Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Aug 2011, 1:05 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... ed-looting

When someone on another thread mentioned Somalia, there emerged an attempt to make out that only one of two groups could be guilty of attacking aid convoys in Somalia: Al Shabaab or the USA

I noticed this in the news, where Somali government troops killed people at a distribution point, with allegations that they (the troops) had been stealing food. Al Shabaab are not the Somali government. Also, the article mentions a familiar situation in Mogadishu - competing militia groups linked to political factions involved in destabilising a famine relief effort.

Yes, Al Shabaab control the South and are refusing to let anyone other than the Red Cross in, but I still haven't seen evidence that they have attacked aid convoys, or that they are the only problem.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Aug 2011, 6:59 am

From the article:

The Somalia prime minister, Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, visited the camp after the violence and said he was "deeply sorry". He said an investigation would be held and promised harsh punishment for anyone found guilty.

International groups face huge challenges in distributing food inside Somalia. The worst-hit part of the country is a no-go area for most aid groups because it is controlled by al-Qaida-linked insurgents, who deny there is a famine and who have allowed only the International Committee of the Red Cross to enter.

More than 12 million people in the Horn of Africa are in need of immediate food aid. The UN says 640,000 children are acutely malnourished in Somalia, where the UN has declared five famine zones, including the refugee camps of Mogadishu.

Witnesses said two WFP trucks were delivering aid when the chaos broke out. WFP often tries to do what it calls "wet feedings" in Somalia – giving out already made food like porridge – to limit the chances that it will be looted. But in this case it was dry rations, Orr said.

Somali soldiers control just part of the capital and are poorly trained. ...

Private militias – most of them politically connected – are competing to guard or steal food. At least four competing militias have the run of government-controlled areas of Mogadishu.

The gunmen roar around in pickup trucks and wage battle over the wages they hope to be paid to either guard the aid or for the cash it will bring when it is stolen and sold. The insecurity amid the famine echoes the situation in 1992 that prompted deployment of a US-led multinational force to safeguard the delivery of food to Somalia's starving.

That international intervention collapsed in 1993 after two US helicopters were shot down and 18 servicemen were killed in the crashes and subsequent rescue attempt in the streets of Mogadishu.


It seems to me that you are selectively choosing what is important in this article. On the one hand soldiers behaved badly, apparently not following orders, and the governing leaders want to investigate; on the other hand, the al Qaeda linked Islamists who control a large part of the territory are preventing any food aid from getting in, resulting in a death toll that may reach millions. I agree that they are not the only problem, but are you saying that there is moral equivalency here? Are you denying aid group reports that they cannot get in to the Al Shabaab controlled area?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Aug 2011, 9:28 am

No, I was in no way saying that Al Shabaab are blameless or equivalent. I just hate false dichotomies.

I do wonder how much Al Shabaab control everything in the region.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Aug 2011, 9:41 am

I don't know how much control Al Shabaab has.

Why do you say that it is a false dichotomy? It seems to me to be a true dichotomy. One group is categorically evil and the other side is imperfect.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Aug 2011, 11:21 am

That was not the reason it was a false dichotomy.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 06 Aug 2011, 4:59 pm

No one suggested the US was guilty of attacking aid convoys. I pointed out that US interference in the region gave opportunity to the rise of al Shabaab, and therefore it was bad form the the US to point to the problems al Shabaab has aggravated as reason for additional military involvement.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 07 Aug 2011, 4:39 am

You motivated me to read Wikipedia's history of Somalia. It seems like it's been a mess for a long time. Can you be more specific on what and when the US did wrong, and why you are convinced that this is largely the source of their problems and the rise of al Shabaab?
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 07 Aug 2011, 7:42 pm

Why is better or worse even the question? It's not possible for me to prove that Somalia would have been better off with US interference. But I'll go back and ask what right have we to interfere?

This inference is happening around the globe and in many places that have nothing to do with radical Islam. Our hegemony is a global policy. Of course their can be all sorts of consequences to our overthrowing and installing governments for other peoples.

Why is it some unbearable crime for other people to live differently than us?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 08 Aug 2011, 7:02 am

Sure; I generally agree with you. But I do think you have to dig deeper.

If there is a famine in East Africa, and the food aid cannot get through, do we have a responsibility to do what it takes to force it through? Look at the brutality of Zimbabwe or Burma or North Korea . Can anyone make an argument that these states are better off without western interference?
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 09 Aug 2011, 2:10 pm

Dig deeper? I'd lean toward those accepting the status quo as being the ones who ought to dig deeper as the burden should be upon them to justifying their actions. Especially when those actions include regularly disposing leaders of other countries and fomenting war.

I'm reluctant to bother with trying to convince anyone on each and every operation or circumstance. It's certainly the policy in general that is in question, both in terms of it's morality and it's economic impact. The fact is we aren't just handing out food, our military and intelligence community are directly involved in the region regardless of the food issue.

There's a huge cost to having an American empire, we spend as much as everyone else combined on the military. That's a huge subsidy being provided to Japan, Korea, Europe, etc., that we obviously can't afford.

Going back to the scope of our hegemony consider this piece:
Without the knowledge of much of the general American public, a secret force within the US military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world’s countries. This Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has generally been ignored by the mainstream media, and deserves further attention.

Last year, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reported that US Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency. By the end of this year, US Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me, that number will likely reach 120. “We do a lot of travelling — a lot more than Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said recently. This global presence — in about 60 per cent of the world’s nations and far larger than previously acknowledged — is evidence of a rising clandestine Pentagon power elite waging a secret war in all corners of the world.

Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, [is] a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. Reporting to the president and acting under his authority, JSOC maintains a global hit list that includes US citizens. It has been operating an extra-legal “kill/capture” campaign that John Nagl, a past counterinsurgency adviser to four-star general and soon-to-be CIA Director David Petraeus, calls “an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine”.

85 per cent of special operations troops deployed overseas are in 20 countries in the CENTCOM area of operations in the Greater Middle East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. The others are scattered across the globe from South America to Southeast Asia, some in small numbers, others as larger contingents.

Last year, as an analysis of SOCOM documents, open-source Pentagon information, and a database of Special Operations missions compiled by investigative journalist Tara McKelvey (for the Medill School of Journalism’s National Security Journalism Initiative) reveals, the US’ most elite troops carried out joint-training exercises in Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Germany, Indonesia, Mali, Norway, Panama, and Poland.

That aura now benefits from a well-honed public relations campaign which helps them project a superhuman image at home and abroad, even while many of their actual activities remain in the ever-widening shadows. Typical of the vision they are pushing was this statement from Admiral Olson: “I am convinced that the forces … are the most culturally attuned partners, the most lethal hunter-killers, and most responsive, agile, innovative, and efficiently effective advisors, trainers, problem-solvers, and warriors that any nation has to offer.”

US Special Operations forces are approximately as large as Canada’s entire active duty military. In fact, the force is larger than the active duty militaries of many of the nations where the US’ elite troops now operate each year, and it’s only set to grow larger.

Americans have yet to grapple with what it means to have a “special” force this large, this active, and this secret — and they are unlikely to begin to do so until more information is available.

So what does all the mean for those dying of starvation in the Horn of Africa? Their are consequences to military intervention, some good and some ill. Yes I did say some good.

The empire isn't paying it's way, look at it that way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 08 Sep 2011, 8:54 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Sure; I generally agree with you. But I do think you have to dig deeper.

If there is a famine in East Africa, and the food aid cannot get through, do we have a responsibility to do what it takes to force it through? Look at the brutality of Zimbabwe or Burma or North Korea . Can anyone make an argument that these states are better off without western interference?
It should be pointed out that Zimbabwe and North Korea both had famines recently, and Burma had very severe flooding following Cyclone Nardis.

North Korea accepted food aid. Zimbabwe did too. Burma initially did not. It was not 'forced' in.

Maybe they would all be better off with Western 'interference' but at what cost would that happen?