US 'extends drone strikes to Somalia'

US 'extends drone strikes to Somalia'

english.aljazeera.net

A US drone aircraft is reported to have fired upon two senior members of al-Shabab, the Islamist anti-government armed group, in Somalia last week, marking the first time a US unmanned plane has been used for such an attack inside the country.

The strike, said to have been carried out on June 23, is believed to have targeted a convoy of fighters belonging to al-Shabab, which is fighting to overthrow Somalia's weak Transitional National Government and impose Islamic law.

The attack was not immediately identified as a drone strike, but a senior US military official familiar with the opera

(visit the link for the full news article)

The U.S has just extended it's military mission to the Greater Middle East and into Africa. The first reports of a drone strike have recently been released by Al Jazeera, reporting that the U.S has launched drone strikes targeting members of an anti-Government militia which aims to overthrow the Somalian National Transitional Government and enact Islamic Law.

It will be interesting to see the response from members on ATS: However, personally I disagree with the extension of American military influence, in Somalia. It is time that the U.S contract its military expansionism and configure itself to protecting the borders, defending the borders and maintaining the security of the U.S.A, not Africa.

Interventionism is not the proper response to the Anarchaic situation in Somalia. It is far more likely to fuel anti-American sentiment and promote radicalisation and radical islamisation of desperate Somalian citizens.

The only legal wars are those approved by the UN Security Council and those which are fought in self defence.

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

AND AT WHO"S URGING??

Most Jews cannot stand Zionist retoric.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


So its ok for Somali militants to attack neutral shipping off their coast? Its ok for them to take hostages and demand ransom?

You do know there is a legitimate Somali government that is in exile that has requested assistance right? Neighboring countries ahve sent in their military at the Somali government requests to reinforce cities from falling to islamic extremists.

Hardly illegal when the action is requested is it not?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Is this Islamist somalian militia connected with the Piracy off Somalian shores? If so please provide proof... If not then that section of your argument is void.

I also suggest you read into the causes of Pricay. It is actually rather interesting and it implicates the U.S, Russia, Italy and more states plus the Mafia: english.aljazeera.net...

The question of legality can be debated: While I did highlight that only war approved by the Security Council and war waged in self defence are legal, I am not stating that drone strikes in Somalia are illegal.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Arguments of illegal dumping of toxic materal to stealing resources in those zones are legitimate. However, attacking nuetral shipping is not a solution, which only invites warships into the area under taskforce 150. If the somalis could actually form a government and actually keep it instead of undermining itself through factions, things might be a bit different.

Removing that entire argument and sticking with just the drones, it goes back to the legitimate government of Somalia, which is at war with Islamic Extremists in the south. If the legitimate government requests external assitance, that action would be legal would it not be? Groups inside Somalia that target and attack shipping, outside of territorial waters - which is common - can be protected by the military forces of said nations to protect their intrests.

If the vessels are attacked within Somali territorial waters, which is 12nm off the coast thats one thing. To attack 3rd party nuetral shipping up to 200 miles off the coast, doesnt quite cut it in terms of falling under international law and Chapter 7 of the UN Chater.

Un Somalia Operations
Government of Somalia
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0cfb88d6f14c.png[/atsimg]


Lastly, ignoring everything above and using your article is this -

Abdirashid Mohamed Hidig, the deputy defence minister, declined to identify who the fighters were or who carried out the attack, except to say it had been done by a "partner country".

as well as....

The Somali Transitional National Government, led by President Sharif Ahmed, relies on international funding and military support from the African Union to maintain its tenuous hold on power.

Attrack was done with the knowledge and consent and most likely at the request of the legitimate somali government. Unless you are trying to ignore that portion?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Attrack was done with the knowledge and consent and most likely at the request of the legitimate somali government. Unless you are trying to ignore that portion?

I guess what most people want to know is how can the US justify all this action in multiple countries while it's citizens are facing economic collapse and US border security is nonexistent ?

reply to post by Xcathdra


As much as I would prefer the Transitional National Government in comparison to a radical Islamist faction, there is no way I can say that the government is legitamate: Somalia is a failed state, central government has entirely failed it's purpose and thus I do not advocate intervention, even if it is requested, infact I would say that the request for foreign intervention just highlights the failure of government and the fact that it is not legitamate.

I don't see how many like you (I'm not saying you) advocate drone strikes on Somalia on the basis the the Transitional National Government is legitamte, yet they would advocate the opposite in Libya, saying the the Gadaffi goverment is illegitamate, when it is evident that the Gadaffi regime exercised far greater state power thus showing that his legitamacy is/was far greater then that of the Somalian government.

Both at this moment in time, in my eyes are failed states and in my eyes the U.S should issolate itself from both in a military interventionist perspective.

Probably don't want to send helicopters or troops after what happened last time they "intervened"

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

As much as I would prefer the Transitional National Government in comparison to a radical Islamist faction, there is no way I can say that the government is legitamate: Somalia is a failed state, central government has entirely failed it's purpose and thus I do not advocate intervention, even if it is requested, infact I would say that the request for foreign intervention just highlights the failure of government and the fact that it is not legitamate.

I don't see how many like you (I'm not saying you) advocate drone strikes on Somalia on the basis the the Transitional National Government is legitamte, yet they would advocate the opposite in Libya, saying the the Gadaffi goverment is illegitamate, when it is evident that the Gadaffi regime exercised far greater state power thus showing that his legitamacy is/was far greater then that of the Somalian government.

Both at this moment in time, in my eyes are failed states and in my eyes the U.S should issolate itself from both in a military interventionist perspective.

On the other hand, I do not see how we can tolerate the status quo in the Mogadishu area. The "leaders" there shell relief food kitchens and inoculation centers. Well water pumps are stolen from refugee communities by the radicals leaving large numbers without potable water or irrigation for crops. The leadership has no human concern, instead of that, they have weapons-- and funding from other radicals.

Someone has to be the human. Those are real people suffering. The typical US citizen, meanwhile, cries out, "It is not our business! We don't have any reason to be there! We shouldn't risk our troops for their mess!" But it is not our military men and women saying that-- it is the business suited elite (liberal and conservative) who are afraid to risk self for the needs of the suffering. Really, it is the spending of resources, not the shedding of the blood of American troops which causes them the feign alarmist isolationism. And it is only protecting resources, not stopping the suffering of innocents, for which those elite are willing to shed the blood of our troops.

So, we send unmanned craft and damn the legality of it. We have to do something. Morality trumps legality-- and the US has the resources to help even though the suffering in Somalia are of no strategic interest.

This, I believe, is quite separate from the multiple hot spots of unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa getting US and International attention. I have little doubt that the coincidence of the "grassroots" uprisings are anything but. Certainly most civilians in the US are worried that we are spread too thin. I have little doubt that: this is exactly the radical Muslim intent; and that it is exactly the impression US wants the radical Muslims to have of us. In that regard, things are not as they appear.

Under the guise of allowing ourselves to be spread too thin -- "only reacting," we are quietly deploying ourselves with strategic intent. And to hint that all is not as it appears, to what end would the radicals increase attacks, such as the hotel in Afghanistan, as a response to our announcement of a significant withdraw? Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive? It is not the first time increased attacks from the radicals has coincided with a US announcement of draw-down. We pretend not to notice.

Y'all do realize that the US is far more sophisticated in its strategies than the simplistic reactivity which is portrayed by its media and its leaders? You get that, right? The US sees the hard times coming and is going to insure it is in the best position to minimize the damage to itself and its allies, and also to make the quickest recovery. Much of that depends on the ignorance of even its own citizens, not to mention its enemies. None-the-less, it is there to see.

I do not pretend to be privy to the secret strategic plans of the US, but I do claim insight from the study both of human behavior and of human history. It is every bit as easy to assemble great minds for benevolent purposes as it is to assemble them for malevolent ones. From the outside looking in, all most can see is consipracy; but sometimes good people conspire for good.

So that's 6 countries Obama has now bombed....
I think getting an other peace prize may be a little more difficult.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
So that's 6 countries Obama has now bombed....
I think getting an other peace prize may be a little more difficult.

Ha!

Yeah, we ought feel a bit of empathy for our leaders when they make the transition from the political rhetoric (based upon false assumptions) of a campaign to the harsh reality of the job-- when the assumptions previously made give way.

I like Obama, but expected he was in for a big surprise between election and taking office.

The pictures of him in the Oval Office with all the living presidents gathered-- his face looks so pained. I have suspected that perhaps that meeting was part of his national security briefings for the president-elect. The others seem so at ease as if they knew it was going to be hard for Obama, but relieved because they also knew he "got it."

Unfair that the media and political opponents call new presidents "liars" for "waffling on issues" when the most obvious explanation is that they know a whole lot more in office than they were allowed to know as mere candidates. "Transparency" my left foot! One cannot be that kind of transparent as the President of the United States-- we have real enemies.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


At the rate Obama is bombing all these nations, he'll get the nobel peace prize once he is no longer in the Office.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Attrack was done with the knowledge and consent and most likely at the request of the legitimate somali government. Unless you are trying to ignore that portion?

I guess what most people want to know is how can the US justify all this action in multiple countries while it's citizens are facing economic collapse and US border security is nonexistent ?

A valid question - The best answer I can give, aside from seperation of powers and the fact the frderal level of Government has nothing to do with the State level of Government, which has a more direct impact on citizens lives, is it is what it is.

US border security is a problem for multiple reasons, in part failure of US federal leadership to enforece the laws on the book, coupled with treaties we have signed with Mexico that prevent US military units from being on the border itself (whcih we are currently violating with the blessing of Mexico since they are deploying military units as well).

However, Domestic and border issues aside, it does not have a direct bearing on our actions and obligations elsewhere in the world. In this case working with the legitimate Somali Government and taking action on their behalf at their request.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


The basis of legitimcay of the Transitional Government comes from recognition by the United Nations in compliance with UN charter. Not really sure what else there is for a legitimate Somali Government. The Southern Islmaic groups were actually part of the transtition Government, and decided to pull away and attempt to take over on their own.

There capture of Magadishu, institution of Sharia law along with several other issues they created on their own is the reason AfricanUnion troops as well as Us assitance was requestioned by the Transitional Government.

reply to post by Xcathdra


A: Somalia still remains a fragile failed state.
B: Do the pirates have any links with this Islamic militant group?
C: The U.S should be more cautious and make sure it does not embroil itself in a Middle Eastern conflict: For its sake and its peoples sake.