Somalia & The Fruits of Retreat

[Tigermike 3,047]

TERROR'S NEW HOMELAND

SOMALIA & THE FRUITS OF U.S. RETREAT

May 31, 2006 -- THIRTEEN years ago, our troops won a lopsided battlefield victory in Mogadishu. President Clinton declared defeat and pulled out. We've been paying the price in terror ever since - and it might be about to soar.

When it comes to strategy and military affairs, folk wisdom is worth a century of scribbling theorists. Your father could have told you how to handle the Mogadishu warlords: "If you start something, son, finish it."

We were close to finishing it. And a cowardly president quit.

Osama bin Laden repeatedly cited the pullout from Somalia as evidence that Americans were weak and wouldn't fight. Our rewards for quitting were the attacks on our troops housed in the Saudi Khobar Towers complex and on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - next door to Somalia - followed by the USS Cole bombing.

Dead Americans.

The Clinton administration could not have cared less, as long as its poll numbers were good. As for the attack on the USS Cole, our dead sailors were easily dumped in the lap of the incoming Bush administration.

Somalia seemed far away. Poor. Broken. An embarrassment. Best forgotten.

Pirate attacks, kidnappings, raids on relief convoys and a culture of murder were all just background noise, since they didn't register on the American media or voters. "Let the Somalis fight it out." Exiles formed a government. But the best the self-declared government of Somalia could do was to dream of Mogadishu from a distance.

Anarchy reigned. Nobody cared.

Foreign terrorists started to arrive. Scouts. Money-men. Agitators. Islamist firebrands. They kept a low profile, even as they funded and facilitated the transfer of arms from Yemen to Muslim rebels in Ethiopia and Kenya. Sudan wasn't too busy in Darfur to help out.

A wise man in Washington assured me a few years back that Somalia was nothing to worry about: Al Qaeda couldn't function in such a broken country. The terrorists needed infrastructure and access to the outside world.

Like the infrastructure in the caves on the Afghan border, one supposes.

The counter-argument - namely, that plentiful evidence shows that al Qaeda thrives in utterly broken states - didn't make a dent. Nor did it help to point out that a deep hiding place we couldn't enter might be just what Islamist terrorists needed to regroup.

The terrorists have time, but they need space. Safe space. So Domino's doesn't deliver in Mogadishu and it takes an extra week to get to an international airport. Killers willing to plan for years can spare a few extra travel days.

The Washingtonian's other nutty argument was that the Somali warlords weren't trustworthy, that al Qaeda couldn't depend on them.

Well, al Qaeda didn't depend on them. The terrorists worked the Islam angle, creating their own constituency. And they bought enough warlords to weaken resistance.

Now there's fighting in Mogadishu again. With several hundred dead in a week. And the old-school warlords (reportedly backed by a Johnny-come-lately CIA) are losing.

A movement fronted by Somali-Muslim judges and clerics is gobbling up Mogadishu. It's the Taliban, Somali-style.

Check the déjà vu block: The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan after the Americans walked away.

The Islamists may be able to seize control of all Mogadishu. Or they may agree to a truce to digest what they've devoured so far. Time to buy more support and make more converts. While the bloodied warlords wonder how to cut a deal, the "government" wrings its hands and begs for international peacekeepers.

We haven't disengaged entirely from the region. Our Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, based in nearby Djibouti, is a success story - American troops working wonders on a shoestring, sending out small teams that do everything from training to veterinary work. They're welcomed and respected.

But those troops don't set foot in Somalia. They're forbidden to enter the country. I suspect we've run some black ops. But they're not going to be enough.

So our troops will go back to Somalia. Eventually. The longer it takes to realize it, the more we'll have to send. Yes, we're busy. We've made things tough on ourselves, with the Rumsfeld Pentagon's willful incompetence. But we don't get to call a time-out.

Meanwhile, the remains of al Qaeda dream of building a new Afghanistan in Somalia. A terrorist organization our military smashed is being allowed to rebuild itself.

There's a vital lesson here: In the War on Terror, you've got to finish what you start. America quitting Somalia after suffering less than two dozen dead in the course of a battle won was the biggest single boost the terrorists ever received. The Clinton surrender in Mogadishu pointed al Qaeda straight toward 9/11.

The broken-off operation in Fallujah in April 2004, guaranteed that we'd have to go back in a bigger, bloodier way. Now, 13 years after the radio call "Black Hawk down," we'd better schedule some updated satellite coverage of downtown Mogadishu.

Meanwhile, consider this: Somalia was a global sideshow. We walked away. Now it threatens to become a prime refuge for terrorists. And a much tougher nut to crack.

Imagine the price we'd pay if we quit Iraq.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores in July.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69344.htm

[Ranger12 46]

If you talk to a vet that was there, they will tell you it did not fell like Operation Restore Hope was a victory if some want to call it that. We did our duty and we did it above and beyond, but as you are all seeing, there are no fruits of our labor to show for.

Even though we had already ran several successul missions before Operation Gothic Serpent was executed on Oct. 3, 1993, the whole situation there was still FUBAR. Our hands were tied from doing anything by Clinton and the UN to help the people. They were starving and Adid and his warlords were hoarding the food the UN was supplying. We went into the Olympic Hotel that day and even though we were somewhat successful in getting what we came for out of that particular mission , the intelligence we gathered from those prisoners was crap and was a waste of time and good men. Most vets of Operation Gothic Serpent (some not call it Irene Day) feel like they were pawns of an administration trying to act like they were tough, but could actually care less about what happened to those people in Somalia. Because of our inaction in actually helping those people, that is what turned the native population against us. We never got Adid, which we were told was the primary objective before we we were sent over there. However, it was a testament to the fortitude of the men there to hold off such an overwhelming force and to escape with the "small" number of casualties we had.

It is not actually an issue of not finishing what we started. It is an issue of not being able to do the damn job right to begin with and then having our CIC pull us out because we got a bloody nose! Now Somalia has gotten even worse and we will pay for it one day because that place is full of terrorist training camps.

[TexasTiger 12,995]

TERROR'S NEW HOMELAND

SOMALIA & THE FRUITS OF U.S. RETREAT

May 31, 2006 -- THIRTEEN years ago, our troops won a lopsided battlefield victory in Mogadishu. President Clinton declared defeat and pulled out. We've been paying the price in terror ever since - and it might be about to soar.

When it comes to strategy and military affairs, folk wisdom is worth a century of scribbling theorists. Your father could have told you how to handle the Mogadishu warlords: "If you start something, son, finish it."

We were close to finishing it. And a cowardly president quit.

Osama bin Laden repeatedly cited the pullout from Somalia as evidence that Americans were weak and wouldn't fight. Our rewards for quitting were the attacks on our troops housed in the Saudi Khobar Towers complex and on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - next door to Somalia - followed by the USS Cole bombing.

Dead Americans.

The Clinton administration could not have cared less, as long as its poll numbers were good. As for the attack on the USS Cole, our dead sailors were easily dumped in the lap of the incoming Bush administration.

Somalia seemed far away. Poor. Broken. An embarrassment. Best forgotten.

Pirate attacks, kidnappings, raids on relief convoys and a culture of murder were all just background noise, since they didn't register on the American media or voters. "Let the Somalis fight it out." Exiles formed a government. But the best the self-declared government of Somalia could do was to dream of Mogadishu from a distance.

Anarchy reigned. Nobody cared.

Foreign terrorists started to arrive. Scouts. Money-men. Agitators. Islamist firebrands. They kept a low profile, even as they funded and facilitated the transfer of arms from Yemen to Muslim rebels in Ethiopia and Kenya. Sudan wasn't too busy in Darfur to help out.

A wise man in Washington assured me a few years back that Somalia was nothing to worry about: Al Qaeda couldn't function in such a broken country. The terrorists needed infrastructure and access to the outside world.

Like the infrastructure in the caves on the Afghan border, one supposes.

The counter-argument - namely, that plentiful evidence shows that al Qaeda thrives in utterly broken states - didn't make a dent. Nor did it help to point out that a deep hiding place we couldn't enter might be just what Islamist terrorists needed to regroup.

The terrorists have time, but they need space. Safe space. So Domino's doesn't deliver in Mogadishu and it takes an extra week to get to an international airport. Killers willing to plan for years can spare a few extra travel days.

The Washingtonian's other nutty argument was that the Somali warlords weren't trustworthy, that al Qaeda couldn't depend on them.

Well, al Qaeda didn't depend on them. The terrorists worked the Islam angle, creating their own constituency. And they bought enough warlords to weaken resistance.

Now there's fighting in Mogadishu again. With several hundred dead in a week. And the old-school warlords (reportedly backed by a Johnny-come-lately CIA) are losing.

A movement fronted by Somali-Muslim judges and clerics is gobbling up Mogadishu. It's the Taliban, Somali-style.

Check the déjà vu block: The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan after the Americans walked away.

The Islamists may be able to seize control of all Mogadishu. Or they may agree to a truce to digest what they've devoured so far. Time to buy more support and make more converts. While the bloodied warlords wonder how to cut a deal, the "government" wrings its hands and begs for international peacekeepers.

We haven't disengaged entirely from the region. Our Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, based in nearby Djibouti, is a success story - American troops working wonders on a shoestring, sending out small teams that do everything from training to veterinary work. They're welcomed and respected.

But those troops don't set foot in Somalia. They're forbidden to enter the country. I suspect we've run some black ops. But they're not going to be enough.

So our troops will go back to Somalia. Eventually. The longer it takes to realize it, the more we'll have to send. Yes, we're busy. We've made things tough on ourselves, with the Rumsfeld Pentagon's willful incompetence. But we don't get to call a time-out.

Meanwhile, the remains of al Qaeda dream of building a new Afghanistan in Somalia. A terrorist organization our military smashed is being allowed to rebuild itself.

There's a vital lesson here: In the War on Terror, you've got to finish what you start. America quitting Somalia after suffering less than two dozen dead in the course of a battle won was the biggest single boost the terrorists ever received. The Clinton surrender in Mogadishu pointed al Qaeda straight toward 9/11.

The broken-off operation in Fallujah in April 2004, guaranteed that we'd have to go back in a bigger, bloodier way. Now, 13 years after the radio call "Black Hawk down," we'd better schedule some updated satellite coverage of downtown Mogadishu.

Meanwhile, consider this: Somalia was a global sideshow. We walked away. Now it threatens to become a prime refuge for terrorists. And a much tougher nut to crack.

Imagine the price we'd pay if we quit Iraq.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores in July.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69344.htm

237827[/snapback]

The real seeds were planted when Ronald Reagan negotiated arms for hostages with terrorists. Such a cowardly act and yet he is so reverred by you guys. He also gave illegal immigrants amnesty, which is also despised by you guys and said to have encourgaged millions more. He was slick before we really knew what slick was.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Nope, go back just a bit further. Jimmah Carter's administration gave birth and hope to islamic extremists.

[Captain Liger 0]

Nope, go back just a bit further. Jimmah Carter's administration gave birth and hope to islamic extremists.

237896[/snapback]

Yep.

[Ranger12 46]

You are a real freakin' piece of work TT! Trying to turn around Clinton's screwed up foreign policy and what happened at the Mog into being Reagans fault has really hit a new low of a liberal. Only in a liberal's twisted mind can something be twisted like that.

[TexasTiger 12,995]

You are a real freakin' piece of work TT! Trying to turn around Clinton's screwed up foreign policy and what happened at the Mog into being Reagans fault has really hit a new low of a liberal. Only in a liberal's twisted mind can something be twisted like that.

237986[/snapback]

Hey Ranger...Focus. Read. Think. I know. Three things that tax you to the max, but they're important. I didn't say Reagan was to blame for Somalia. The original post tries to blame Clinton for all terrorism since then. I was pointing out that if giving in to terrorists leads to more terrorism, how do you ignore that Reagan traded arms for hostages? I mean, you know, if your integrity is important to you.

[TexasTiger 12,995]

Nope, go back just a bit further. Jimmah Carter's administration gave birth and hope to islamic extremists.

237896[/snapback]

Yep.

237967[/snapback]

Okay, so just to be clear, TIS and Capt. "needs more values training" Liger fully approved of Reagan's trading arms for hostages.

[Ranger12 46]

Hey TT, focus! The original topic was about Somalia and the FUBAR Clinton created there. You turned into a blame Reagan topic. What the heck does Reagan have to do with what happened in Somalia? Not a damn thing, thats what! My point was that you had to turn into a "well, so-and-so" did it too. That is wrong with most politicians and those that drink their party's kool-aid. They don't take responsibility for their own actions or inactions, but instead want to blame previous administrations. Then you guy and do the same lame thing. I don't give a rat's a-- what a previous administration did, when you are the President of the United States, in some things, you are accountable for what you do in your administration and your administration only. Yes laws passed from previous administrations can affect the next, but in the case of a military action starting and ending with the same administration, that President is the only one that can be held accountable for that. Clinton has nobody to blame but himself for Somalia. Reagan and Carter are accountable for the things the started and finished or did not finish in their administration. Bush will be the same way. So please don't try to cover up Clinton's screwed up foreign policy by pointing the finger at previous administrations. You are usuallt half-way sane with your liberal views, but I think that was a little out there to try to railroad this topic with your "Reagan started it all" post. 18 good men died during Gothic Serpent and over 40 died during all of Operation Restore Hope. That is all on Clinton and can't be traced back to anybody but him. If he would have let things be handled correctly and finished, we would not be talking about terrorists have a stronghold in Somalia. Problem is, Somalia was not the only military action that Clinton did not fully commit too in his time as CIC.

[TexasTiger 12,995]

Hey TT, focus! The original topic was about Somalia and the FUBAR Clinton created there. You turned into a blame Reagan topic. What the heck does Reagan have to do with what happened in Somalia? Not a damn thing, thats what! My point was that you had to turn into a "well, so-and-so" did it too. That is wrong with most politicians and those that drink their party's kool-aid. They don't take responsibility for their own actions or inactions, but instead want to blame previous administrations. Then you guy and do the same lame thing. I don't give a rat's a-- what a previous administration did, when you are the President of the United States, in some things, you are accountable for what you do in your administration and your administration only. Yes laws passed from previous administrations can affect the next, but in the case of a military action starting and ending with the same administration, that President is the only one that can be held accountable for that. Clinton has nobody to blame but himself for Somalia. Reagan and Carter are accountable for the things the started and finished or did not finish in their administration. Bush will be the same way. So please don't try to cover up Clinton's screwed up foreign policy by pointing the finger at previous administrations. You are usuallt half-way sane with your liberal views, but I think that was a little out there to try to railroad this topic with your "Reagan started it all" post. 18 good men died during Gothic Serpent and over 40 died during all of Operation Restore Hope. That is all on Clinton and can't be traced back to anybody but him. If he would have let things be handled correctly and finished, we would not be talking about terrorists have a stronghold in Somalia. Problem is, Somalia was not the only military action that Clinton did not fully commit too in his time as CIC.

238134[/snapback]

:huh:

You've obviously made no effort at all to understand what I posted. Your rant is nonsensical.

You only had to read the first sentence of the original article to understand what I was referring to: "THIRTEEN years ago, our troops won a lopsided battlefield victory in Mogadishu. President Clinton declared defeat and pulled out. We've been paying the price in terror ever since." Or you could even start with the last sentence:

America quitting Somalia after suffering less than two dozen dead in the course of a battle won was the biggest single boost the terrorists ever received. The Clinton surrender in Mogadishu pointed al Qaeda straight toward 9/11.

The irony of what you said is amazing:

They don't take responsibility for their own actions or inactions, but instead want to blame previous administrations. Then you guy and do the same lame thing. I don't give a rat's a-- what a previous administration did, when you are the President of the United States, in some things, you are accountable for what you do in your administration and your administration only.   Yes laws passed from previous administrations can affect the next, but in the case of a military action starting and ending with the same administration, that President is the only one that can be held accountable for that.

And, yet the article blames Clinton for 9/11 because of Somalia, which started under Bush I.

You talk about accountability for what is done in your own term and yet your are such a koolaid drinking Bush lover that you totally dismiss the fact that Bush promptly dismantled "Able Danger" and didn't focus on Al Qaeda AT ALL. Instead, it is all Clinton's fault. This article suggests all terrorism is Clinton's fault. But if you really believe what you said above, then you are arguing that Bush is responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen.

Here it is again:

I didn't say Reagan was to blame for Somalia. The original post tries to blame Clinton for all terrorism since then. I was pointing out that if giving in to terrorists leads to more terrorism, how do you ignore that Reagan traded arms for hostages?

When you get on the short bus tomorrow, maybe one of the more advanced kids can explain that to you.