Feed the terrorists!
- Thread starter gojugin
- Start date
Who Sent U.S. Troops to Somalia?
Actually, BBC, Operation Restore Hope, which sent American troops into Somalia, was launched in December 1992 by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Check out the facts:
-- The Bush Library at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1992/92120801.html
-- The Cato Inst. at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-020.html
-- The Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/havens/somalia.html (under “Has American intervened in Somalia before?”)
It’s noteworthy that Bush The Elder started the war in Somalia a month after losing the election to Bill Clinton and a month before leaving office. `Just another example of a Bush being better at a starting war than finishing it.
Um, TrueBlue - Bush probably didn't finish the war because he left office. I think his handling of Desert Storm is a testament to his abilities. However, in hindsight, he should have taken Saddam out.
And Dubya is doing a fine job with this current business - much better than I expected, frankly. Not sure where your comment about "starting a war and not finishing it" comes from. Especially since the Somalia stuff wasn't a war, it was more of a relief effort.
And Dubya is doing a fine job with this current business - much better than I expected, frankly. Not sure where your comment about "starting a war and not finishing it" comes from. Especially since the Somalia stuff wasn't a war, it was more of a relief effort.
GHW Bush and Somalia
Vraiblonde said:
If this long-standing situation was so critical, why didn’t he send in troops earlier? Possibly because he thought it might hamper his re-election bid? And if it wasn’t that critical, why not let it wait one more month for the next president to handle?
The obvious reason is that he was using the operation as one big spiteful “hot potato” to pass to his successor, the guy who deprived him of a second term. That’s a pretty cynical and self-serving use of U.S. servicemembers.
Vraiblonde said:
Um, yes, obviously, but the point is, why just before leaving office did he throw the U.S. military into that quagmire, especially while excluding the next president in the decision? [see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/MLM.htm ]
If this long-standing situation was so critical, why didn’t he send in troops earlier? Possibly because he thought it might hamper his re-election bid? And if it wasn’t that critical, why not let it wait one more month for the next president to handle?
The obvious reason is that he was using the operation as one big spiteful “hot potato” to pass to his successor, the guy who deprived him of a second term. That’s a pretty cynical and self-serving use of U.S. servicemembers.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
I think the U.S. military is doing a fine job, and Dubya is doing a fine job nodding “yes” to their recommendations. It’s worth noting that the military forces that so successfully wrested Afghanistan away from the Taliban were trained and equipped under the Clinton-Gore defense budgets – you remember, the same military forces that Bush and Cheney kept putting down during the election as being “unfit”?
You’re right: It was a relief effort, in response to a famine… caused by an ongoing civil war. And with GHW Bush sending 30,000 American troops smack-dab in the middle of it and 44 of them getting brutally killed in action, the term “war” fits pretty well.
Does a lame-duck President usually consult the Prez-Elect on such decisions? I don't know. But I do know that outgoing Presidents do all kinds of things in the 11th hour that they wouldn't do if they had to answer for it. They also do all kinds of things to take attention off of an issue that they would like to bury and direct it toward something else.
I don't think you'll ever hear anyone say that George HW Bush was the best President we've ever had. He was mediocre with some shining moments.
Part of what makes our current Bush such a successful President, IMO, is he doesn't feel the need to nitpick over everything - that's what you get an Administration for. He bows to the suggestions of the people in charge of that particular area, whether it's defense or education. Doesn't pretend that he's this all-knowing Imperial Grand Poobah. All in all, I'm impressed - considering I didn't even vote for him.
As to the "Recommendation" in the article you linked to: At first glance, I couldn't agree more. Might change my mind of someone comes up with a compelling argument.
Christy
b*tch rocket
Also, hindsight is 20/20. Bush Sr. accomplished the mission that we were set out to do. Get the Iraqi's out of Kuwait and set back their military capabilities for ten years. I reckon it was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If he'd gone and taken out Saddam every one and their brother (especially the lefty apologists) would have been marching in the streets in protest. He did what was asked of us. No more no less. Heck, back then the media went on a tirade when we obliterated the Iraqi Army as they were retreating down the highway from Kuwait back to Iraq. They thought that was over stepping our bounds.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
TrueBlue,
I find the insinuations and accusations directed the Bush’s to be many things, none of them having to do with truth or honesty.
PBS is no fan of the Bush family so; can we use their take as truthful? From their site:
“ Toward the end of the Bush administration, the United States sent approximately 25,000 troops to Somalia to assist the United Nations with the distribution of famine relief supplies. By the time Bill Clinton took office in 1993, U.S. troop levels had been vastly reduced, largely replaced with forces operating under the UN flag. However as UN clashes with local "warlords" increased, American troops became engaged in policing and wider peacekeeping operations. After 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a firefight in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, the United States briefly reinforced its troops but retreated from the more ambitious "nation-building" agenda previously outlined by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Criticized for having made decisions that may have contributed to the disaster, Aspin resigned two months later.”
As the Rangers died in October 1993, some nine months after Clinton took office, at what point do we consider he was actually on the job?
I don’t suppose it is possible to consider that Bush the elder simply felt he had to do something helpful in Somalia before he left office? Any cursory examination will show that US help was deeply appreciated at the outset. Hardly a hot potato for the successor. Hell, if anything it was a ready-made success story for the new guy.
The trouble started after January 1993.
What does one call it when one suggests others “check out the facts” and excludes their self from this requirement?
How dare anyone suggest a cynical use of the US military when the conversation doesn’t begin and end with one William J. Clinton.
TrueBlue, it is too bad that the facts don't support your blind hostility towards the Bush’s. There are real shortcomings they both have that would be worthy of true discussion, but as long emotion rules the day, what’s the point?
I find this laziness just plain silly when the facts are so readily available.
I find the insinuations and accusations directed the Bush’s to be many things, none of them having to do with truth or honesty.
PBS is no fan of the Bush family so; can we use their take as truthful? From their site:
“ Toward the end of the Bush administration, the United States sent approximately 25,000 troops to Somalia to assist the United Nations with the distribution of famine relief supplies. By the time Bill Clinton took office in 1993, U.S. troop levels had been vastly reduced, largely replaced with forces operating under the UN flag. However as UN clashes with local "warlords" increased, American troops became engaged in policing and wider peacekeeping operations. After 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a firefight in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, the United States briefly reinforced its troops but retreated from the more ambitious "nation-building" agenda previously outlined by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Criticized for having made decisions that may have contributed to the disaster, Aspin resigned two months later.”
As the Rangers died in October 1993, some nine months after Clinton took office, at what point do we consider he was actually on the job?
I don’t suppose it is possible to consider that Bush the elder simply felt he had to do something helpful in Somalia before he left office? Any cursory examination will show that US help was deeply appreciated at the outset. Hardly a hot potato for the successor. Hell, if anything it was a ready-made success story for the new guy.
The trouble started after January 1993.
What does one call it when one suggests others “check out the facts” and excludes their self from this requirement?
How dare anyone suggest a cynical use of the US military when the conversation doesn’t begin and end with one William J. Clinton.
TrueBlue, it is too bad that the facts don't support your blind hostility towards the Bush’s. There are real shortcomings they both have that would be worthy of true discussion, but as long emotion rules the day, what’s the point?
I find this laziness just plain silly when the facts are so readily available.
Christy
b*tch rocket
trueblue, having the experience of serving during Bush Sr, and during the Clinton years, with my husband still serving. I can honestly say we have an excellent military DESPITE the Clinton/Gore administration. Not BECAUSE of it. The military was gutted by the Clinton/Gore administration. The success of our military is more of a reflection on the character and dedication of it's members and their ability to adapt and overcome whatever crappy hand that is dealt to them.
Vraiblonde said:
Ya know, I’m not sure if there even has been another lame-duck president to make the decision to commit that many troops to such a volatile hot spot. Can anybody else think of one?
Vraiblonde also said:
Yes, that’s an excellent statement. Thanks for pointing it out. For those who missed it, here’s the “Recommendation” were talking about, from an article titled, “Somalia: Humanitarian Success And Political/Military Failure”:
“Recommendation: The U.S. should continue to support humanitarian operations to the greatest extent possible. To avoid another failure such as Somalia, the United States should not support nor participate in UN peacemaking or peace enforcement actions involving civil wars unless all major warring factions actively seek a peaceful solution to the crisis and there is an articulated and achievable end state.”
That says it all, doesn’t it? It should be adopted as U.S. policy. How can you send military troops into the middle of a bloody, raging civil war to do “humanitarian work” – e.g., open passageways and deliver meals – without the troops being any better than sitting ducks?
That’s why I say the whole operation was ill-conceived, doomed from the start, a recipe for disaster. Clinton’s mistake was to not pull out the troops immediately upon taking office.
Christy said:
It’s hard to argue with the first-hand knowledge/observations of someone who’s been in the service. You saw what you saw. However, I might toss into the mix that I’ve heard assessments of military readiness from a number of service folks, Republicans and Democrats. Their opinions on whether Clinton “gutted” the military run pretty much along party lines.
Also, you may recall that cuts in military spending did not begin with Clinton, but rather with the Elder Bush and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Remember the “Peace Dividend” after the end of the Cold War? According to CNN, GHW Bush “began the cuts, pushing Congress to authorize a 25 percent cut in the military, and those cuts have continued through the Clinton administration.” http://asia.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bigger.picture/stories/military.readiness/
While Clinton continued the trend to shrink defense spending, he did so less drastically than Bush Sr. did, and in fact reversed the trend in his second term, when he began increasing the military budget.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
In fact, in 2000 Clinton proposed the largest increase in defense spending since Reagan.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/
My only first-hand knowledge/observation on the subject comes from working in the Pax River community since the late 80’s. And what I see is that the base made out pretty darned well during the Clinton-Gore years. Maybe a little too well, considering it now looks like Crystal City South around the base.
Anyway, thank you, vraiblonde, otter, and Christy for offering mature, rational responses to my comments and thus proving that Dems and Repubs can discuss issues without stooping to personal attacks, petty sniping, and character assassination. I look forward to reading any else you have to say.
Ya know, I’m not sure if there even has been another lame-duck president to make the decision to commit that many troops to such a volatile hot spot. Can anybody else think of one?
Vraiblonde also said:
Yes, that’s an excellent statement. Thanks for pointing it out. For those who missed it, here’s the “Recommendation” were talking about, from an article titled, “Somalia: Humanitarian Success And Political/Military Failure”:
“Recommendation: The U.S. should continue to support humanitarian operations to the greatest extent possible. To avoid another failure such as Somalia, the United States should not support nor participate in UN peacemaking or peace enforcement actions involving civil wars unless all major warring factions actively seek a peaceful solution to the crisis and there is an articulated and achievable end state.”
That says it all, doesn’t it? It should be adopted as U.S. policy. How can you send military troops into the middle of a bloody, raging civil war to do “humanitarian work” – e.g., open passageways and deliver meals – without the troops being any better than sitting ducks?
That’s why I say the whole operation was ill-conceived, doomed from the start, a recipe for disaster. Clinton’s mistake was to not pull out the troops immediately upon taking office.
Christy said:
It’s hard to argue with the first-hand knowledge/observations of someone who’s been in the service. You saw what you saw. However, I might toss into the mix that I’ve heard assessments of military readiness from a number of service folks, Republicans and Democrats. Their opinions on whether Clinton “gutted” the military run pretty much along party lines.
Also, you may recall that cuts in military spending did not begin with Clinton, but rather with the Elder Bush and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Remember the “Peace Dividend” after the end of the Cold War? According to CNN, GHW Bush “began the cuts, pushing Congress to authorize a 25 percent cut in the military, and those cuts have continued through the Clinton administration.” http://asia.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bigger.picture/stories/military.readiness/
While Clinton continued the trend to shrink defense spending, he did so less drastically than Bush Sr. did, and in fact reversed the trend in his second term, when he began increasing the military budget.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
In fact, in 2000 Clinton proposed the largest increase in defense spending since Reagan.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/
My only first-hand knowledge/observation on the subject comes from working in the Pax River community since the late 80’s. And what I see is that the base made out pretty darned well during the Clinton-Gore years. Maybe a little too well, considering it now looks like Crystal City South around the base.
Anyway, thank you, vraiblonde, otter, and Christy for offering mature, rational responses to my comments and thus proving that Dems and Repubs can discuss issues without stooping to personal attacks, petty sniping, and character assassination. I look forward to reading any else you have to say.
Christy
b*tch rocket
The difference between the Bush Sr cuts and the Clinton cuts were a matter of knowing what to cut and what not to cut. There was (and still is) a lot of duplication of effort and plain old waste. When they were making cuts when I was in, the Bush administration was essentially cutting programs that were no longer needed. They offered early retirement and incentive packages or re-training to all the Russian Linguists (since there were a ton of them for the cold war). In my opinion, that was practical. Clinton got in office and made huge cuts in our overall intelligence resources. He also completely wiped out the protections put in place during the Reagan years in regards to National Security Information.
Reagan signed an executive order (EO 12356) April of 1982 which states:
"If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify
information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original classification authority,
who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If
there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of
classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall make this determination within
thirty (30) days."
In April of 95 President Clinton revoked that Executive Order and replaced it with EO 12958, which states:
"This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information."...... "If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of
classification, it shall be classified at the lower level."
I'm sure lots of people were going hurray for Clinton when he did this, without thinking clearly of the consequences to all of us.
Reagan signed an executive order (EO 12356) April of 1982 which states:
"If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify
information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original classification authority,
who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If
there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of
classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall make this determination within
thirty (30) days."
In April of 95 President Clinton revoked that Executive Order and replaced it with EO 12958, which states:
"This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information."...... "If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of
classification, it shall be classified at the lower level."
I'm sure lots of people were going hurray for Clinton when he did this, without thinking clearly of the consequences to all of us.
TrueBlue sez
TrueBlue sez
TrueBlue sez
It makes absolute sense that Bush would cut military spending - after the Cold War was over, it could be scaled down to fit the needs of the country. I believe he did the same thing with Desert Storm - increased spending during the operation, then cut it when it was over. Makes sense to me.
Clinton's falling down on the job in terms of Intel is understandable. I don't blame him for that - he came into office with no knowledge or interest in foreign policy. Nor was he seasoned enough to put together an administration filled with people who knew what they were doing. The idea of expecting Clinton to be the head of a major nation was unrealistic.
I do, however, blame the voters for putting him in office. Inner-city blacks keep saying he was good for them - but they're in just as bad, if not worse, straights than they were before Clinton took office. And what did he do for gays, besides that patronizing "don't ask, don't tell" thing? What did he do for women, besides have sex with them? So someone explain to me why these three groups voted for him overwhelmingly? Are we as a nation that stupid that we'll just believe what the media tells us without expecting anythign to back it up?
Democrats need to get a real candidate for 2004 - not the ridiculous Al Gore and not the absurd Tom Daschle.
LBJ comes to mind but I'd have to read up a bit to have my facts in a row.
TrueBlue sez
That part I have to disagree with. Our humanitarian efforts, whether we're giving them money or dropping food on them, don't seem to be worth the effort. It's common knowledge that most of our aid doesn't even get near the people it was designed to help. Typically the corrupt leaders take that aid and use it for their own purposes. We dropped those food packets on Afghanistan, only to have Taliban soldiers gather it up and sell it to the citizens, who couldn't afford to pay for it. Somehow I don't think that's what Bush had in mind.
TrueBlue sez
Don't give that credit to Clinton, please. That was Steny Hoyer pulling strings and cashing in favors. There was an enormous number of bases that were closed during the Clinton administration. The only reason Pax didn't get hit was because Steny had enough clout to keep it open. But he's a Democrat so you can still have a hero in your ranks
It makes absolute sense that Bush would cut military spending - after the Cold War was over, it could be scaled down to fit the needs of the country. I believe he did the same thing with Desert Storm - increased spending during the operation, then cut it when it was over. Makes sense to me.
Clinton's falling down on the job in terms of Intel is understandable. I don't blame him for that - he came into office with no knowledge or interest in foreign policy. Nor was he seasoned enough to put together an administration filled with people who knew what they were doing. The idea of expecting Clinton to be the head of a major nation was unrealistic.
I do, however, blame the voters for putting him in office. Inner-city blacks keep saying he was good for them - but they're in just as bad, if not worse, straights than they were before Clinton took office. And what did he do for gays, besides that patronizing "don't ask, don't tell" thing? What did he do for women, besides have sex with them? So someone explain to me why these three groups voted for him overwhelmingly? Are we as a nation that stupid that we'll just believe what the media tells us without expecting anythign to back it up?
Democrats need to get a real candidate for 2004 - not the ridiculous Al Gore and not the absurd Tom Daschle.
Vraiblonde,
You said, “Don't give that credit to Clinton, please. That was Steny Hoyer pulling strings and cashing in favors. There was an enormous number of bases that were closed during the Clinton administration. The only reason Pax didn't get hit was because Steny had enough clout to keep it open. But he's a Democrat so you can still have a hero in your ranks.” I disagree with that as it wasn’t Hoyer’s doing, it was the professional personnel at Patuxent River that have proved over the years that we are one of the most “can-do” organizations in the world and the infrastructure we have is essential to the needs of our nation as it relates to test and evaluation. We have abilities that aren’t replicated anywhere else in the world; this is why we have been able to maintain this station intact and actually grow during the BRAC and associated re-organizations. Hoyer may take the credit for this but it was those of us doing the work that has kept this base open.
You said, “Don't give that credit to Clinton, please. That was Steny Hoyer pulling strings and cashing in favors. There was an enormous number of bases that were closed during the Clinton administration. The only reason Pax didn't get hit was because Steny had enough clout to keep it open. But he's a Democrat so you can still have a hero in your ranks.” I disagree with that as it wasn’t Hoyer’s doing, it was the professional personnel at Patuxent River that have proved over the years that we are one of the most “can-do” organizations in the world and the infrastructure we have is essential to the needs of our nation as it relates to test and evaluation. We have abilities that aren’t replicated anywhere else in the world; this is why we have been able to maintain this station intact and actually grow during the BRAC and associated re-organizations. Hoyer may take the credit for this but it was those of us doing the work that has kept this base open.
Ken, I don't want to downplay the job that Pax personnel do - certainly they are among the best in the nation. But that's not something that would have kept them from relocating the personnel and shutting the base down. The fact that Pax is ideally situated for it's purpose had a lot to do with it, but I'm not convinced the former decision-makers would have realized that if Hoyer hadn't pushed it. You know as well as I do that value has nothing to do with whether the government gets rid of something or not.
So let's be fair and give credit where credit's due. He really did work his butt off to not only save Pax but to enlarge it through BRAC. I didn't care for his support of our former *hmm hmm* in Chief but he is a hometown boy does a good job for the community. Unless you hate all the come-heres...then you should probably vote him out
So let's be fair and give credit where credit's due. He really did work his butt off to not only save Pax but to enlarge it through BRAC. I didn't care for his support of our former *hmm hmm* in Chief but he is a hometown boy does a good job for the community. Unless you hate all the come-heres...then you should probably vote him out
I wouldn't mind seeing him go as we were stuck with him after the last redistricting involving this area. It was a lot of our existing facilities and abilities that made it easy for him to get us off the list. Not to mention that when a project has funding issues it is real easy to bring the Congree members down here to see what it is that is being done.