From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: somalia
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:50:25 CST
Keywords: no reply

Okay, here I go.  Sorry about the length. 
In article <1992Dec14.222021.20433@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
>   Let's examine the assumption that Iraq was in fact a 
>dangerous aggressor, bent on taking over the whole
>Mid East. There are two facts on which I'm 
>sure we both agree that bare on this assumption: 
>(1) Iraq was "defeated" in less than six
>weeks; and (2) very few US military personel were killed. 
>Moreover, Schwartzkopt himself characterized the action
>as a "Turkey Shoot," apparently refering to the ease with
>which they "defeated" Iraq. So if Iraq was really so dangerous, 
>as dangerous as Nazi Germany like the mass media and Bush claimed,
>then why was it so easy to "defeat" Iraq? It took the 
>combined powers of the US Britain and Soviet Union 4 years
>to defeat Nazi Germany, not six weeks!

Iraq had never faced a first class air force.  It was the US technological
advantage and air supremacy that was a major advantage in winning the war.
Had Iraq not sat behind their lines, but attacked earlier, before US troops
were ready, it could have easily gone much more less in the US's favor.
We managed to obtain tactical surprise, which gave us the initiative.  We
never gave this up, and if you do not have the inititive, you cannot win.
When we obtained air supremacy over Germany, we took large tracks of land
quickly.  Iraq on the other hand never moved, they didn't try to counter-
attack, and simply let themselves die.  Their technological inferiority
also helped a lot.  The "Turkey Shoot" quote is referring to how the Iraqi's
were not fighting back, but were just dieing.  Basically, to answer the last
point, Iraq never attacked, while Germany did.  Germany attacked, and seized
huge tracks of land before any serious opposition was mounted.  It didn't
destroy the land it counquered, it used the factories to make more war
material.
>
>(1) Bush originally claimed that they were fighting 
>this "war" to get rid of Hussein, but he is still in power
>even after the US declared "victory". So just what were
>Bush's true motivations then? 

I remember the original purpose being to get Hussein out of Kuwait.  Bush
repeatedly stated that he did not want to get rid of Hussein from power 
because whoever replaced him would be worse.
>
>(2)  Hussein was an ally
>of the US for about 10 years prior to the Gulf "war,"
>receiving all kinds of trade credits and bank loans
>(on a very large scale- billions of dollars worth)
>to buy military hardware and other stuff from the US.
>Both Reagan and Bush fought Congress hard to allow Hussein
>to do this from 1980-90. Given this, don't the Reagan 
>and Bush administrations bare at least some responsibility 
>for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?

The US got caught in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal.  We didn't
like Iran, and Iraq was at war with Iran, so we liked Iraq.  Also, most
Iraqi equipment was French and Soviet (who both sell to anyone just about),
not US.
>
>(3)  There is apparently one other thing we disagree on. You
>say the majority of people in the US supported US actions
>in the Gulf "war".  But this support was very very thin.
>There were polls taken that said that if a thousand or more
>US military personel were killed, people would no longer
>support the action. In addition, opposition to the war
>was very strong and obvious before the bombing started
>(Dec.90 to early Jan. 91). But even if most people did
>support it, that doesn't justify it. If people are
>profoundly misinformed, they can be made to support just 
>about anything. One thing we probably agree on is that
>you can't trust the mass media because of its bias. So
>why should we trust the mass media when it was so
>obviously in favor of the Gulf "war"?  And since the
>mass media was so obviously biased in favor of the gulf
>war, it must follow that they were consciously misinforming
>the public to get them to support it also.

I never saw these polls.  However, it is very easy to lie with polls and
statistics.  The easiest method is to simply select who you ask.  I didn't
see the media as so drastically for the war when they realized how big
a black eye they were given by the misinformation campaign.  The opposition
was always simply a vocal minority that was given more press than it
deserved.  I'm sorry, 20 to 50 people shouting outside the white house 
aren't a majority.  I did not know very many people at all who oppossed
the war like people do now.
>
>(4)  I read recently that US troops in Somalia have been
>ordered to "shoot at anything they want to."  This 
>is certainly not consistent with a supposed humanitarian
>mission. And just how much food aid was the US sending

That is not the rules of engagement.  The soldiers are allowed to
fire at anything that presents a threat, as they should be.
To deny them this is to micromanage, a sure recipe for disaster.

>to Somalia since the famine began many months ago? Very
>little, in fact. Why does Bush only become concerned
>about humanitarian causes when he decides to deploy 
>troops?  Why didn't he start a big campaign to send
>food aid over there a long time ago? And is he 

Getting enough food to the area was almost never a problem.  Large ships
carrying food and other supplies were doing that.  The problem came when
heavily armed groups began to attack the relief convoys.  When that started,
the US really began looking into the area.

>really sending large amounts food now? And why should
>a foreign occupying army (the US army) be able to
>more effectively distribute food, when the main 
>effect of sending troops there is to greatly 
>escalate the military conflict? There's no question
>that whatever local military forces are already in 
>Somalia are going to react to the newly arriving US
>troops in a hostile way, escalating the 
>conflict. And even if more fighting doesn't take
>place, the presence of a large foreign army certainly
>increases tensions to an extreme degree. All of
>this makes it even MORE difficult to distribute
>food. And as a long term solution, the Somalians
>need a situation in which they can feed themselves,
>and escalating the military confrontation makes 
>this even more impossible.
>
The problem is that there is no local government to put down the 
warlords.  Somalia is currently an anarchy.  US troops have maintained
a very calming effect on the region that they are in.  I have heard of
only two reports of confirmed attacks on US troops.  Considering the
time that they have been there, that is fairly calm.  Both incidents
were isolated.  Well, one was at a US AH-1W by .50cal MG's, but again,
it was an isolated incident.  I am forced to disagree with your statement
that says that the US military presence will escalte tensions and increase
the difficulty to distribute food.  Relief workers aren't able to function
properly out of fear for their lives.  The US will be able to provide security,
and escorts to convoys and relief workers in the country.  They will also
be able to help with the proven best logistics network in the world,
greatly assisting the logistics of the system.  I do agree that this is
only a short term solution.  I don't know what the long term solution is,
but the US is reacting to the immediate problem of ~34% of the Somalian
population dying off due to famine and disease.
:)M^2
>
>
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia