Skip to main content

BREAKING! US raids into Somalia!

From Anti-war.com:

Following confirmation by the French military that they definitely weren’t in the process of invading Somalia, the United States military is now confirming that it is, in fact, American forces that are pouring into the southern portion of the country in a helicopter-backed invasion.

US military officials confirmed to the Associated Press today that forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command had invaded the lawless African nation, and were the ones responsible for the attack on the tiny village of Barawe this morning that was the first staging ground of the attack.

What the officials wouldn’t comment on was exactly why the United States, which launched a failed “peacekeeping” operation in the nation in 1993 and backed an Ethiopian invasion in 2007, had decided to launch yet another foreign adventure, though media outlets speculated that it was probably something to do with al-Qaeda.

The United States has recently been supplying the self-described Somali “government” with “tons of arms,” according to the State Department. Yet reports on the ground suggest that forces loyal to this faction, which only controls a handful of city blocks in the capital city of Mogadishu, have generally just sold the US-supplied weapons on the open market.

Though without any concrete information about what the American military actually intends to do in Somalia it will be difficult to speculate about the size and scope of the invasion, with roughly 200,000 soldiers committed to Iraq and Afghanistan (and more escalations on the way in the later) it seems hard to imagine the nation is looking to commit to yet another long-term occupation.


The most fascinating part about this expansion of President Barack Obama's wars--there has been a consistent run-up toward US military intervention in Somalia since SecState Clinton's Africa trip--is that the President himself has yet to lay out a cogent foreign policy stance. Instead, we're left examining his actions: slowing down the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq while maintaining larger force profiles there than his predecessor; doubling down in Afghanistan; and now launching raids into Somalia.

I can only think of one other President whose foreign policy this looks like.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think that they are trying to prevent the domino effect from causing the spread of Libertarianism from Somalia to other parts of Africa.

That'd be my guess, anyway.

anonone
Eric Dondero said…
My gosh, the Islamist-loving President of ours did something right for a change.

I thought I'd never say this in my life, but thank you President Obama.
George Phillies said…
I seem to recall that a prior American President invaded Somalia, got beaten upon by Somali patriots, and found it convenient to withdraw.

It does give Obama an excuse to flee from Afghanistan, namely he needs the troops in Somalia.

Next time, invade a place that is less likely to resist effectively.

Monaco and Bora Bora come to mind.
George Phillies said…
Bush II invaded Iraq to prove he was better than Bush I. Now Clinton II as SoS gets to prove that she is better than Clinton I.
Anonymous said…
I don't understand the hub-bub personally. Since the UN invasion in the early 90s, the US has intervened in Somalia just about every few years; it just doesn't get reported in the press. During my last deployment in 2005, we 'invaded' by firing missiles at a suspected terrorist compound.
G Rex said…
"I can only think of one other President whose foreign policy this looks like."

Jefferson?

For those of you who are products of the Delaware Public School system, Thomas Jefferson sent the US Marines into Libya to open up a can of whoopass on the Barbary Corsairs, who had been attacking US merchant shipping. Previously, Congress had paid huge sums of protection money to the pirates, but TJ was having none of it and essentially declared our first war against Islamist terror.
Anonymous said…
Can you find a real source that confirms that it wasn't a single helicopter raid taking out an al Qaeda suspect, but is actually a massive invasion? Thus far I can't...the AP blurb linked in that article is just a confirmation that the US launched an operation that resulted in this guy being killed. I'm pretty ambivalent about helicopter raids, but ground-taking invasions they ain't.

-3456

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...