U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Somalia

There is breaking news about a strike on two al qaida operatives in Samalia. The US forces struck with a helicopter gunship. There is no reports so far if the strike was successful.



I hope the US successfully struck the two al-qaida ops but is a gunship really necessary for 2 ops? These must be important operatives but an entire gunship for 2 people? Why can't the CIA handle this kind of stuff for cheap?

I just found this article on Fox News which states, "A U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship carried out the attack as part of an ongoing operation. The official reports casualties on the ground, but is not sure if they are suspected terrorists."

www.foxnews.com...

Why use gunships for 2 people when you can use CIA and limit collateral damage? The more collateral damage the more they will hate us.


[edit on 8-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

US Navy Chasing Fleeing Somali Terrorists The Conservative Voice
Analysis: Somalia may fall back to chaos Seattle Post Intelligence
An African cavalry may not save Somalia in time International Herald Tribune

I was wondering when the US was going to get openly involved in the Somalian war. This is big news, which should rock the financial markets.

11-11-2006: 11 States Fuel Islamic Civil War in Somalia - ATS

AC130 Gunships:
AC-130U Spooky
AC-130U Spectre

Somalia Map: New displacement caused by conflict (Based on PMT data from 19 Dec to 03 Jan, 2006-2007)

Some are predicting that this war will also spread to North Africa.


Tunisia: The Next Militant Hotspot?

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

I mention that not only because I'm one cocky guy, but because of the reasons I was able to anticipate it. If the indicators that I used predicted the war and US strikes... what does it say about the motives?

This is a breakdown thread that I've had open for about 6 months, referencing earlier work done over the past 2 years with predictions and developments as I have made them.

In a nutshell, there is a push to consolidate influence over East Africa, particularly S. Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Somalia, and Kenya because they have great economic potential, especially for trade with India, which would make them good leverage for the US to wield.

After the ARPCT thing (the militia we funded in Somalia), I suggested that Ethiopia would be motivated to curry favor with us by its Somalia policy. In the week after I said that, they moved troops into Somalia, culminating in the recent war, which I suspect has a lot more to do with ports than with terrorism, truth be told.

When MSNBC claimed to see 4 embassy bombers in its crystal ball, it seemed fairly obvious that we were building a pretext for involvement.

Just when you thought the war on terror was over, the new and improved Bush administration started finding quieter ways of going about the PNACs objectives.

"not to brag, but i predicted this one"...

yes you did sir!!!

i was going to link this thread to your thread but, unfortunately, i didn't know what thread it was nor did i know who created the thread...

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Why use gunships for 2 people when you can use CIA and limit collateral damage?

Because real world situations aren't like the ones you see in Hollywood movies. The AC-130 is the perfect weapon for this, it is very accurate (night/day/rain/ etc...) and it's guns don't usually miss. Yes it does not drop bombs (per se), it shoots.

I just hope our country is using the safest most economic and efficient way of fighting these guys. If I had it my way it would be return of the drones in Iraq amongst a couple other neighboring countries and Samalia. I would avoid sending manned aircraft and ground troops over there whenever there is an unmanned option instead. There is no reason to jeopardize our Soldiers if we don't have to.

It would probably be cheaper and inflict less American casualties.

What would be more intimidating and demoralizing to your foe than to know your enemy can be watching you whenever you go outside. Unseen, and in a safe location thousands of miles away, the terrorist turns from an offensive role to a defensive role and could just be seconds away from death.

Iraqi controlled drones paired with the local law enforcement would go a long way in combatting Al-Qaida terrorists. The drone is the eye in the sky and can offer the soldier in the field crutial tactical information during a gun fight such as location of soldiers along with numbers and their movements. Once drones are fitted with rockets they become even more deadly to their enemies on the ground.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Because real world situations aren't like the ones you see in Hollywood movies. The AC-130 is the perfect weapon for this, it is very accurate (night/day/rain/ etc...) and it's guns don't usually miss. Yes it does not drop bombs (per se), it shoots.

Using the AC-130 on a couple of guys really is like going after a house fly with a bazooka under most circumstances, but there are some reasons why it might have been done. First and foremost, it's what we've got. The only carrier strike group in the region is busy in the gulf, and we couldn't wait a month for Stennis to get there obviously.

CJTF-HOA hasn't really got much airpower. Mostly CH-46s for its 2 infantry companies and its detatchment from 5th Special Forces Group. 5th Special Forces happens to include the AC-130s though. The closest jets for an airstrike as far as I know would have been Thumrait Air Base in Oman, and why tick them off for no reason since the Arab League is sympathetic to the UIC?

It looks like the trip would have been right at the outer edge of AC-130s maximum range, but given the long loiter time that is factored in and that this mission wouldn't have required a full load, that seems to check out (I initially had my suspicions that the unnamed ships patrolling the coast might have been the Iwo Jima Strike Group).

The only real question left is, did this really have anything to do with terrorists, or were we sending a message to anybody hiding out in Mogadishu still that the Ethiopians have got the big guns on their side?

The last place the US wants to be right now is Africa. They want to stay in the Middle East and keep the preasure on Iran. If the US can tie the groups in Africa or Iraq to Iran or Syria we might have a busy 2007 ahead of us.

The more attention on Africa the less attentian on Syria Iran and North Korea. Right now we need to keep the preasure on.

When this conflict started I knew the U.S. might get involved. I did not predict how or why or anything like that just feared they would. I do hope this will be the first and the last. But I also fear it wont be. Forty million in aid was approved. The two terrorists were believed to be involved in the bombing on the two U.S. embassies in the reagon.

Here is another ATS threab by Hellmut that discusses the Somalian situation: Somalia: Mogadishu Is Burning

I very suprised that USA used the AC-130 gunship against the somali islamists, i would have expected a strike from carrier based fighters.

I just took a look at where the USS Eisenhower was and guess what...

We've pulled Ike out of the gulf. She was in the Indian ocean to provide support for the AC-130 strike if anything went wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say we're way more involved in this than we claimed.

Reports I've just found (I've been trying to figure out who was running the interdiction operation on the coast for a few days with no luck) say that USS Ramage is there- she's in Ike's screen. If she's been there all along (first reported, to my knowledge, on the 29th) then by my admittedly limited knowledge it would seem that Eisenhower has been on station for as long.

This isn't exactly a target of opportunity thing; we knew we were going to be doing this some time in advance. I'm also a little skeptical about the decision to pull a carrier from the gulf, considering tensions with Iran. It makes me wonder if maybe Kitty Hawk is somewhere in the area too, because I can't help thinking that Bunker Hill didn't go out there all by its lonesome, although that could just be my lack of knowledge in naval proceedures talking. What I do know is that I am having a hard time finding out what Bunker Hill did after ESG 5 finished its deployment, and it does share Kitty Hawk's home port.


As for Iran- I don't know what to tell you. We pulled our only carrier out of the gulf right in front of them, and I wouldn't be entirely shocked to find out that we were conducting some covert ground operations, which, if true, would suggest that Iwo Jima might have come out too, so her Marines would be on hand if needed.

I think the rationale probably is that this won't take very long. We're providing a little initial muscle, but Ethiopia and the AU are going to have to clean up the mess when it all falls apart (which it almost always does anymore).

My hopes that this would be a one time event have been squashed. There has been another strike which targeted what was claimed to be Islamists with ties to al quaida.

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Ethiopia's prime minister said Wednesday the U.S. military targeted 20 high-level members of an Islamic movement linked to al-Qaida in an air strike this week in southern Somalia, attacking quickly before the Islamists could escape.

The chief of staff for the Somali president claimed that a senior al-Qaida figure was killed in Monday's airstrike, although U.S. officials did not confirm it.

The air assault has been criticized internationally, with the African Union, European Union and United Nations among those expressing concern. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair told lawmakers it was right to stand up to extremists who were using violence to ``get their way'' in Somalia.

sorce

I just saw on Fox News that we did not get any Senior Al-Qaida in this attack and since this is so, why don't we go back to discussing tactics. Since we know there were casualties that weren't our intended target from earlier reports could this type of operation of been conducted better? Is there a cheaper more efficient way to pursue Al-Qaida other than with gunships?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I just saw on Fox News that we did not get any Senior Al-Qaida in this attack and since this is so, why don't we go back to discussing tactics. Since we know there were casualties that weren't our intended target from earlier reports could this type of operation of been conducted better?

The reports have been some what conflicting, hear is another report.

A senior al-Qaeda suspect wanted for his involvement in the bombing of US embassies in East Africa has been killed, a Somali official said yesterday as witnesses said US forces had launched a third day of airstrikes.

Taipei times

Speak of the devil, Low Orbit, but according to that last article, which seemed like it was written by someone who needed to get more sleep but was probably contained at least some truth, one Somali official says our SOF are already on the ground there. Of course that makes sense, because we were training the Ethiopians beforehand, but if it's a big secret now, I doubt that they are just giving "advice".

The Somalis also say we've made more strikes, but BBC says that the US is denying it, and is making unsourced claims that it was probably the Ethiopians. Incidentally, the BBC story blames not only Hinds but MiGs as well, which means that if we operate on the assumption that the US is continuing to strike but denying it, then our carrier aircraft are getting some now.

BBC International, Africa My favorite news source... don't leave civilization without it.