With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Allies?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 30-12-2006 @ 12:56 AM by The Vagabond
Mogadishu taken

The Union of Islamic Courts has abandoned Mogadishu without a fight and retreated South, vowing to make a stand on more tennable ground.

MSNBC is reporting that 4 men wanted for bombing a US embassy are with them, leading me to suspect that CJTF Horn of Africa (which includes 2 infantry companies, 1 marine and 1 army, elements of the 5th Special Forces Group, and a Marine heavy helicopter squadron) either has been or will be involved and the report is probably a justification incase that becomes public.

The Ethiopians intend to pursue the UIC, and the Kenyan border is shut, effectively creating a hammer and anvil operation, although the Kenyans are "officially" sitting this war out.

This does raise some questions in my mind about the murmurings of a surge in the Gulf. The 5th Fleet has put in a request for forces and is fixing to get an extra carrier- it's already got an expeditionary strike group which it isn't using in Iraq. It would be too difficult for us to throw an elbow at the UIC while we were in the area and swear up and down that it wasn't us, or at least that it was smaller than what it really was- it wouldn't fool anyone but the American public, but that's who the US Government spends most of its time fooling.

I'd be looking out for the possibility of terrorist captures in Africa soon, and possibly a very impressive "Ethiopian" second effort if things in Somalia should degenerate in a month or two.


reply posted on 4-1-2007 @ 07:24 PM by The Vagabond
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh look, it's in the news again. After Bush "quietly" upped aid to Africa, not coincidentally doing it in ways that channeled funding to Christian groups in Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, etc under the guise of funding for AIDS education, among other things, his media machine had decided its no longer time to be quiet about it.

Aren't we charitable?

As I've said throughout my observation of these events, when something is getting media attention, especially in Africa, which we generally ignore, there is a reason- an agenda the people are being conditioned to support.


reply posted on 4-1-2007 @ 08:21 PM by Strangerous
Excellent post.

This ties in neatly with a statement from a US Govt official a couple of years ago that the US was aiming to source 25% of its oil from Africa within 10 years.


The U.S. National Intelligence Council projects U.S. oil supplies from West Africa will increase to 25% by 2015. This would surpass U.S. oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf.


www.africaaction.org...

So 'terrorism' relocates to Africa and the US has to, reluctantly, increase its military presence in the region to 'keep America safe' and the securing of oil resources is just a happy by-product?

You've got to hand it to these shadowy figures in the US administration - they may fight dirty but they do think ahead!


reply posted on 9-1-2007 @ 03:42 AM by Strangerous
No worries - wondered if I was on 'ignore'.

It is an interesting situation. I think previously African resources were either marginal (oil), obtainable elsewhere (timber) or could be obtained by trade on the open market.


As the appetite for these resources has grown China has moved to exploit its relationship with African countries ("we don't care how you rule your country, we'll support you with our UN SC veto, as long as you give us your resources"). This has clearly rattled the US and to some extent the EU.

I can imagine the EU find Africa difficult with our various colonial histories never far away and it seems to me Africa has been passed to the US as the a sphere of influence for the western powers.

I think it's a two-fold exercise; 1 secure resources, 2 limit China's expansion by diverting their resources.

When I first heard the oil statement linked above I predicted privately a rise in 'terrorism' and 3rd party wars in the region as it seems to me this is now US SOP in grabbing influence / resources. That seems to be coming true.

I heard that one of Bolton's final acts was to push through the removal of the UN arms embargo on Somalia before he left office. That suggests to me the US has Somalia firmly in its sights and will increasingly meddle in their affairs for its own ends.

Given the recent US experience in Somalia I'm sure they've realised that as direct US intervention is doomed and therefore I can only see it being via 3rd parties - Ethiopia does seem to be fulfilling this role but I don't know how closely aligned they are to the US. I think the US has moved from 'improving' Africa to an approach much closer to that of China - the US signed an oil deal with one of the Guineas (West Quinea??) that completely ignores that regime's bloody, torturing dictatorship - I'm sure there are many more such arrangements in the offing.

I think over the next few years we'll all become increasingly familiar with Africa, its politics and the inevitable tragedies to come.

Cheers

S



reply posted on 28-7-2010 @ 03:47 PM by kevinunknown
reply to post by The Vagabond



I have only read the OP so I am sorry if this is has been pointed out before.

Your basic premises is that because of Bin Laden’s audiotape talking about attacks in Somalia and Sudan you think this may be used as a justification to continue the war on terror in those two states. Bin Laden has some history with Somalia, some people say he might have had a minimal role regarding some Somalis who were present during the battle of Mogadishu. As for Sudan, well he spent allot of time there before being chucked out in 1996 but still has a base of followers in that part of the world. There have been reports of US SF units conducting operations in both these states targeting Al’qa’ida and other terrorist group leaders. I think that is what Bin Laden was referring to those operations and not hinting at them being the future battle grounds for the war on terrorism. The reason he never mentioned Iran, quite simple, he is ideologically opposed to Iran. Another problem i have with your theory is that your source is very old (2006).


reply posted on 28-7-2010 @ 04:07 PM by The Vagabond
reply to post by kevinunknown



My OP is from July 1st 2006. I have followed this off and on since then, updating and revising my theory as I learned more and as news came out.

The gist of where I am now is this:
From Morocco and Mauritania, through Mali and Algeria, meeting in Niger, and going on to Chad and Ethiopia and Djibouti, there is a wall of nations with which the US has military cooperation. The only holes in this wall are Sudan and Somalia. The independence of Southern Sudan has been in the works for years now, and I have been covering events which seem to pertain to that in this thread. Somalia has already been invaded once with US assistance.

The aim does not appear to be to establish a functioning regional community as I once thought. I see a frontier emerging between two or three sections of Africa, and a number of explanations for several parts, but however it goes several nations are pretty clearly in trouble. I am short on time and will elaborate as soon as I can.


reply posted on 28-7-2010 @ 04:12 PM by kevinunknown
reply to post by The Vagabond



Right i see sorry i just read the op without looking at the date. Don’t worry about elaborating or further explaining yourself i am sure it will come up again at some point.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^