US Spectre gunship attacks targets in Somolia

[Merko]

The creation of more terrorists by the killing of actual terrorists is a risk to be considered, but it is not a certainty, and even if deemed to be nearly certain might still be justified by the benefits gained.

We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

We know that even western powers, such as the EU, and the new UN GC, have expressed concerns over the attacks. Then what can we expect from Muslim Somalians on the ground? Well, check out with your local exile Somalians to get an idea.

Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals. This is something entirely different.

 

[Garrette]

The expression of concerns and the possession of amazing anger and grief do not automatically equate to new terrorist.

And, yes, it is different than sending in a "commando" force. While you may with some justification think that the U.S. National Command Authority does not perform a realisitic cost/benefit analysis of military actions, I can assure you that military commands themselves do.

 

[Cylinder]

Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

To whom - Sylvia Brown? My Magic 8-Ball says Ask Again.

Can you explain to me how the USAF selects targets, ordnance and plans missions?

 

[Darth Rotor]

We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

You know this how? Given the sparse nature of the news reportage (more perhaps will be clear in a day or so) I find your assertion to resemble a leap of intuition.

We know that even western powers, such as the EU, and the new UN GC, have expressed concerns over the attacks.

So? That's what bureaucrats do, express concern.

Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals. This is something entirely different.

I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job. Please, Merko, quit wasting time and precious lives all over Africa and the Middle East. Call Secretary of Defenses Gates, and let him know that his choice of Admiral Fallon as the New CENTCOM is a mistake, and that you'll have your bags packed and be on your way to CENTCOM HQ immediately to assume the job.

DR

 

[Cylinder]

Don't fight it - you'll only make it worse.^1
1For those values of it that are not American.

 

[Ziggurat]

We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

Most of them were likely Islamic Courts fighters. They may not have been "sought after" (in large part because most of them are essentially anonymous to us), but their deaths are still probably a good thing, both for us and for Somalia. It is not possible to win a war without collateral damage. It also makes no sense to let your enemies use collateral damage against their side as a weapon against you.

Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals.

Been there, done that, disaster followed. Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.

This is something entirely different.

Yes, it is entirely different: this time it actually worked.

 

[Cylinder]

Meanwhile, the air strikes continue:

U.S. forces hunting al Qaeda suspects hit four sites in air strikes in southern Somalia on Wednesday, a Somali government source said, as international criticism mounted over Washington's military intervention.

"As we speak now, the area is being bombarded by the American air force," the source told Reuters.

He said the attacks hit an area close to Ras Kamboni, a coastal village near the Kenyan border where many fugitive Islamists are believed holed-up after being ousted by Ethiopian troops defending Somalia's interim government.

Four places were hit -- Hayo, Garer, Bankajirow and Badmadowe, the source said. "Bankajirow was the last Islamist holdout. Bankajirow and Badmadowe were hit hardest," he added.

Pentagon officials confirmed one air attack on Monday, as part of a wider offensive involving Ethiopian planes.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Been there, done that, disaster followed. Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.

Merko appears to think that conflict with Islamists is like a baseball game, where one cannot tag a man on base. The Islamists were in remote bases, and thus safe. CENTCOM tagged them anyway, no doubt while intoning that

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Some one set those Islamic Courts fellows up The Bomb.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Some one set those Islamic Courts fellows up The Bomb.

Move 'Zig'. For great justice.

 

[hammegk]

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Which is what will remain of the Bush Doctrine, imo. It's too bad Rummy bought into the 'passify 'em with kindness' crap. I do agree we don't have the manpower to do what it would actually take, nor the will to do so even if we had (or stick to high-tech & let Allah sort 'em out).

 

[Garrette]

Which is what will remain of the Bush Doctrine, imo. It's too bad Rummy bought into the 'passify 'em with kindness' crap. I do agree we don't have the manpower to do what it would actually take, nor the will to do so even if we had (or stick to high-tech & let Allah sort 'em out).

It takes carrot AND stick to make it work, not carrot OR stick. But there is more than one population to which they are offered/threatened, and the balance between them varies with each audience.

 

[Azrael 5]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!

 

[Ziggurat]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!

No, a nuke or a MOAB would be unnecessary overkill. AC-130's are exceptionally well suited to the task at hand.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight, and always bring a gun to a knife fight.

 

[Darth Rotor]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!

If they'd have used B-1's and B-52's, I'd agree with you. The AC-130 is very much the right support tool for the job, small unit operations. The US military doctrine is based on combined arms. Close air support to a ground operation is a combined arms operation. This isn't Hollywood.

DR

 

[Cello Man]

...Close air support to a ground operation is a combined arms operation. This isn't Hollywood.

You mean to tell me that we can't just send Chuck Norris?

Alas, if it were only that simple...

 

[Polaris]

I'm really sorry, Polaris. I clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say. I'm not sure why I made the leap I did. Thanks for being more rational in your response than I was - damn, I really do try to avoid those emotional leaps, too.

Shame on me.

And I think you're probably right in your observations, too.

No biggy.

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean to tell me that we can't just send Chuck Norris?

No one can send Chuck Norris. He goes whenever he feels like it.

 

[WildCat]

No one can send Chuck Norris. He goes whenever he feels like it.

I believe that Chuck Norris would be tantamount to a nuclear strike, the devastation would be so thorough that the UN would be forced to send a strongly worded letter.

 

[Merko]

You know this how? Given the sparse nature of the news reportage (more perhaps will be clear in a day or so) I find your assertion to resemble a leap of intuition.

It has been reported in Swedish press. Like I said, the source is the Somali 'government', which is, as you should know, a US ally and hardly has any motives to overstate the carnage.

I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job.

I actually suspect that I am, along with most of the world's population.

Most of them were likely Islamic Courts fighters. They may not have been "sought after" (in large part because most of them are essentially anonymous to us), but their deaths are still probably a good thing, both for us and for Somalia.

So you have no idea who these people were, but you're ready to say they were hostile to you because they were close to a location where the army believed that a suspected terrorist was? And that this is enough of a reason to kill them? Can you imagine other people using the same kind of reasoning and apply it to, say... Americans?

How did they get that information, by the way? I think we can be fairly sure how: They got a tip by some of the warlords/government factions. They've been giving such hints to the US for a long time, usually in order to get weapons and other support in return. Problem is, it is extremely difficult to verify these tips. In fact, all factions seem to use such allegations against all the other factions. And none of the factions - including the ICU - appear to have been much interested in plotting against the US. Until now, at least.

It is not possible to win a war without collateral damage.

Sounds like bin Ladin rhetorics.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.

Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.

I think you missed my point. My point is that this is certain to incite hatred and anger towards the US. This will be paid for by the US. Not by me.
I don't deny that the commandos that could be assigned to the task might feel it is safer to stay at home and take the same risk as everyone else, than to go after these types in the field. However, it's not their decision, but that of their commanders. These commanders should make an overall risk/benefit analysis.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It has been reported in Swedish press. Like I said, the source is the Somali 'government', which is, as you should know, a US ally and hardly has any motives to overstate the carnage.

Right, and you are reading into what the Somali government said. You posted that they claimed that a 'significant number of people' were killed in the strikes. People is a neutral term. They did not say a significant number of civilians were killed in the strikes. The people could have been Islamist militant -- especially if that's who the AC-130 was aiming at.

So you have no idea who these people were, but you're ready to say they were hostile to you because they were close to a location where the army believed that a suspected terrorist was? And that this is enough of a reason to kill them? Can you imagine other people using the same kind of reasoning and apply it to, say... Americans?

Though they were aiming at a specific terrorist, there are thousands of Islamic fighters in Somalia. They are an Army who was just driven from the capital. The terrorist they happen to be going after isn't going to be hanging around by himself. If he was in an authority position in the Islamic goverment that was established in Mogadishu, he may be with the rest of the fighters. Neither you -- nor I -- know enough about the specifics from what has been reported to ascertain how strong the intelligence was. They could have had very good intelligence that there was a large group of Islamist fighters there, and not-so-good intelligence that the specific terrorist they were looking for was in that group.

So there is my speculation, which isn't any better or worse than yours.

How did they get that information, by the way? I think we can be fairly sure how: They got a tip by some of the warlords/government factions. They've been giving such hints to the US for a long time, usually in order to get weapons and other support in return. Problem is, it is extremely difficult to verify these tips. In fact, all factions seem to use such allegations against all the other factions. And none of the factions - including the ICU - appear to have been much interested in plotting against the US. Until now, at least.

More speculation. No, we can't be fairly sure how they got that information. There are troops on the ground right now (Ethiopian) who may very well have eyes on some of these fighters.

Sounds like bin Ladin rhetorics.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.

If those three people are in the middle of New York, maybe. If they're in Somalia, in the company of several hundred or thousand Islamic fighters, then no, it isn't easy to swoop in and apprehend three people. That only happens in Rambo movies.