Quote Originally Posted by Brian Scott View Post
...I just anticipate that invading Somalia will be the next knee-jerk reaction war that we start in order to help a sitting President get reelected.
I didn't say we wouldn't do that...
C'mon, we are spending about $60 Million...looking for barefoot teenagers in skiffs high on khat. Meanwhile, piracy is on the rise.
In reverse order; of course it is -- we've done little or nothing seriously aimed at stopping it. We just throw money at things, whether it make any sense or not. Better than getting Congress involved -- then it REALLY gets screwed up. That's a serious comment and that factor does drive some trains.

As for the high tech, high value 'efforts' -- when all one has is a hammer...
Our CIA is spending about $40 Million per month (WAG) buying the loyalties of a dozen militias, some of whom are then using that money to fight each other.
Yeah. I remember Laos. Quite well; way, way too well, in fact...
Folks expect it to be a "cakewalk," and for the locals to shower our troops with ... do they have chocolates or flowers there ?
Getting serious for a second, I suppose there are some in high places who believe that -- they're idiots (unfortunately, the inmates are sometimes in charge) but most people know better. The broader American polity has a lot more collective sense than do its elected Pols.
The only solution to the high seas piracy is taking action ashore, and we don't trust any locals with that responsibility.
Don't trust any locals or have other, mostly US domestic and political reasons to want to be there? That aspect regrettably drives too much of our interventionist stupidity -- and the majority of it has been stupid; either stupid from the outset or stupidly executed. We do not have the right tools to preclude such idiocy or to properly execute those that cannot be avoided. That not because we're stupid or incapable but because a venal Congress (or, more correctly, a succession of them) will not provide those tools lest it erode their power. They're willing to provide Hammers but not fine cabinetmaking tools...

The problem with Somalia is its location, not AQ et.al. Anyplace with ability to significantly constrict maritime flow through Bab-el-Mandeb is going to attract and hold our attention. Probably should. I just wish we'd do it right.

Still,you're correct that the answer lies ashore -- and we're both correct in saying that any US military intervention there would be probably the least good thing we could do.
I am pretty sure that there are indigenous leaders in Somaliland and Puntland who could fight both of these fights more effectively than we ever could, but our foreign policy is not so flexible as to be able to accord respect to any Somali leaders.
With that I agree.

I could argue that we effectively have no foreign policy -- but you've hit our 'problem' smack on the head:

"We" (the broader US political and governing crowd) believe that only "we" can do things correctly. Since that "we" is insanely fragmented on methods and goals, it is terribly incoherent. That leads to, as I said elsewhere about another area, discombobulated, almost incoherent actions that effectively result in a mess and: "I'm inclined to fault us ... admitting that the locals are, as usual, manipulating us. We're egotistical, arrogant, rich -- and dumb -- really bad combination."