Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.
I suspect the people that helped pay for that and the forces that went in knew precisely what would occur. My question wasn't aimed at that, I thought it obvious. The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. That by western record; local knowledge or oral history probably take it back even further. Probably before your time are some recent activities there I can recall right off the top of my head -- the Border War in the early 60s; Ogaden in '77, Border fights in the early 80s and desultorily continuing all through the 80s and early 90s with an eruption around 1999 IIRC. So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.
The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem. That habit, in fact, is a large part of the reason the IUC no longer exists.
I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...

Let me suggest that you consider the fact that the 'habit' you cite shows a record of interference here and there -- outside the western hemisphere, mostly only Post WW II for what should be obvious reasons -- and ponder whether those who directed or employed such interference thought, based on their knowledge at the time, that it was in US interest to do so and that regardless of effect, the intentions were primarily every bit as 'honorable' as are your intentions in interfering.
Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.
That is whom?
Yes. I think it will be fairly depressing--to those who are still paying attention by that point--when piracy off the Puntland coast rebounds and continues after we've ventilated a bunch of pirates and then left.
Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..." Sad things is that even were your ideas -- or\, actually, those of various organizations which you espouse -- implemented, I'm quite confident I'd be able to do the same thing...[quote]I wouldn't claim they do... I'm not going to accept an argument that consists entirely of "I've been there".[/quote[Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.
Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity, I don't see that my proposition meets the criteria to be considered western thought. I'm largely advocating the opposite of what we've tried in those regions.
I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west.
I'd say "about the same that others are going to contribute to the shoot-em-all plan", but around here, I might actually come up short.
Astute observation. not least because some here have actually been on the ground there and whether you accept it or not, may have knowledge or insights tha cannot be obtained by erudition.
I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.
That comment seems to indicate that you totally missed my point -- I am emphatically not recommending pirate hunting, rather the opposite

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent. Most such interference actually has good intentions -- you may not agree with a particular set but that does not mean they were wrong and you are correct, merely that opinions differ. Consider also that this thread is indicative of the fact that your presumed good intention meets with other persons who disagree that your brand of interference is one bit better than the earlier models...
Ken has said "X is bad because of A, B, and C." I'm not convinced by many of Ken's arguments in this thread, and I wish he'd go on to D, E, and F, but he's made arguments that can be argued.
That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake. I try not to do that. I do try to give people things that it appears to me they might not have considered or that they are treating as superficial impediment when my observation and experience has been those factors may not be superficial and could lead to getting people killed unnecessarily. That I'll generally try to preclude by commenting. If anything I write here keeps one more kid from an unnecessary death, I will have done good...

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.

Basically, you ask for western intervention, I don't know if I can provide the 'F' but the 'D' is that you should consider that other interventions were no more evil or disruptive than your proposed model is likely to be.

The "E" I posted to Carl above:

""Illegal trade and smuggling in and among all those is rampant and a contributor to local income in all the nations. It will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate that but the Piracy is not helpful to any of them and they know it.

As you're well aware, the attitude of "Why should I bust my hump or even do anything when the big guys are willing to do the work..." come into play.

It's their neighborhood and if they have to do so, they'll clean it up. They aren't going to do anything as long as someone else will contain the problem at a level they (not the rest of the world...) can live with...""

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.