From: schoinas@fox.cs.wisc.edu (Yannis Schoinas)
Subject: Re: SOMALIA INVASION?
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:04:23 GMT

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>In article <schoinas.724303369@cs.wisc.edu> schoinas@fox.cs.wisc.edu (Yannis Schoinas) writes:
>>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>>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.

Yes, a definite plan. I only hope it is realistic also. What I doubt 
is how useful it will be in the long run.

>>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.

Don't you think this will take a few years?

>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.

How stable that government do you think it will be? And for how long?

>>>[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.

Sure it's not going to be Vietnam or Iraq. How about Lebanon? 
I remember from that cable of the US ambassadator in Kenya sth like:
"If you liked Beirut, you will love Mogantishu."

>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).

I didn't say anything about the population rising against the US.
But it doesn't take much to have an explosive situation in your
hands. You are still forgeting that we are not talking about a 
direct confrontation but rather of a hit-and-run situation. For
example, a kid just comes close to the troops and throws a grenade
or someone shoots a US/UN post during the night. 

I guess time will tell. Not having much faith in the qualities of
the human species, I tend to be quite pessimistic. 

						 Bye,
						Yannis.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa