It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Operation Rescue Somalia

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
A passing thought crossed my mind -

I keep remembering we got stung by a few whoopin'-and'-hollerin' yahoos with ancient machineguns mounted on wore out trucks. We were there to give out food. To foment democracy worldwide is the best thing the Fed can do to make us safe; in this instance by acting as an humanitarian example. Nation-building in this sense cannot be called "imperialistic". A Democracy could vote us out of their State. We want them to be like us, able to vote on anything (as an aside, for all the ill imputed to Mr. Bush lately, I understand the reasons we're in Iraq, and it's not for oil - it has something to do with preserving our way of life, even 'way on down the line). I also feel scared of the reasons behind the scenes that make us do these militaristic things, and that maybe if America doesn't kick the whole world's butts into line right soon, then America's going down...

Here's what we do, see.

One must use their need for our purposes, making them unknowingly WANT to expedite our mission. Announce he greatest famine-relief/free food giveaway in history, America's peaceful attempt to return to Mogadishu, all is forgiven. This would not be a lie, inasmuch as we would actually give out the food (at Mogadishu docks), while at the same time dropping battalions of the 82nd Airborne, units of the 101st Air Cav, 20th Special Forces Group and a small group of very specialized Marines in the back-boonies just out of sight. Everyone would have long since gathered in Mogadishu for the big handout.

The Navy contingent arriving by ships in Mogadishu Harbor would have stockpiles of food on all the decks of their ships, and look really harmless. Inside them also would be a task force dedicated to securing the harbor itself, kind of innocuously, in the guise of food hander-outers (necessary equipment/weapons concealed in boxes labeled "Food"...a forklift operator could have all their gear pre-positioned in thirty minutes, waving and smiling the whole time).

Minimal USAF assistance would be necessary.

Thus we'd proceed with the pacification of Somalia. We'd make a half-mile long shed, for people to go in one end and get their food and go out the other end, no guns allowed. Along the way they're served slowly but politely...and at the end of the tunnel we'd have picnic tables set up, and encourage the people to sit around and eat. We'd be handing out food, separating the unarmed from possible combatants (left in Mogadishu) in an efficient way. Almost everybody in the whole country will be crammed in, and around, Mogadishu. We'd also tell them we had aid helicopters flying in free surplus jeeps for them, so "stay at the picnic area for awhile 'til they come."

The USSR flooded the whole African continent with cheap stamped-steel assault weapons as a Cold War ploy, and every streetcorner punk has one. The key to the whole plan would be to disarm Mogadishu totally and ruthlessly keep it that way..."all we want is your weapons, here's the food". Sure we'd have to shoot if we came under fire, but we'd not shoot first. Just physically disarm everyone after we'd locked down Mogadishu tighter'n a drum.

The Navy guys would secure the harbor suddenly in very defensive positions, solely to protect the ships. Airmobile units would land just outside Mogadishu ("Here comes y'all's free jeeps!"), in between the unarmed group and the armed, just as the 82nd airdropped a brigade of light (armor-destroying) Infantry somewhere close...and then sincerely shoot any truck with a gun on it on sight, and proceed to let anyone in the city do anything they wanted, but they must give up those ugly and nasty ol' things. G-d, how I hate an AK47. It's a symbol of oppression.

Then all the unarmed prople would be let back to where we were seriously handing out the food in bigtime quantities. I mean, if we were giving out all the food a man could carry, that's a serious consideration not to fight.

Mogadishu's up against the sea, you know...give rewards for every gun turned in, and incentive pay to our soldiers to find and turn in weapons. Strictly disarm the whole city while handing out more food than anyone's ever seen.

If everyone's disarmed, and kept that way a few months, I think they'd seriously think about forming a government amongst themselves. This plan sounds expensive, but we could minimize it by occupying only Mogadishu city itself. Make everyone want to come into Mogadishu, 'cause the Americans are giving out free Walkmans, and everyone's eating good. If we took control and disarmed this one city alone, it would be a shining example of the success of our foreign policy. And we'd drain off some of the millions of goofy Russian assault rifles that are everywhere.

That's why they're starving, you know. That's why they can't feed themselves, dig; because just as soon as a small guy grows up a garden to feed himself, some roving band of strongarm thugs with guns comes by and takes all their food away from them. Argue and get shot by a rusty AK built in the '50s and dragged through the bush for fifty years, and a rusty Chinese bullet.

Then it'd be up to the UN to move in and keep Mogadishu a disarmed city. There may be strife, but few people would be shooting each other. Then the African League gets on board and helps raise up one new Democracy.

I think it'd work. I say we go for it. Yahoo!




Mod Edit: Please no ALL-CAPITALIZED typing in posts or titles

[edit on 11-4-2006 by kinglizard]



[edit on 11-4-2006 by Dyno25000]




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If only such an outcome was assured. Unfortunately, many of the people who are armed in the country work for powerful warlords, and since they work for powerful warlords, they have power themselves.

These gun toting individuals would not like their power being taken away by the U.S., even if the U.S. was handing out tons of free food.

In fact, a more likely outcome is that the U.S. would come under heavy fire because the warlords would want to keep the poor people repressed, and not receive any kind of help from the U.S.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Even without warlords could these "at-risk" African countries be self-sustaining? Or have we mucked-up the environment so bad as to be unreclaimable in time to help the indigenous peoples recover? I am amazed there's anyone left alive at this point. Is the Sub-Sahara toast? Is there a population/resource balance point that is sustainable? And the big question; How much are we willing to spend per life saved?

[edit on 11-4-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Send the Marines in like they did in 1992-3. They wont mess with them, if they do it will be the death of them. People will get their food. We need to send 20,000 of them too, make sure they know that we can bring them a war if they want to tango.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
DC, thanks for taking me somewhat seriously, my post was only half in jest. The African continent is the most fruitful in the whole world, it just amazes me they're starving in such numbers. Some blame Colonialism. I blame the proliferation of efficient small arms. I don't know if we'd have to "take the warlords out", but the occupation/protection of Mogadishu seems doable.

Kaminski, it's the guns. They've killed off all the animals to eat, and no one plants a farm because he knows it'll be taken from him with overwhelming firepower. I don't think it's erosion...

Luda Chris, if we had a policy of destroying on sight any truck with a gun mounted on it it would help a lot. They don't have any tanks...only trucks. A truck with a 12.7mm mounted on top of it makes a distinct outline...we wouldn't have to search them out, out in the boonies, we'd just not let any get close to the city. We'd fire them up if they tried.

So what we'd end up with would be a city where anyone could come and go, but there would be no guns. Surely this is an idea UN could jump on and enforce, until a semblance of a stable Democracy emerges and votes them (us) out. I don't think we'd have any trouble from Chad's or Niger's armies trying to take over Somalia's New Good Thing, even if they ganged up on us...surely they're barely that smart.

[No cars would enter the city except officially; all supplies would be brought in by bonded vessels in the port. No one would sneak in any car bombs because you could only enter the city with the clothes on your back or an obviously unarmed bicycle (we could give out those, too, Schwinn would donate). No cars in Mogadishu, no car bombs in Mogadishu, and no wheelbarrow-bombs once the eplosives in the city we don't find run out. Lock down the city quick and totally, and let everyone in who'd approach unarmed, and let anyone out who wanted to go. We wouldn't have to feed them forever, hopefully...

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Dyno25000]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join