I'm getting real tired of all the extremism on this board too, thank god there is at least there are a few sane people left. Anyway, you asked how could we do it right this time? Well, I have to say I haven't read a great deal about how the Somalis operate, although, I have for what its worth, read Blackhawk Down. That being said, from what I gathered from the book this would be how we do it right: 1. When it comes down to ground operations, it needs to be a US-led mission with some support from the British or Australians. We had major problems getting the UN force together to rescue Delta, the Rangers, and the Blackhawk crews. 2. We're going to need to use AC-130 Spectres and close air as well as strategic bombing support from Air Force and Navy aircraft. We didn't have this for the troops in '93. 3. We are probably going to have to restrict media coverage of the area. The Somalis have no qualms about hiding behind women and children for cover, and our guys can't be hamstrung by difficult rules of engagement in order to keep civilian casualties light. (Not that I WANT civilian casualties, but they are bound to occur in greater numbers in Somalia, and our national will power to sustain this conflict will be far more difficult if Americans at home see just how they fight over there.) If you want information on how the Somalis use human shields, read Blackhawk Down. 4. We should definitely leave the taking of cities to local forces if at all possible. Urban combat is a nightmare. That was what made our operations so difficult in '93. This time around if there is Al Queda leadership, instead of trying to capture them (ala '93), we will probably just drop a smart bomb on their hideout, no muss, no fuss, problem eliminated. 5. I'm sure this time around we will rely on local help similar to Afghanistan, We will find a warlord that is agreeable to us and use him to get to them. Somalia has a similar situation to Afghanistan where using local help is practical, unlike Iraq. 6. We always should have a extraction plan for our SF units. I think a Somali campaign will be VERY similar to the Afghani one. The main reasons our guys had problems in '93 was because the 10th Mountain Division was not prepared for a rescue operation and we didn't think you could use an RPG to bring down a Blackhawk. The best way to protect our choppers I would think, would be to travel in groups using heavy gunship support should the helicopters come under fire. IOW adequate force protection is a must. Somalia should be a cakewalk for our guys, the Somalis have even less infrastructure to remove (i.e. C&C sites, SAM and AA batteries etc.), a shorter logistical train, and fewer important neighbors to please, and don't have the reputation that the Afghanis did for being tough hombres, they will probably flee faster than the Talis. Just my $.02

Robert996 wrote: "3. We are probably going to have to restrict media coverage of the area. The Somalis have no qualms about hiding behind women and children for cover, and our guys can't be hamstrung by difficult rules of engagement in order to keep civilian casualties light. (Not that I WANT civilian casualties, but they are bound to occur in greater numbers in Somalia, and our national will power to sustain this conflict will be far more difficult if Americans at home see just how they fight over there.) If you want information on how the Somalis use human shields, read Blackhawk Down." Interesting idea, and with the best intentions, I'm sure, but I have a feeling going too far down this road would backfire. Sooner or later, someone from some media outlet somewhere would slip in. The eyes of the media are almost as good as the eyes of the government, once they know that a story is there to be found, anyway. This is a hard situation for the government, in either case. If they allow the media in from the start, then the world will see casualty counts on an almost daily basis, and probably not too small, if what you're saying is true. On the other hand, the other option is to possibly suppress these counts for a month, maybe two, before a journalist gets in, and the headline is blazoned across TV's and newspapers worldwide: "EXCLUSIVE: America Covers Up Thousands of Innocent Somalian Casualties." There's really no way to make this pretty, though; civilian casualties simply can't be made to look good. Furthermore, it's even more paramount in this campaign that America ensure the absolute minimum loss of civilian life ... that is the true ideological distinction between us and the terrorists. In general, though, it doesn't seem possible to me that the U.S. could successfully ban media presence in an entire country for an extended period of time. Simple human curiosity can be a powerful motivator; people look harder when they're led to believe that there's something there to see. I hope it doesn't come to this. --Phoenix Rising

Yeah Phoenix the Afghanistan board was full of nut cases. I don't see anything too wrong with your speculations. I dont' believe that we will be working as much with proxies this time as our lessons from Afghanistan is that they are a loose net. They may be scouts (ala General Crooks). We also wouldn't stick around. There will be a lot of snatch operations and temporary encampments. The problem that the Al Qaeda will have is that they can't blend into the countryside as easily as they did in Afghanistan. Our goal will be to get them moving and in the open. I do agree that some time will pass before any serious stuff gets going. The Air Force and Army have some serious mopping up and I think that they will want to bag OBL in Pakistan before having any other distractions. Lets hope this board stays clear of the monster rants. PS: Do you go to a Big Ten School?

It is also easier for the press to get into Somalia so they will be there in force. I believe that if told upfront about how the Somali's use human shields the Americans will not lose their will. That is one good thing about the movie coming out is that it will show this tactic. The American people will know about it beforehand so will be less inured to the shock value. I still believe that we minimize the proxies. The Somalis didn't start fighting back until the 10th Mountain Division had left and the UN force was in place. Going in with a massive force will keep the Somali's guns in their houses. Finally if you can believe what the press has reported the Somali's had technical assistance from Al Qaeda and a leaky cordon with the Italian troops. History won't repeat itself here. Thinking more on this board I believe that Yeman is where the U.S. is concentrating it's effort and in an indirect way the southeast part of Saudi Arabia where most of the plane terrorists came from. My musings anyway.

Phoenix, I disagree that it would be impractical or impossible to supress media coverage of Somalia. I should make it clear though that I firmly believe that the media has no business in a combat zone. War is hell, simply put, and even the most nescesary of wars looks completely unworth its price to the vast majority of American people when its being played out at 30fps in full color on the 6 o'clock news. However I think we can really keep a decent lid on things in Somalia simply because until they collapse it is highly unlikely that members of the media could safely travel in a hostile Somalia without a large armed force. One reason that many people percieve the operation in '93 as a failure was because the only videotape that got out was taken by the Somalis of our dead servicemen, they did not show the 500-1000 casualties that the small American force (about 100 men) inflicted on the Somalis. Reporters weren't able to get on the ground because they would have likely have been killed by the Somali mobs upon arrival. Luckily for us as well the Somalis have a tradition that any dead must be immediately buried so, if we play our cards right, and the Somalis aren't media savvy (I think that is a VERY safe bet) we can count on the Somalis to more or less take care of the media problems for us. If they don't I have faith in our armed forces in doing so, after all they have done a helluva good job in keeping the media a safe distance away from the combat zone in the past 10 years. This will probably be my last post for a several days, my private pilot checkride comes up on Friday and I've got to know my sh*t backwards, forwards and sideways to pass it. I'll be hitting the books and the control yoke pretty hard till then, but I'll try to check in at work. Later

This is certainly a testosterone filled site. Instead of figuring out how to use war lords to enable the U.S. to control things, why not use the same brain energy and dollars to figure out that it's the very intervention of the U.S. foreign policy into areas which needn't concern them that is the problem. In trying to figure out why war still is seem as a valid way of solving issues one has to look at the motivation. There are two motivators for the human phyce (SP?). Love and Fear. Fear creates the need for power, thus nations (after all, are goverments any different than individual people) who fear the loss of their way of life resort to fear/power. As I stated earlier, if somehow these same resources were used to promote love it would be possible to stop war/terrorism. I know this seems naive, but look at the power of Nelson Mandella and Ghandi. It can happen. Most everyone on this site sounds intelligent and educated but I am most troubled that the right questions are not being asked. Hope you read this far and didn't dismiss this as pollyanna thinking right at the start.

I'd be interested in your ideas Sharwald ,on how resources can be diverted into promoting love amonst the Somali warlords.

Easy, Tommy! 3 simple steps! 1. Obtain Warlords. 2. Bring to Disneyworld, force them to endure endless repetitions of "It's a Small World" until they break. 3. Return the smiling happy warlord to Somalia, and obtain more warlords. This is an entirely peace love and happiness oriented procedure, although steps 1 and 3 may require some degree of military acticity. Please note that simultaneous operations could be performed by the UK, in which case step 2 would make use of continuous shows of "Teletubbies Live" held in the Millenium Dome.

Tellytubbies just inspire hate in me,(and ive got kids!) After watching Tinky-Winky wave his ridiculous bag at a group of rabbits I feel even more Homicidal than usual. Perhaps we could teach them to sing..... "we are the children of the world .... we are the future..... Lets join hands and make the world betttter..." Then they could raise up a bottle of coke and smile winningly whilst firing whole magazines of AKMs into the crystal blue sky.

"concerning somalia...i dare you..as a matter of fact i dare the president to even say the name somalia." O.K., have it your way... Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! Somalia! S-O-M-A-L-I-A!!!