Isn't it time the intervenes in Somalia?

Question

As we all know we don't have good memories from Somalia when we were there but isn't it time to take actions. The Ethiopian army is not doing there job in protecting the Somalian people from radical Islamist insurgents. Last time we checked we were fighting a War on Terrorism. Wouldn't you consider these insurgents terrorists. It's beleived that they have links to the Al Qeada group. Somalia has turned into the worst crisis in Africa. 200000 people have left the country. What should the US do sit back and watch or take action?

Wounded duck i think you are completely wrong because we are the only world super power and we should live up to our name. who else could really help these poor Somolian, other African countries, the UN. Are you serious look what happend in Rwanda and what is occuring in Sudan nobody helped no UN and no other African country

Answer 1

We should because it is the right thing to do.
But with all thats going on right now, and how much of the country is against the war in Iraq and Afgan, I dont see it happening.

Answer 2

Somalia is a non-existent country ran by competing religious, tribal and various warlords. They have no central government and getting back in to it may become necessary but the real solution would be purely military and the nation building stuff, which is not the military;s job or mission should be left to the State Department or other African countries. Problems in Africa are to some extent Britain, Frances and other European countries doing, these African "countries" were formed out of prior colonies and often placed competing and historically enemy tribes within in one country and other tribal member is surrounding countries so the tribal warfare that was controlled by the colonizing power breaks out. Throw in religion and politics and it is real messy. Should or shouldn't we is a moot point; the real question is should the "countries" formed in that fashion remain or do borders need to redrawn to reflect African concerns rather then old European colonies. This is not a "Somalia" problem it is throughout the continent. No this is not the time, we have too many irons in the fire and don't need more-someday we probably will but it is also time for the former colonizing powers to step up and do most of the work, fighting and bleeding.

Answer 3

If we went back into Somalia to take on Islamist insurgents, we would simply create a new battleground for Islamists from all over the world to attack Americans. The situation in Somalia would go from bad to worse. Civilian casualties would skyrocket since the only place the insurgents can effectively hide from US forces is among the civilian population. We'd have no choice but to fight them in populated areas. After the first fiasco there, it'd be unlikely that we could win over the local population, so we'd have to try to kill bad guys without killing the civilians the bad guys are hiding behind. That's a quagmire we don't need to jump into. Its terrible that people are dying there, but we can't solve everyone's problems. We don't have enough troops or money to garrison the world, and we shouldn't have to. The UN exists for this very purpose. I would suggest they do their job instead of lining their pockets.

Answer 4

jestersand thinks we should go to places like Somalia and Darfur. Peaceniks are only against the wars that we are currently in. Wouldn't it be great if we could spend those same hundreds of millions of dollars getting bogged down in Africa instead of the Middle East? Only North Africa has even less resources than Iraq.

All things being equal, weren't there people suffering in Iraq too? I guess we should go wherever there is the least amount to gain so that jestersand won't think we're selfish.

Here's her geopolitical strategy: Let's just save the whole world until we are penniless and then the ingrates can take us over. Vote for jestersand.

Answer 5

Its not Americas job to play "Super Cop on the Block" in regards to Somalia.

The U.N. Mission in Rwanda was a recognised failure by the United Nations.

With regards Rwanda, the U.N. Nations went in when requested, some people think the U.N. sit around with an inexhaustible supply of soldiers and equipment, ready to air drop into the worlds trouble spots!!!
Well the fact is the U.N. have to be requested by the belligerent Nations, then ask member States to supply soldiers and equipment, all of this takes time:

For the full background with regards Rwanda see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_for_Rwanda

27 members of UNAMIR - 22 soldiers, three military observers, one civilian police and one local staff - lost their lives during the mission.

Countries involved in the mission:

Countries that contributed troops to UNAMIR throughout its existence were: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Not noted in the list is the contribution by the Republic of Ireland of a small contingent of unarmed Irish Military Transport personnel and medics.

Answer 6

We went to Somalia the first time to feed the people who were in the middle of a famine and wound up fighting warlords instead, something that still amazes me, it's the 21 century and we're still dealing with "warlords". The first thing we should do is find anyplace there is a so called "warlord", put a half million men on the ground, shoot anything that moves then start over, minus the "warlord" and his men, because trying to deal with them on a realistic level is a loosing proposition from the start and as long as they or anything like them are there there isn't going to be much progress toward solving these ongoing problems.

Answer 7

You shouldn't overestimate the military capabilities of the UN. Normally a very large part of the blue helmets are soldiers from different countries who are paid by those. I was talking to a UN general half a year ago about somalia and he was told by american politicians that they didn't have enough men to open up another battlefield, so i doubt that this has changed much since then.

Answer 8

Somalia should have been dealt with after the whole Blackhawk down fiasco.

Sadly we had a coward in office at the time

Answer 9

Absolutely not. Not only would the populace be a bunch of ungrateful barbarians who would turn on us- don't you remember the Black hawk down incident in the early 90's?

Let these animals kill each other off- survival of the fittest. Mother nature will make her natural selection.

Answer 10

I would beleive Africa has absolutely no resource that could benefit us..thats why the US turns the other way unlike oil which is our primary resource..you really think they care about humanity or other people's freedom?