English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-30 08:53:55 · 12 answers · asked by brandon 1 in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

Read the book Blackhawk Down, or rent the video. That may enlighten you. Just read (view) the first part, the rest of the story is probably too military for you.

2007-06-03 03:31:22 · answer #1 · answered by Old SGM 3 · 1 0

The United States government under George H.W. Bush felt sorry for the deteriorating economic and political condition of Somalia. The legal government of President Mohammed Siad Barre had been overthrown in 1991 and you had a situation where warlords were primarily in control over their respective areas of Somalia, a condition which one could argue largely still exists today. It was a humanitarian intervention. However, it became clear that the situation was not improving.

George Bush Sr. had already been voted out of office. Having passed the baton to Bill Clinton, Clinton proceeded to engage in a policy of nation building, believing the only way for Somalia to recover would be if the United States assisted it on its feet. This was qualitatively different from mere humanitarian intervention, although many questioned the wisdom and even legality of that policy considering the government in Somalia really didn't give their consent, traditionally an important ingredient for success in these types of endeavors. But, one could argue that since no real national government existed with Barre's overthrow, there was no governmental authority in Mogadishu (the capital) to grant consent anyway. The Black Hawk Down incident, subsequently made into a movie really demonstrated the futility of the whole enterprise. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The US, early on, had those in abundance. But, history and culture got in the way as the U.S. proceeded to change the mission in mid-stream.

Look at the international stage today. It's funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. The lesson is don't intervene anywhere unless you have a firm game plan to get in AND get out.

2007-05-30 16:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by opie68 3 · 0 2

now after reading all these post you know why we got there, but the $100,000 question is why we did'nt suceed. well once the commanders on the ground felt that more frequent attacks on the troops were occuring more often they requested some armour units to be deployed, but the great wisdom of the new administration who by then had already decided to not get involved anymore in the situation decided against supporting the army troops there with light tanks (bradleys fighting vehicles) Needless to say during a lg gun fight on oct 3, as seen on the movie blackhawk down, showed that the use of the bradleys were indeed needed, and should've been there in country for the use of the troops. It has been stated many times by the troops that were there and the commanders that many lives would've been saved if t clinton and sec.of war les (incompetent) Aspen would've approved of the request by on ground/site commanders for the fighting vehicles, so instead we lost 18 soilders, and worst the millitary pretty much lost respect for the administration. The disenchantment of the troops were made evident when aspen went to walter reed to visit the returning wounded soilders and many of the soilders refused to see him or shake his hand. Had a chance to meet a few delta and rangers that were there in somalia when i was in iraq last yr, they still hold a great grudge against clinton...

2007-05-30 16:35:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

When clan violence in 1992 threatened international relief efforts in Somalia, a U.S.-led coalition was sent in to provide relief for the thousands of Somalis who were caught in the crossfire of a deadly civil war.

The problems leading to U.S. intervention began in the 1980s when an insurgent group in North Somalia rebelled and proclaimed itself the Somaliland Republic. Tensions intensified as different rival factions proclaimed both Mohammed Ali Mahda and Mohammed Farah Aidid as the president. The resulting civil war, coupled with the worst African drought of the century, resulted in the loss of 300,000 lives.



The UN stepped in and brokered a truce while humanitarian aid could be provided, but the fighting continued and President George Bush sent in American troops to protect relief workers in an operation called Restored Hope. The coalition consisted of 30,000 American military personnel and 10,000 personnel from allied nations.

The operation succeeded in ameliorating the mass starvation of the Somali people as well as constructing and improving 2,000 kilometers of roads. Civic action projects also helped to open schools, hospitals, and orphanages. Unfortunately, the fighting continued and several peacekeepers were killed, including 18 Americans during an ambush in the city of Mogadishu. The raid is chronicled in the book and movie Blackhawk Down.

While the U.S. failed in its efforts to capture Aidid and reestablish a central government by the time the military withdrew in 1994, UN organizations have been able to continue their humanitarian efforts as the region maintains a stable ....

2007-05-30 16:05:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Originally to provide humanitarian aid when their society broke down into factional warfare during a drought, but while they were there they decided to get involved in Somalia's politics by attempting to kidnap one of the local warlords (Aidid) which, of course, turned into a disaster.

2007-05-30 16:01:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The US did not invade Somalia. The US was part of a UN mission to help the starving people. The main stream liberal press hounded the US government to do something, showing lots of horror pictures of starving babies.

2007-05-30 15:58:42 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 2

New World Order

2007-05-30 16:01:25 · answer #7 · answered by Grunt 4 · 0 0

when did we invade the? i missed that. what i heard was we were going over there to provide meals on wheels military style. there is a huge difference between a invasion , and going to assist a nation in trouble with humanitarian relief

2007-05-30 16:18:52 · answer #8 · answered by darrell m 5 · 1 0

Humanitarian relief mission.

2007-05-30 15:57:31 · answer #9 · answered by douglas l 5 · 0 0

it is too much to type it all out but you can find a pretty good explanation here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=11796

2007-05-30 15:58:33 · answer #10 · answered by LJ 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers