USA commando raids in Africa - 6th Oct 13

Just seen these

www.bbc.co.uk...

The World Police, sorry American Military have struck in two locations in Africa targeting Extremists.......

First in Libya and second in Somalia....... I believe one raid was successful in getting its target but the other failed......

Hope all are Safe..!

PDUK

Just a simple thought but does intervention into a Sovereign territory like this, for whatever positive reason in our eyes continue the cycle of radicalisation of jihadists and other extremists?

I can't help but think that this will go on and on without end?

Or will the peoples of Libya and Somalia prevent it?

I'm off out to enjoy Sunday........

PDUK

Mmmm.. will that be one of the "extremists" we aided in overthrowing Gadaffi, bringing peace and democracy to the country?
The extremists they target are usually the ones they have previously aided in one way or another. Build them up, then go after them in a show of force and tell us all what a wonderful job they are doing protecting us.

Still, keeps the military funds flowing and gets them into more countries on a permanent basis to build more military outposts. Have to wonder of course where the money comes from as, last time I checked, the US government was broke!

I guess it's very easy to criticise the US for interfering in other nations etc.
They certainly haven't helped themselves with some of their interventions over the years - but what's the alternative, turn a blind eye and allow these extremists to continue their plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks like we witnessed in Kenya recently?

I'm not saying I agree or condone much of what the US does, but neither do I condemn all of their actions - very little in this world is black and white.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


I caught the one on Libya earlier. The Libyans are pissed off. I thought Obama said the Rendition program run under Bush wasn't being done anymore? Err.. oopsy.. another lie for the collection. The Libyan Government is calling it outright kidnapping though, no rendition.

Tripoli protests US 'kidnap' of Libyan in Qaeda raid

It seems America has hit rock bottom, where we can't even pull that off in secrecy anymore.

It's time we just stop doing these thing when every step forward gets our nation knocked back 10 more by the world response to our sloppy approach. Maybe ....3 years of moratorium? Sounds good to me. It's become a liability to do this now. We're no damn good at it.

Somalia 2--- USA 0

The USA came out in the second half Hoping to level the score after a long range effort by Somali Legend Mohamed Aidid in the first half was enough to do the Damage, but a strong Somali performance boosted by a second half Wonder Strike by Boko Haram was enough to see the Game out.

The USA looked like a pale shadow of it's former self and was glad to hear the final whistle.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No, no, rendition is when you're in the US or one of our allied countries, and we kidnap you and ship you off for interrogation somewhere. The destination depends on your particular info and how many toes we're going to have to crush to get it. Turkey doesn't mind our contractors doing some pretty gawdawful stuff, for instance, they're okey-dokey with soldering irons and anuses, whereas if we take you to Canada it has to be pretty civil. Relatively, anyway.

If we just swoop in and shoot you, that's a 'direct action' mission. And believe it or not, we've got DA missions going on around-the-friggin-clock somewhere in the world. Generally in war zones, but not always by any means.

There's a difference. Please get the terms right.

Soloprotocol
Somalia 2--- USA 0

Must have been Navy. Go figure.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Somalia: SEAL Team Six kill 7 people but fail to get their target after coming under heavy fire and being forced to withdraw, apparently.

I suppose its an improvement on just lobbing a drone over the area and taking out the entire compound?

Of course one of the reasons that Somalia was allowed to degenerate to this degree is because of the Americans high tailing it out of their after the 'Blackhawk Down' incident.

reply to post by redshoes

WHOA... back up there just a hair... America had two choices after the 'Battle of Mogadishu' or Blackhawk down. ...and for the record, I thought Clinton chose the wrong one, but I've come to think differently.

The US could have left, as we did, with nothing remotely like the force in country to maintain beyond that point for anything useful ...and basically being run out of Somalia with a 'AND STAY OUT!' coming at our heels..

OR...

The US could have gone in with divisions where a couple years before, regular U.S. Military was around the nation with civil aid teams...trying to help a lawless nation in a starvation epidemic. What would have happened if the US basically invaded Somalia? Given that they had *NO* civil order to speak of or call that? There wouldn't have been another choice. Simple as that.

Lets be accurate on history, anyway. Somalia did that to itself and the US was there to try and support the UN food programs ...as they kept getting their supplies (and people) raped by the warlords, when UN columns weren't being attacked and destroyed for local amusement.

reply to post by Bedlam


Of Course, you're right...... How could we not have our handy dandy 'Terms for the modern American warrior' handbook ready to make sure it's all correct.

Oh... You slipped there. They aren't war zones... They are the 'scene of Overseas Contingency Operations'.

Crrrrrazy times huh?

Wrabbit2000
Crrrrrazy times huh?

We've been doing DA in an organized way since maybe Kennedy. I never knew any of the involved participants older than early Nam era, though, so I don't have any one-on-one input/this-ain't-no-shiat bull sessions to refer to. Those guys were going out when I came in. For all I know, it was happening with Lincoln.

But starting with Rumsfeld, it got a lot more...formal. At least, that's when they separated DA missions into two groups, anyway, or three when you count in the Agency. Now you've got one DA-only group that works for the deputy secretary of defense, at present Dr Carter, and the rest that work out of SOCOM sort of under the evil spell of OMA. The OMA "advised" DA missions tend to be more traditionally military and the SecDef group are mostly "out there", but their bread and butter are whacking people in a mysterious, efficient, military fashion. They are the keepers of Dr Carter's version of the "list". CIA's SOG is the keeper of (now) Avril Haines' version of the list. So they are generally who you hear about (or really, you guys don't) doing political hits.

This is an OMA DA job. Because if you see SEALs doing it, it's not Carter.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


You'll kill a mountain of men, but never kill the ideology that spawned them. Welcome to the cycle, and thanks for playing the game.

reply to post by QuantumDeath


It could be done, but the way people in the biz think, it never will be.

You want Somalia to stop this sort of thing, you're going to have to whack the dictatorships, put forward a non-crazy who's pro-Somalia and pro-self sufficiency. Then build up their infrastructure, educational facilities, medical facilities and start a nice productive society that can stand on its own, working behind the scenes with your benevolent patsy. Eventually, you get a world citizen that is its own independent self-sufficient country, take the training wheels off, and away you go, no more nutty revolt of the week or piracy.

But there are so many issues. One, the benevolent patsy usually won't stay that way, and becomes the next dictator of the week. Two, US corporations want a sex toy they can rape for its natural resources, not a nice Chile or Brazil that's not a US puppet. And the politicos don't want to invest money in a new stable gubmint they don't control behind the scenes. So it'll never happen in practice, but we could do it if we wanted.

Bedlam
reply to post by QuantumDeath

 

It could be done, but the way people in the biz think, it never will be.

You want Somalia to stop this sort of thing, you're going to have to whack the dictatorships, put forward a non-crazy who's pro-Somalia and pro-self sufficiency. Then build up their infrastructure, educational facilities, medical facilities and start a nice productive society that can stand on its own, working behind the scenes with your benevolent patsy. Eventually, you get a world citizen that is its own independent self-sufficient country, take the training wheels off, and away you go, no more nutty revolt of the week or piracy.

But there are so many issues. One, the benevolent patsy usually won't stay that way, and becomes the next dictator of the week. Two, US corporations want a sex toy they can rape for its natural resources, not a nice Chile or Brazil that's not a US puppet. And the politicos don't want to invest money in a new stable gubmint they don't control behind the scenes. So it'll never happen in practice, but we could do it if we wanted.

And the dream to establish a Pro-Somalian head in the country eradicates the possibility of unborn fetuses in the region, to seek out and adopt radical ideologies, how? You've only given us a blueprint to rebuild a nation whilst we're wondering when we're gonna have to rebuild another tower.

Freeborn
I guess it's very easy to criticise the US for interfering in other nations etc.
They certainly haven't helped themselves with some of their interventions over the years - but what's the alternative, turn a blind eye and allow these extremists to continue their plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks like we witnessed in Kenya recently?

I had some months ago been criticized for having stated that the "Interests of a country stop at its borders". One just has to listen to US politicians on a daily basis and one hears it at least a few times a day: "To protect American Interests ABROAD!" And there IS the problem. One never hears other countries use that term. Maybe the UK does.
This very statement is the crux of the problem! One does NOT HAVE interests abroad! Other countries as well have their companies and businesses in other countries. These relations depend on if they fit both countries interests. And if things go sour, then well the companies leave. It's not pleasant but "nothing one can do about".
The USA however is actively involved to protect their businesses regardless. See Guatemala and United Fruit company as best example. See Iran and nationalization of oil. And the list goes on.
What Syria now showed in the recent weeks is that Russia simply put its foot down and told the USA to play by the rules. And these rules are established!
Terrorism is a criminal act unlike "Resistance" that is a political/military act. The rules are in place via the UN. And there are many other organizations that cooperate on International scale. Take Inter-Pol for example. But in the example of Inter-Pol, the French cop does not enter German territory to apprehend the French fugitive criminal. France issues an arrest warrant/wanted request and it is up to the German police to get this guy! And if by any chance, - and yes it does happen - One country's crime is not another country's crime, then bad luck! This is what happened with Snowden and the Russia asylum.
And then to simply go into a country with military force, be it an actual invasion or be it a commando raid, is forgetting to play by the rules. And the more one does it the more angrier these guys get. Thus the spiral of violence will continue!
How often do we hear about a completely shut and done crime case. The guy has admitted to it, the guy even brags about his crimes, and yet he still gets a trial! Sure personally we say: "Why even bother ..." But these are the procedures! Either stick to the rules or get burnt! And as it works in a court room for a mass murderer, so it works on international scale in relations to countries. And you break that rule of conduct, then I have the right to break mine and simply see in the next USAID "volunteer" not a teacher, doctor or what ever, but a CIA agent and blow him and his family to pieces. Tit for tat.
Because so far the USA has never protected its National security as such, meaning defend against an actual invasion, but always gone to war for "Commercial and business" reasons. And especially after WW2 this has become the sole mission of the US-military. So naturally "ANY American" is fair game for a terrorist. And so is anyone who aids the "enemy". As brutal as the Kenya Mall attack was, it hit the rich only! Because the poor Kenyan cant even go near this place. So who died in the attack? Some rich bastards, so "who cares".

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree with your post entirely, I don't blame the US for withdrawing from Somalia. However the sudden withdrawal didn't help matters at all.

However understandable, the sudden withdrawal created even more instability which accelerated the situation towards Somalia becoming a failed state. This is a fact. Its also been acknowledged that there were failings in the preparation and intelligence that lead to the 'Blackhawk down' incident that in retrospect, could have been avoided.

It could be argued also that there were failings in the operations within the UN and International Community that allowed the Somalia situation to such an extent that UN Sanctioned Military operations was necessary in order to support the NGOs that had been on the ground and raising concerns over the situation.

In my view, it should not have been up to the US or NATO in the first place. African Union troops should have been quicker to step into the breech when the Somali state failed instead of sitting on their hands and hoping the Americans would sort it out for them. But then given that at the time the richest country in the African Union was Libya with Gadhafi making moves to dominate the AU, that was never going to happen.

Its also worth considering the implications of the current state of the forces on the ground in Somalia, that an obviously highly organised and apparently well executed special forces infiltration, proved to be ineffective. I suspect that the reason SEAL team Six were sent in was in order to extract their target for intelligence purposes given the recent attack in Kenya and the emergence of stronger and more internationally focussed efforts by AS.

In my view Al Shabib now poses a more significant threat to the international community than AQ ever did.

Soloprotocol
Somalia 2--- USA 0

The USA came out in the second half Hoping to level the score after a long range effort by Somali Legend Mohamed Aidid in the first half was enough to do the Damage, but a strong Somali performance boosted by a second half Wonder Strike by Boko Haram was enough to see the Game out.

The USA looked like a pale shadow of it's former self and was glad to hear the final whistle.

Very sarcastic but actually quite true.......
Question is - will there be another 'match'? Or have Somalia, a Fourth world country done enough to repel the strongest country on the planet.?

PDUK

redshoes
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

In my view Al Shabib now poses a more significant threat to the international community than AQ ever did.

I think you are correct and accurate in your view...... Sadly

PDUK

The US as a welfare state needs to tend to it's own back yard, it is only fomenting hatred towards it with these sorts of illegal actions, the govt. has become the people's worst enemy, Nazi Germany comes to mind (replace Jews with Muslims)