“I have more respect for Prime Minister Brown now than ever before. This man is a hero. Well, maybe that's saying too much. I'm still disappointed in American intelligence however. WE are the ones who ought to advocate for more focused attention on Yemen."
You should read more about the Yemeni conflict. From a U.S. standpoint, calling attention to the conflict is counterproductive.
“Information about any spike in U.S. involvement, including last week's strike that missed a key al-Qaida leader but killed others, is closely guarded by Yemeni officials, who fear that a visible U.S. role in the country will fuel internal conflicts.” –AP
Recently, the U.S. has significantly increased its presence in Yemen, according to Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton. Just 2 weeks ago, we coordinated an air strike with the Yemeni government against suspected al-Qaeda targets northeast of the capitol, killing 34. However, the main target of the strike is still alive, and there were mass civilian casualties.
Johnsen comments, “So now you have something where there are all these pictures of dead infants and mangled children that are underlined with the caption 'Made in the USA' on all the jihadi forums. Something like this does much more to extend al-Qaeda."
Mass unemployment and widespread poverty, combined with Western provocations create a very fertile recruitment base for al-Qaeda, similar to the conditions that spawned the insurgency in Iraq.
/
" I know we can't be everywhere, but as soon as we completely pull out of Iraq, we should strongly consider Yemen. Somalia has already been mentioned actually, and it was somewhat of a mixed victory. That's a different story for a different time. READ and WATCH Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden for the whole story. Somalia is just another North Korea if you ask me, without the nukes of course.”
Just a few points I’d like to make. First, Somalia was not a mixed victory for the United States. It was a devastating defeat, a product of a highly unstable situation and a military force that was short of overwhelming.
And this is the problem with military force. (Besides costing lives and billions of dollars) It often creates more problems than it solves.
From the New York Times profile of the Somalian terrorist group Shabab that you advocated military action against, in Yemen:
“Experts strongly caution that there is little the United States can do to weaken Shabab. The United States has launched air strikes to target high-level members of Shabab it believes have links to Al Qaeda. But experts say these air strikes have only increased popular support for Shabab. In fact, they argue that one of the only actions that could galvanize Shabab and increase its support within Somalia is additional air strikes by the United States, or a return of Ethiopian troops.”
So, yes, in light of the recent terrorist attack, we do need a greater presence in Yemen, better intelligence on the ground, and more resources to fight Islamic extremism in country. But we need to do it in a way that does not incite the population against us, so we have less terrorists, not more.
P.S. Black Hawk Down is a terrible, terrible movie. The book was good, but I prefer In the Company of Heroes. You should check it out.
3 comments:
We need to neutralize most of Al-Qaeda's terrorist activity within the region utilizing the most effective options available. I will leave that up to the Executive Branch.
"So, yes, in light of the recent terrorist attack, we do need a greater presence in Yemen, better intelligence on the ground, and more resources to fight Islamic extremism in country. But we need to do it in a way that does not incite the population against us, so we have less terrorists, not more."
That's probably a more reasonable explanation of my previous post except for the second sentence, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing against. I am in total support of protecting our national security REGARDLESS if the native population is unhappy. I could care less.
You obviously know little about the Somalian conflict, Jack, if you're going to state something like that. Mohamed Farrah Aidid was taken out. He was the objective. Mission complete. How is that a defeat? So we lost troops? Did you really think it was going to be an easy snatch and grab? Maybe that's why they sent the Rangers and Delta Force? People are complaining about the genocide in Sudan and the continuing starvation throughout the region. The United States did the Somalian people a favor by neutralizing Aidid and most of his militia. How is that creating more problems? People are going to rebel and curse the U.S. no matter what. You can't stop them. The world isn't a utopia. People die, people get mad, people rebel. This is natural human behavior. Somalia was a victory, but yes, at a cost, and Black Hawk Down was an EXCELLENT work. I'm sure if you told those veterans who were deployed how terrible it was, they'd laugh at you in disgust. I'm sure In the Company of Heroes is a good work also. I may check it out like you suggested. Military action will ALWAYS be an option and should ALWAYS be considered. Now before you put words in my mouth, I didn't say military action is ALWAYS the answer. Sure, we can't march all over the battlefield and expect the enemy to surrender and bow down to our superior military might as if we were fighting the Red Coats. Tactics change, the enemy changes, so you must adapt. You cannot expect these cells to dissipate by doing nothing or withdrawing. You have to stand your ground and fight. Simple.
Other than that, I think we both are thinking on the right path.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
P.S. When have civilians never died in a war? Just curious ...
Aidid died in 1996. The Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) was in 1993. In '93 we captured a few of his lieutenants at the cost of 18 American lives and 1500-2000 Somali lives.
"I am in total support of protecting our national security REGARDLESS if the native population is unhappy. I could care less."
The problem is that if we start killing civilians (inadvertently of course, but thats war) we unite the population against the United States and the west, and create many more potential recruits for al-Qaeda.
And this is pretty much what happened in Somalia. What began as a peace keeping mission to provide relief to the starving people of Somalia turned into a firefight. In our efforts to go after Aidid, we turned a bunch of warring factions into a united angry mob armed to the teeth with Ak-47s.
Also, I didn't say Black Hawk Down was a bad book, I thought it was very good actually. But the movie was trash.
Okay, the second post was much clearer than the first one. Now, I see what you're saying. However, are you suggesting we let radical islamic extremists terrorize us because going to war will possibly unite the general population against us? Jack, people are going to die. We have to stand for our cause. It's not our fault for standing up for ourselves. It's their own fault for being ignorant to natural cause and effect. Imagine a world without war, would it really be that peaceful or just that mischievous? They can give whatever reasons they want for joining militias and terrorist cells. It's not acceptable and they will die if that's their choice.
I still think the movie was great, but to each his own I guess. Thanks for clearing up what you were trying to say. You really had me confused there.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
Post a Comment