From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: SOMALIA INVASION?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:35:16 GMT

In article <schoinas.724303369@cs.wisc.edu> schoinas@fox.cs.wisc.edu (Yannis Schoinas) writes:
>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>>In article <1ggm10INN3tb@morrow.stanford.edu> silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec11.195215.1@nickel.laurentian.ca> s1400070@nickel.laurentian.ca writes:
>>>>[stuff deleted about how Canadaian forces were ignored]
>
>>>>like any other nation ie.discreetly.  What ticks me, though, is that the
>>>>pentaggon gives shit to CNN for covering the "invasion" live when it
>>>>was damn well in their power to stop them from doing so in the first place.
>>>>Its just that this show of bravado may actually do more harm than good in that
>>>>focus has shifted from the humanitarian issue to the military invasion.
>
>>This is NOT a movie put on for your entertainment, the warlords have been 
>>using force to interrupt food shipments and economically crippled tha nation.
>>They have REAL GUNS and would not hesitate to KILL someone if there was
>>1 penny profit to be made.  Against the overwhealming forces, the warlords
>>would realize they do not have a single chance to do anything but get out
>>of the way, and stop pirating and let the humanitarian mission continue.
>>In this case, the military invasion is part of the humanitarian mission,
>>and in fact, the main part of it :  the huge force is used to secure the
>>supply lines to allow the food that was shipped there to be properly
>>distributed!  
>
>Any opinions on how long the USA troops are going to stay in Somalia
>in order to secure the supply lines? One year? Two years? 10 years?

Well according to George Bush, they will stay until the supply lines
are secure, then be replaced by UN peacekeepers.  It is estimated to
take 1-2 months to get the supply lines established and being in the
process of replacing US with UN troops when Clinton assumes office.

>
>>Over 1,000,000 lives are at stake, and I am sure they don't give a 
>>rat's a** how its done as long as they and their loved ones can
>>SURVIVE this winter and start planting crops in the spring, and the
>>warlord menace is stopped.
>
>I was wondering how cold does it get in Somalia during the winter,:-).
>Any particular reason to suggest that the crops should be planted in 
>the spring? What's the problem now?

I think it is a rainy/dry season they have to contend with.  They cannot
and have not been able to plant crops this year due to marauding
bands of the warlords.

>
>Any particular scheme to stop the 'warlord menace'? What will happen
>when the troops leave Somalia?

The UN troops will remain in Somalia until a new government can be formed
and reestablish peace in the region.
I think for the time being, however, responding to the gangs with maximum 
possible force is the current plan.  And trying to come to a peace accord
between factions and form a government in the meantime.

>
>>It sickens me how some people are so stuck in the abstract that they
>>fail to see the practical results.
>
>Which are?

Establish supply lines so that millions will not die, and to assist in the 
establishment of peace in the region.

>
>>[BTW- we can and should expect to see some resistance by a few warlords
>>who are not aware what a well disciplined and well armed force can do,
>>especially when they outnumber them!  It is for these people that
>>28,000 troops are there]
>
>Are you sure that the 'well disciplined and well armed force' is well
>aware of what a small number of determined trained guerillas can do? 
>Do you remember the cable of the US ambassador in Kenya? Sounded pretty 
>reasonable to me.

Yes, the military is trained to deal with a force slightly better prepared,
disciplined and supplied than they are.  They know what to do, and are
WELL aware of what such a force may do.  The guerillas we are talking about,
however, are poorly equipped (trucks with .50 cal machineguns against
the US and UN arsenal), and in a nation that is SICK of the pointless
fighting and just wants to have the warlords GONE.

>
>Anyway, the problem is that a guerillas don't walk around with a sign
>saying: 'Hi, I am going to kill you'. And it doesn't take much for the
>situation to explode. And then the question becomes how many of these
>28000 you are willing to sacrifice in Somalia. 10,100,1000,10000. 
>Choose a number.

My, how ominous that sounds.  I doubt it will be the bloodbath you
imply - this is not VietNam or even Iraq.  This is more like cleaning
up East LA:  A bunch of gangs, order broken down, and
trying to give the population at large some relief, and order.

I doubt the situation is as explosive as you imply.  The population at
large is NOT going to rise up against the US.  The warlords have so
ravaged the population that they were starving, then the same warlords
stole all the relief aid distributed, causing further hardship.  Then
the US and UN decided 'enough is enough' and went in with the goal of
making sure no more aid is lost to these gangs.  I DOUBT that will piss
anyone but the warlords off, and their training and weaponry is as such
that they will not present a united front (remember that they were fighting
EACH OTHER, not an outside force), and the few stands they take will be
with trucks with .50cal machineguns on them - no contest.  Also remeber
that some of the more powerful warlords have sided with the UN as well
(and I know they have their own adjenda, but are iuntelligent enough to
work WITH the UN rather than against it).
-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | NE PER INGENIUM | The above personal opinions     |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | MEUM SED DEI    | can be yours too for only $50!  |
+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+