching an objective that will help
the United States of America.

 FYI,

        According to General Gordon R. Sullivan, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
in an interview in the OCT 93 issue of _Armed Forces Journal International_,
the Army has already spent over $500,000,000.00 on the Somalia situation, in
less than a year.

        Does anyone have any examples of how that half billion dollars spent
by the U.S. Army alone in a little less than a year has improved the 
long-term quality of life for the Somali people?

        I think we've learned a lesson, & the next $500,000,000 should be
spent on a safer, more deserving, ore beneficial (to the U.S.A.) cause,
such as American Indian nations.

  The reason for the absolutly yes is that Somalia's people are in danger,
as well as the American soldiers. Lives are at stake here. It matters not
wheather they are somalian or american, we have the means to bring peace
by bringing down Idid. If I were Clinton I'd park the USS New Jersey or
similar heavy warship off the coast and start lobbing shells at Idid until
he gives up or dies. Once Idid is out of the way, then let the UN set up
a government that works for the people, instead of being a hinderance.

   Like it or not, we are the only power on earth that is willing to come
to the aid of anyone in distress. Did we not just send 2 C-5's to India
to help the earthquake? Did Japan send anything? Did Kuwait? did Saudi
Arabia? All 3 of those countries have more means than the US does, but
they little care for the world that they live in.
 Who sent aid to the US when Iowa was underwater? 

So, some of you are saying that American lives are more important, as
lives, than Somalian lives? What about: "We hold these Truths to be
self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalianable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."?  I submit that, if we
withdraw, more equal lives will be lost, than if we remain to establish
a government. Therefore, the net saving of lives is fostered by our
remaining. What other issue is there of greater importance?

   If we can't do anything to ultimately help the Somolies, then
yes, I think wasting American lives simple isn't worth it.  If we
*can* do some ultimate and lasting good, then I'd see it differently.
The problem is that far too many people there have guns, far too
many people there hate each other (tribal rivalries), and too many
people have simply lost hope that anything can be done for them.

   It would take *major* military action there to clean the situation
up.  There wasn't much of an infrastructure there in the first place,
and now even more of it is gone.  More importantly, the knowledge on
how to rebuild things isn't there.  To really help them we can't just
provide them food, a pat on the back and a little help to see them
start rebuilding the country.  We'd have to take complete control,
and start *everything* over again.  It's that bad.

   Should we take over another country in the name of helping them?
It would be no less than a complete invasion.  Should *we* do that?
Nothing less than that is going to help.  Anything less than this
will result in the benefactors being shot at, and nothing of any
permenance will be accomplished.

   I've gotten these views from people who have worked directly
there, in the trenches so to speak.  There are wonderful organizations
who are trying to help, but every little bit of help vanishes after
direct contact with the people stops.

   So do we spend $50 billion (at least) to do this?  Why shouldn't
we spend that effort in Chicago, Detroit or any of the other large
rotting cities right here?

So, we will sit, and be bombarded by CNN's sickening sights of people
starving to death, while we provide aid to Americans that are *vastly*
better off than are the Somalians, even if they live in Chicago or
Detroit. Now *that* is a sickening thought.

"To really help them...We'd have to take complete control.." is utter 
bullshit.  State Department Fascist attitudes like that are why most of
the 3rd world countries that Uncle Sam has screw around in are such 
hell-holes.  Great White Father Who Knows Best is a child molester who
claims to have good intentions.

re #20:  Aidid is only *one* of the clan leaders.  There are a *lot* of
         clans vying for control of Somalia.

re #21:  So, the Declaration of Independence creates an affirmative duty
         on the U.S. to ensure that all people in all nations live in the
         style of U.S. citizens at home?

   What about the Americans who are starving to death, right here, Rane?
It exists, and has gotten worse in the last decade.  As much as it pains
me to say it, why not focus on *Americans* for a change?  Why not have
a *REAL* "War On Drugs" with a system of economic possibilities in place,
such that a young person in a major city can see a useful future that
might be enough to live on, that isn't drug related?  Something that
doesn't use the phrase "...and would you like fries with that, Sir?".
The hopeless American isn't that much better off than the hopeless
Somoli--except that through the wonder (or horror) of communications,
they can see *exactly* how the "best" Americans live.  The worst off
American can always steal for food; there are lots of oppurtunities
for that.  A wonderful difference between America and Somolia.

   Mr i: Somolia is really very different than most places.  Yes, *I
agree* with you that Manifest Destiny is complete BS--but in the case
of a place where literally everyting that isn't military is either
severely disfunctional or, completely broken, the choices become much
more odd.  Yes, I also agree that we'd have to be *extremely* careful
in doing this, and that we have a horrid track record in this regard.
I've only recently (in the last couple of years) come to these thoughts.
It's taken many hours of listening to contacts there talking, or rather
arguing with government officials (who were really thugs) about getting
medical supplies to hospitals without "payments".  Or talking ftf to
people who have worked in OxFam, the IRC and WHO.  The people who have
been there will tell you that the situation is as close to hopeless
as can possibly be.

   If Mr. i (Ms?) thinks that taking over to rebuild the entire country
is bullshit, I would lend an ear to his (or her) solutions to the
problem.

   But remember this: everything up to now has been a complete
failure when it comes to long term help.  We've poured tens of
billions of dollars there (speaking of Africa in general, not
just Somolia) and what do we have to show for it?

This is really rather interesting and my Model U.N. class had discuss
Somalia at Magec (that's no typo).  We may have to do it again the way 
things are going now.  It's all rather confusing.

#17: Is the lives of 12 Americans more important than an entire country? A
     more important question could be: 12 American lives now or 12,000 later
     when Somalia *really* gets screwed up. 

     I'm not saying the Americans should stay. I'm simply posing a question
     which essentially asks if the situation could get bad enough if the
     Americans leave so that the Americans will have to go back decades later
     into an even more serious situation. 

Can we take over the country without turning a large portion of the 
people against us?

no

Idid is the problem.   He and his clan.  And they have many sub clans
that offer support, or will is we continue to fight him.  But we cannot
just turn and run either.  And leaving him in power is dangerous.

I think the solution is to send in another 20,000 troops, surround the city,
give him 24 hours to surrender all his supporters and all his weapons, then
start bombing his compound around the clock.  Then send in the marines to
take the rubble.

Take precautions not to injure any innocent civilians, but take no chances
with american lives either.

With Idid taken out and his organization decimated, there is no way we could
rebuild the country.  We would then withdraw as fast as possible, within 36
hours.

Let someone else go in and rebuild the nation.  We will take  a black eye,
but we willbe giving the nation and its people a chance.

I don't remember how I voted, but it was a very hard decision to make.  On the
one hand, I don't see our current action in Somalia going anywhere, so it
might make more sense to pull out.  On the other hand, if we leave, the
violence is free to go on unchecked.  It would seem to me that the thing to
do is probably to stay in, now that we are there, but to greatly change the
way we are doing things.  Concentrate on getting more food distributed, but
also have very strict enforcement against the warlords.  I know that this is
all much easier said than done, but since we are already in there, I don't
think we should pull out.  I'm not sure, knowing what happened, that I
would have supported going in there in the first place, but it did seem
like a very necessary action at the time.

I see Clinton *trying* to apply intelligence to the problem - finally. I
just hope that the military interface doesn't screw up. Part of my
position now is that we went in, and in my opinion assumed an
obligation that we cannot morally dispose of by withdrawing because we
screwed up militarily (and maybe diplomatically too).  

Aaron asks whether "Declaration of Independence creates an affirmative duty
          on the U.S. to ensure that all people in all nations live in the
          style of U.S. citizens at home?"

The DofI asserts a universal premise with "All Men are created equal...".
Later on the the Declaration, they applied it to the specific case at
hand. The USA has always paid at least lip service, and sometimes has
actually supported, the universal hypothesis. This moral hypothesis is
totally unrelated to any relations between the USA and foreign countries,
but its application creates guidance in many situations. I think it
applies here.

In regard to Steve's
What about the Americans who are starving to death, right here, Rane?
Let's take care of them too. We are a rich nation. Our failure to take
care of poverty and starvation at home is also a consequence of the
failure of intelligence, not the lack of means.

 So, according to the DoI, we only need to be helping ensure life, liberty,
 etc.
of men.

        I wonder how many more Americans are going to die over there during the
next six months, all because pulling out now will cause us to 'lose face?'

        If we pull out now, there will be 1 million Somalis starving, but
maybe that's what it will take to show the other Somalis (& other 3rd & 4th
world nations) that they'd better not try to hit the hand that feeds them.

re #32:  Actually, white, male land owners.  (One does not have to wade
         very far into the Constitution to see an extremely explicit
         appraisal of the value of blacks.)

         I think Rane is right -- that the founding fathers would have
         stated that the citizens of every country have the rights they
         enumerated.  However, I believe she errs in assuming
         that the founding fathers would argue that those rights were to
         be enforced by the U.S. -- they were well aware that most nations
         at the time did not provide the rights and freedoms they listed.
         I think they would have argued that a government should safeguard
         its own citizens' rights, and that the citizens had the right to
         rebel if and when the government failed to do so.  A domestic
         solution.

         Incidentally, it was patently obvious from the start that Somalia
         would, at some point, "bite the hand that feeds it."  I am sure
         you are well aware of the memo that was circulated, and leaked to
         the press, where a general candidly assessed what he thought would
         result from our involvement.  What was it...  "If you liked Beirut,
         you're going to love Mogadishu."

        I understand that Somalia is largely an anarchy.  In an anarchy,
someone is going to take charge.  That's a fact; hard, cold, plain and
simple, and indisputable.  It can be Aidid, it can be the US -- someone is
going to take control.
        It is almost as indisputable that this will be an improvement for
Somalians over the current situation, no matter who takes charge, and that 
the sooner it happens, the better for everyone involved.
        People are going to die.  The longer it takes for a government to
become established, the more people will die in fighting over power.
        So, if the US is going to be involved, my view is that we should go
all out, send enough troops and weapons to do the job quickly, and then
set up whoever we want to be in power.  We have to do it ourselves; there
don't seem to be any powerful groups we can join with and expect to get
any help.
        If we aren't going to do that, we should withdraw completely, and let
whoever else might have the ability take the country unopposed, by us,
anyway.  Currently we seem to be setting ourselves up for maximum losses
and Somalia for the longest possible power struggle.  
        This assumes we have no other interests than bringing peace to Somalia.
         
In fact, the situation is more complex; it looks to me that we oppose Aidid 
gaining power and have no other goals in the country; we say we do in
order to get support from other countries and from our own population.  We 
need to develop other real goals if we're going to continue to be involved.
"Saving the population of Somalia from starvation" is not a real goal.  It
is not what our troops are working to acccomplish.

 OK, so let's pull out & admiut defeat by Aidid.  More morons will then look
to him as their leader, & they can all starve to death happily ever after.

What I get from a lot of this debate is that so many of us feel our
way of life is the right way of life.  I would bet Aidid feels his way
is best, and Americans & democracy are evil.  Who is right?

They have the right to control their own destiny.  If that means the
continuance of anarchy & starvation, so be it.  It will be Darwinism on a 
local level, and socio-intellectual Darwinism on a global scale.

                Sometime in the distant future, our world will realize that 
it is possible to be peaceful & cooperative.   We aren't smart enough to
just realize that out of the blue, so the implementation of peaceful existence
will only come after we run out of space in which to dispose of corpses.

Time to apply the non-interference directive?

jep's #34 was crippled, as I uderstand it, by (of all people) Les Aspin.
  
Fwiw, Gray Matters has found a local who is on his way back to Somalia
for a second tour. He will be writing us a letter describing whatever
it is that he wants to. That letter will be read, in toto, by his
sister, who lives in Ypsi with her husband.
  
His first tour was outside Mogadishu (sp) and this tour is inside
that city. Our international audience (al the continents, with skip)
will hear at least one inside view.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss