Watch for US Special Forces Action Against Somali Pirates

-

pirates.jpg
In the period between President Obama’s November 2008 victory at the polls and his taking office on January 20, 2009, members of Obama’s transition team began talking to military planners about various options that might be available for dealing with Somali pirates.
In my estimation, this is smart planning by the Obama team. It’s always smart to have serious options and gamed-out scenarios for brewing national security problems.
But the source recounted to me that those asking for the development of these option plans seemed more focused on whether a low-cost, low loss-of-American lives action could be quickly taken in a strike against pirates because of the need to demonstrate that Americans could still strike hard and achieve their military and political objectives.
The source worried that in my source’s opinion, there was perhaps not enough consideration of what it might be like to potentially open yet a third active military front in that region.
This is very interesting to me because after Obama’s election, I believed that Obama would have to find a small country to bomb, or find a way to flex his military muscles as a way to ward off accusations of being “appeaser-in-chief” when opening negotiations with Iran, Syria, and other problematic countries.
His tough-edged team of Robert Gates at Defense, Jim Jones at the NSC, and Hillary Clinton at State seemed to take down a notch the need for credential building, but I still worried a bit that Obama might do something rash early on in his administration, like John F. Kennedy had done, to prove that he had a hard side.
Since the Israel invasion of Gaza, I sense that this desire to start a conflict, even a small one using special force units, has dissipated — but still could happen. And frankly, the Somali pirates are a problem that may need to be dealt with in such a way.
While I hope that Obama is not eager to execute any of the options that may have been prepared for him by the military and intelligence bureacracies on the pirates, this could still take place soon.
I was surprised to see this report that Japan, largely absent from global affairs as of late, is going to get in to action in sea lane protection off the Somali coast — throwing some of their military capacity into the Somali pirate problem.
Japan rarely moves unless it senses America will too.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Watch for US Special Forces Action Against Somali Pirates

  1. Mark Logan says:

    Paul,
    I agree with your comments and with Steves
    vis a vis that what this administration
    decides to do will be interesting to
    see and some what telling.
    I think ground assault is not a viable
    option at this time. What I would like to
    see this administration do is beef up the
    littoral naval presence and have some SO teams ready for the occasional opportunity to accomplish
    a few limited missions. I expect there will
    be but few occasions where specific targets
    can be found for such though.
    The only thing that has to be done is
    stop the pirates from being successful in
    taking ships. This can be accomplished
    by both protecting the ships with navys
    and by more importantly,arming the merchantmen, and with more than fire hoses (forcryingoutloud).
    I am aware of the maritime laws forbidding
    this, but those laws were designed for
    another time and another problem. Simply
    fitting ships out with 4-6 M240′s would be
    all that’s needed. These ships are designed
    to take a pounding from big seas and need
    only enough firepower to prevent approach
    into RPG range, about 700 yards, to be all but
    impregnable to these guys in their tiny boats. The shippers must be forced to take these precautions or prevented from entering the area.
    These guys will find something else to
    do once they can no longer successfully
    hijack ships. There is no need to slaughter
    them and large numbers of innocents to
    end this. Ending the piracy is entirely
    doable given the large number of entities
    interested in accomplishing just that, and
    as fine an opportunity for some team building
    if there ever was one.
    This of course does not fix the root of
    Somalias problems. But until the pirates
    cash empire is beggared, ground intervention
    will be fought.
    Just my opinion. Let’s see what option
    Obama’s team chooses.

    Reply

  2. ksm2002 says:

    I enjoy your style of writing, but I feel you aren’t seeing the big picture..In the past democrats have attempted to flex the military might of the USA in Somalia(Bill Clinton), but I feel that they are looking for a quick end to these issues. The Piracy in Somalia is a deep rooted issue. While the government of Somalia isn’t declaring the fact that they are recieving funds from the Piracy, they are also doing nothing to combat it. I think that the best approach is a heavy handed land based assult, but it will take time to fully clear out the problem and will take persistance to ensure that the issue doesn’t spout back up as soon as the land forces pull out of the main land based targets. As much as we hate to believe as Americans, the Piracy was actually contained during the time that the ICC ran Somalia. Heaven forbid we let Islamists run an Islamic country..If they want to run under Shria Law, let them…At least they do a decent job of containing acts such as Piracy in the region, the main goal of the USA, NATO, and UN should be to contain the Islamist Government and ensure that they rule with a fair yet iron fist and refrain from harbouring terrorist training camps that eventually send terrorists to other countries. If you feed the dog it won’t bite, so we as a western society need to stop trying to train our own dogs and let the population pick their own, and we should act as the adult and ensure that the dog is well fed and able to protect it’s people. Attacking the Pirates with a land based assult is only a short term solution.

    Reply

  3. Paul Norheim says:

    Dan,
    thanks for the link, I`ll read it later.
    I am aware of what you`re saying about supporting or fighting
    popular Islamist governments in Somalia (I mentioned it in my
    first post above). I should have expressed myself differently:
    Nobody knows yet the substance of what Steve is alluding to,
    but it could mean a more direct involvement in Somalia one way
    or another, after the end of the Ethiopian fighting.
    As you remember, US troops were attacked during a military
    operation in Mogadishu in 1993; the dead bodies of soldiers
    were dragged through the streets and broadcasted on
    International TV stations. This made humanitarian operations
    unpopular among Americans, and also made the Clinton
    administration hesitant with regards to invasions for
    humanitarian reasons. This made them argue about whether
    what happened in Rwanda in the summer of 1994 was genocide
    or not – result: 800 000 tutsis killed within weeks.
    Clinton and Albright (at that time a UN ambassador) expressed
    deep regret for this later, and there is reason to believe that
    this lack of action in a situation of ethnic cleansing was among
    the motivations for the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in
    1999.
    (When Bush jr. was interviewed before his presidency, he said he
    opposed operations like the bombing in Yugoslavia (military
    actions for humanitarian reasons, nation building etc). Then of
    course you had 9.11, the Iraq invasion with securing energy
    resources and nation building and the rest…)
    So, as I see it, the failed operation in Mogadishu in 1993 may
    have had a huge impact on future, unrelated operations in the
    1990`s; and America would still hesitate before the thought of
    ground invasion in Somalia.
    The situation has some similarities with the Gaza situation, in
    that the US let Israel weaken a popular Islamic government and
    favor an unpopular political entity, Fatah.
    In Somalia they supported the Ethiopians attack on the
    popular Islamic Courts Union (branded by Meles Zenawi, PM of
    Ethiopia, as a “fight against terrorism”). and supported the
    much weaker alliance ARPTC. This have led to nothing.
    The big question now is of course: how will the US deal with the
    situation now that they can`t let the Ethiopians fight a proxy
    war there. What increases the difficulties, is the fact that the
    fighting in Somalia to some extent also is a proxy war between
    Ethiopia and Eritrea.
    I would hope that the Obama administration will try to talk to
    a popular Islamic government and give peace and order a
    chance to rebuild the nation. Neither the Somalians nor the
    world can afford another decade of chaos and mayhem in
    Somalia.

    Reply

  4. Dan Kervick says:

    Paul,
    The US has already been waging the GWOT in Somalia for several years, which included among other things supporting the Ethiopian invasion that has now been ended. One continuing line of debate has been whether the US should support popular Islamist governments that have a chance of stabilizing the war-wracked country, or should take the neoconservative position that all Islamism is bad and evil, and part of the global enemy. Of course many of the wars wracking the county have been stimulated by US infusions of cash and weapons to our favorite warlord of the month.
    Here is a report that presents what may well be the Obama view of Somalia. It was prepared in partnership with the Center for American Progress, which is very close to the Obama administration. It strikes me as quite sketchy on the history of US policy in the region.
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/somalia.pdf

    Reply

  5. TonyForesta says:

    While I applaud the special forces operations as opposed to massive invasions and occupations, Somalia is an example of the kind of warspace where our hypersuperior air power could turn the tables in a matter of weeks. I’ll have to research logistically relevent air bases, and asset, but it would seem to me that a well placed Air Craft Carrier or two in the region and a steady flow of sorties along the coast could quickly wipe out Somali pirate assets and operations. Most of these pirates by their own admission are drunk or high when the initiate thier assaults, and while their RPG, and heavy weapons pose significant threats to unarmed commercial vessels in the region, – there would be no way to defend against strikes from the air. Our Naval and Air Force assests would be engaged in a turkey shoot, and quickly dust off Somali swiftboats attempting to attack and commandeer ships off the coast of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden.

    Reply

  6. eberit says:

    These pirates/terrorists in the Somali waters are just economic opportunists. This GWOT stuff is just plain nonsense. Contractors like Blackwater are looking for openings with private shipping industry to provide maritime protection with ex-security forces in this region. This is a distraction of sorts.

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    Dan,
    what do you say? We may be witnessing the GWOT being
    extended – the western flank: Somalia, the eastern flank
    Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Iraq in the middle?
    A temporary weakening of the center, and a strengthening of the
    flanks?
    We`ll see…

    Reply

  8. Paul Norheim says:

    eberit: Sachs would certainly be better than Gates. But perhaps
    Ben Affleck would like to contribute on the issue? (See Steve`s
    post above).

    Reply

  9. eberit says:

    May I suggest Jeffery Sachs take on the subject. I you are unfamiliar …..google.

    Reply

  10. Dan Kervick says:

    Right Paul, and I believe Somalia’s Parliament in exile and the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia are trying to form some sort of moderate Islamist government under UN auspices, probably along lines not too different from what existed with the Islamic Courts Union before the US-backed Ethiopian and TFG invasion. The new alliance is rejected by the al-Shabab militia that appears to be running things in Baidoa. I wonder if some of these hardline al-Shabab Islamist leaders are targets of the new administration.

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    “It is unlikely that such operations, unless extensive and of
    prolonged duration, would accomplish much.”
    Yes, unless they want to stay there as long as they`re likely to
    stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. But have a look at Dan Kervick`s
    question (and my attempt to suggest an answer).
    There is a power vacuum in Somalia right now. And you
    remember the bombing of the Embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and
    Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) in 1998? Aden 2000? They are on the
    same African East Coast as Somalia (except for Nairobi, which is
    linked to the area through the port town of Mombasa).
    “On June 1, 2007, the USS Chafee fired its deck guns at
    suspected hideouts of an Al-Qaeda suspect by the name of
    Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah who is one of the listed as
    responsible for the bombings, in the Puntland region of
    Somalia.” (Wikipedia)
    Obama may regard the anarchic Somalia, currently in a power
    vacuum, as a lawless haven for Al Quaeda members similar to
    the north western area of Pakistan.
    Special ops? Drones? Anybody`s guess…

    Reply

  12. eberit says:

    I agree with Rich and Paul,
    I am a union US merchant mariner and we know how this came to be. Ditto for the Nigerian “terrorists”. Destitute peoples will resort to desperate means.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hey Steve, do us all a favor, and the next time you see Rachel, tell her to stop using the “Arrrgh” line every time she mentions the pirates, will ya?
    I’m tellin ya straight, man, she’s gonna get wrinkles if she keeps it up!

    Reply

  14. Mark K Logan says:

    I do not think this will happen as
    bombs dropped or raids in Somalia as you suggest.
    Not unless the tactical analysis will show
    a high probability of it ending the pirates
    operations. Lacking that result, it would be perceived as a failure, and would be therefore
    counter productive to tough guy image building.
    It is unlikely that such operations, unless extensive and of prolonged duration, would accomplish much. There are far more than one or two groups involved and they do not need to
    use ports to operate. They use small boats
    that can be beached, and Somalia is
    nearly all beach.

    Reply

  15. rich says:

    Woops. Paul beat me to it–great post/cite.
    So what about it, Steve? Shouldn’t we be sending Special Forces after the waste dumpers and industrial fishing trawlers? Enforcing Somalia’s territorial integrity?
    Think for a second: Somalia’s undergone successive famines—and that’s been used as an opportunity to plunder their last reliable resource: their fisheries.
    Who ares the pirates here?
    Protect Somalia’s territorial integrity and you’ll protect the sea lanes. No need to go after fishermen-turned-privateers. Unless we plan on losing another war.
    May I suggest that getting on the right side of a just political cause will ensure military and political victory here. Of course, it’d reverse the pattern of debacles we’ve stumbled through stretching back to Vietnam and beyond.

    Reply

  16. rich says:

    Steve,
    Why don’t we send US Special Forces after the industrial-scaled foreign-flagged fishing vessels that wiped out the Somali fisheries those very same Somali pirates had depended on for their livelihood?
    The reporting I’ve read stated that once those fisheries were wiped out, there were no other options available. So they turned to piracy.
    In a country afflicted by drought, famine, war, and regularly destabilized by external forces, those fisheries were the only reliable resource around.
    Want stability? Maintaining national boundaries and national control over natural resources is our first responsibility. Enforcing catch limits can install some internal sustainability and prevent this kind of extra-systemic damage.
    Shouldn’t we be looking at root causes?
    Because when Somali pirates can nail a shipload of Russian tanks, whole supertankers full of oil, and a long long list of other prizes, a few missions aren’t gonna solve the problem.
    Our Special Forces are going in and coming back out. The Somali ‘pirates’ will always be there–and they’ll always need something to eat.
    How’s the saying go? Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime.
    This must be the inverse of that principle. Economically and militarily, we’re teaching them to kill.

    Reply

  17. Paul Norheim says:

    “I wonder if the rumor of an African Gitmo there is true.”
    Where? In Somalia? Djibouti? Aden?

    Reply

  18. Cee says:

    the return of the Ledeen Doctrine…right Dan.
    With a friendly, brown face calling it a humanitarian mission.
    Today I read that Obama is going to impose sanctions on ZIMBABWE! Aren’t the sanctions imposed after the land seizures are what led to the downward spiral?
    Paul,
    Thank you for all of the information on the Somalians.
    Our proxy Ethiopians warriors are leaving Somalia and we should stay out. We’ve done enough damage by killing the clerics who seemed to have been the ones who brought order to the chaos.
    I wonder if the rumor of an African Gitmo there is true.

    Reply

  19. Paul Norheim says:

    Dan,
    this is a very good question. Here is my thoughts:
    Ethiopia, who`s been at war with Somalia several times (starting
    with Emperor Menelik annexing parts of the country in the
    19`th century, as the sole African colonial power grabbing
    territory together with the European powers), just withdrew their
    troops from Somalia after cooperating with USA on the Global
    War Of Terror (but of course for different reasons).
    This creates an unstable situation in Somalia right now,
    probably akin to the situation just before the Islamic
    government took over power there three or four years ago: in
    short a power vacuum. I don´t know if this is connected to what
    Steve alludes to in his post, but I`m sure the Obama
    administration is monitoring the situation in Somalia closely.

    Reply

  20. Dan Kervick says:

    Any chance that using special ops on the pirates in the Gulf of Aden might just be some sort of cover for other operations in Somalia?

    Reply

  21. Steve Clemons says:

    Paul — I’m not in favor of any targeted special ops because I don’t know what clusters or bases we’d go after. If they were there, we would have gone after them already. I think that we are going to ramp up standard naval operations with special ops in the rear for action against any significant pirate actions….but that is a different topic altogether than what Obama’s team may have asked for by why of scenarios. I just got a pretty full briefing a moment ago on why special forces make little sense for this kind of problem — but perhaps that is what the military laid out for Obama’s team. I don’t know that part of the story.
    I do know that we are focusing a lot more resources there though — and have friends who watch just about everything that moves along that eastern strip of Somalia.
    More later, steve

    Reply

  22. Paul Norheim says:

    “In 1991, the government of Somalia – in the Horn of Africa -
    collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on
    starvation ever since – and many of the ugliest forces in the
    Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the
    country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
    Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone,
    mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of
    Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal
    population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange
    rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005
    tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed
    up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness,
    and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN
    envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear
    material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as
    cadmium and mercury – you name it.” Much of it can be traced
    back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be
    passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I
    asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing
    about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no
    clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.”
    At the same time, other European ships have been looting
    Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have
    destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation – and now
    we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna,
    shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by
    vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia’s unprotected seas.
    The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods, and
    they are starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town
    of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing
    is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal
    waters.”
    This is the context in which the men we are calling “pirates”
    have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian
    fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the
    dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a ‘tax’ on them. They
    call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia – and it’s
    not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the
    pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was “to stop illegal
    fishing and dumping in our waters… We don’t consider
    ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those
    who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our
    seas and carry weapons in our seas.” William Scott would
    understand those words.
    No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some
    are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up
    World Food Programme supplies. But the “pirates” have the
    overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The
    independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the
    best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking -
    and it found 70 percent “strongly supported the piracy as a
    form of national defence of the country’s territorial waters.”
    During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington
    and America’s founding fathers paid pirates to protect America’s
    territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of
    their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?
    Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their
    beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch
    their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome?
    We didn’t act on those crimes – but when some of the fishermen
    responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of
    the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we
    really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause -
    our crimes – before we send in the gun-boats to root out
    Somalia’s criminals.
    The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by
    another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He
    was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who
    demanded to know “what he meant by keeping possession of
    the sea.” The pirate smiled, and responded: “What you mean by
    seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I
    am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are
    called emperor.” Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in
    today – but who is the robber?”
    Read more here:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-
    lied-to-abo_b_155147.html

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    From Wikipedia:
    “Most pirates are aged 20-35 years old and come from the
    region of Puntland, a region in northeastern Somalia. The East
    African Seafarers’ Association estimates that there are at least
    five pirate gangs and a total of 1,000 armed men.[23]
    According to a BBC report, the pirates can be divided into three
    main categories:
    Local fishermen, considered the brains of the pirates’ operations
    due to their skill and knowledge of the sea.
    Ex-militiamen who used to fight for the local clan warlords,
    used as the muscle.
    Technical experts who operate high-tech equipment such as
    the GPS systems.
    (…)
    During the Siad Barre regime, Somalia received aid from
    Denmark, Great Britain, Iraq, Japan, Sweden, USSR and West
    Germany to develop their fishing industry. The fishing industry
    comprised either cooperatives which had fixed prices for the
    catch, which was often exported due to the low demand for
    seafood in Somalia, or fishing licences. Aid money improved the
    ships and supported the construction of maintenance facilities
    [1]. After the Barre regime the income from fishing decreased
    due to the civil war. Some pirates are former fishermen, who
    argue that foreign ships are threatening their livelihood by
    fishing in Somali waters. After seeing the profitability of piracy,
    since ransoms are usually paid, warlords began to facilitate
    pirate activities, splitting the profits with the pirates.[14]
    However, in most of the hijackings, the bandits have not
    harmed their prisoners, hoping instead to be rewarded with
    ransoms.[15] The attackers generally treat their hostages well in
    anticipation of a big payday to the point of hiring caterers on
    the shores of Somalia to cook spaghetti, grilled fish and roasted
    meat that will appeal to a Western palate. They also keep a
    steady supply of cigarettes and drinks from the shops on
    shore.[16]
    (…)
    Precise data on the economic situation in Somalia is scarce but
    with an estimated per capita GDP of $600/year, it remains one
    of the world’s poorest countries.[25] Millions of Somalis depend
    on food aid and in 2008, according to the World Bank, as much
    as 73% of the population lived on a daily income below
    $2.[26][27]
    There have been both positive and negative effects of the
    pirates’ economic success. Local residents have complained that
    the presence of so many armed men makes them feel insecure,
    and that their freespending ways cause wild fluctuations in the
    local exchange rate. Others fault them for excessive
    consumption of alcoholic beverages and khat.[24]
    On the other hand, many other residents appreciate the
    rejuvenating effect that the pirates’ on-shore spending and re-
    stocking has had on their impoverished towns, a presence which
    has oftentimes provided jobs and opportunity when there were
    none. Entire hamlets have in the process been transformed into
    veritable boomtowns, with local shop owners and other
    residents using their gains to purchase items such as
    generators — allowing full days of electricity, once an
    unimaginable luxury.[16]”
    I am not defending piracy here. I`m just saying that attacking
    them to show that you`re tough is stupid, and would not
    change the underlying causes.

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    Ah, the return of the Ledeen Doctrine:
    “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
    Or some crappy little pirates, I guess. The restoration of American ideals continues apace!
    I thought Obama would at least wait until someone tested him. If some demonstration attack happens, I predict much ultra-hypocritical oohing and ahhing over Barack’s manly muscles from liberals who just a couple of years ago were tsk-tsking Bush for his militarism.

    Reply

  25. Paul Norheim says:

    Steve, what is your position in this post?
    “While I hope that Obama is not eager to…”
    “…frankly, the Somali pirates are a problem that may need to be
    dealt with in such a way.”
    “Japan rarely moves unless it senses America will too.”
    Are you
    a) reporting?
    b) warning?
    c) encouraging?
    You think you can have it both ways, as well as “just reporting”?
    I`m not impressed by the ambiguous language of your post.

    Reply

  26. Paul Norheim says:

    “Since the Israel invasion of Gaza, I sense that this desire to
    start a conflict, even a small one using special force units, has
    dissipated — but still could happen And frankly, the Somali
    pirates are a problem that may need to be dealt with in such a
    way.”
    They are a problem because
    1) Somalia has been an anarchy for decades (civil war, warlords
    etc)
    2) when an Islamic government recently created some law and
    order there, USA and Ethiopia decided to screw up (Meles in
    Ethiopia for completely different reasons than Bush), instead of
    trying to bend them into a politically constructive direction,
    basically because one of those in the new Islamic government
    might have been pro al Qaida. Many of the others seemed to be
    be more pragmatic and moderate, but certainly became more
    extremist because they were attacked in the name of GWOT.
    3) most importantly: they became pirates MAINLY BECAUSE
    THEY LOST THEIR JOB AS FISHERMEN. Big fishing companies
    took over the costal areas where they were fishing, and they
    had no means to feed themselves and their families and
    communities.
    If Obama “solves the problem” by opening” a third active
    military front” to prove that he is tough, he is stupid. There is
    no other way to say this.
    It is contra-productive, just like the US-Ethiopian raids in
    Somailia were contra-productive, resulting in NOTHING. (No the
    Ethiopians are withdrawing, resulting in even more immediate
    violence in Mogadishu. Back to the civil war chaos…
    These “gamed-out scenarios” are based on ignorance and
    foolish imperial arrogance, and if implemented they are
    ridiculous and immoral, and will result in absolutely nothing
    sustainable. Zero. Nada. Nichts. Rien.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *