From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: SOMALIA INVASION?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:00:42 GMT

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]
>	This is true. A myopic approach to this sort of international
>intervention is characteristic of Americans because it is characteristic 
>of our newsmedia. As best I can tell, the US media is staffed by people
>who are inexcusably ignorant of the people and places they 'cover'.

Yes, you are correct, but there are two very practical forces at work
that 'limited' coverage to the US troops:

	1.  The audience is US (primarily), so naturally the audience
	would be primarily interested as to how the US troops were
	doing.

	2.  US troops make up the lions share at this time.

Inexcusably ignorant?  I would give you ignorant, but not inexcusable - after
all the major coverage are by reporters who have just been airlifted in.

>
>>    My concern with the actions that you have taken in Somalia is the fact that
>>you are stressing the military side of the operation rather than the 
>>humanitarian side.  30,000 troops???  What the hell for.  And what is it 
>>with this bullshit storming the beach head.  Geeze, couldn't you arrive

To make the force SO overwhealming that the Somali warlords are forced
to think twice about trying to disrupt food and aid shipments.  Remember
the Somali truck that fired on the helicopter, and the subsequent rapid
fire 20mm HE shells and TOW missiles tha OBLITERATED the attackers?  I
doubt too many warlords are now up to doing the same...

And there WILL be some resistance by a few ne-er do wells outside the
cities. m

>
>
>>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!  

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.

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

[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]

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 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!  |
+-------------------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+