Doing Something Right: The Somali Raid

By Rick Moran Posted in Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

US AC-130 gunships attacked some fleeing al-Qaeda members along the Somalia-Kenya border wreaking havoc, sowing confusion, and evidently killing several terrorists - including a possible al-Qaeda financier who may have assisted the bombers who destroyed our African embassies in 1998:

A U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship attacked suspected al-Qaeda members in southern Somalia on Sunday, and U.S. sources said the operation may have hit a senior terrorist figure.

The strike took place near the Kenyan border, according to a senior officer at the Pentagon. Other sources said it was launched at night from the U.S. military facility in neighboring Djibouti. It was based on joint military-CIA intelligence and on information provided by Ethiopian and Kenyan military forces operating in the border area.

Sources said last night that initial reports indicated the attack had been successful, although information was still scanty.

"You had some figures on the move in a relatively unpopulated part of the country," said one source confirming the attack, who, like several others, would discuss the operation only on the condition of anonymity. "It was a confluence of information and circumstances," he said. The attack was first reported by CBS News.

This is more like it. First, we had cooperative intelligence sharing from both Ethiopia and Kenya - the two major players in that part of the world and both of whom want nothing to do with al-Qaeda and radical Islam. Secondly, the operation appeared to be well planned and expertly carried out. Third, the bonus to the operation may be the timely deaths of two higher ups in al-Qaeda who have been responsible for aiding the perpetrators of attacks on American interests:

One target of the strike, sources said, was Abu Talha al-Sudani, a Sudanese who is married to a Somali woman and has lived in Somalia since 1993 -- the year of the attack against U.S. troops that was chronicled in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down." In a 2001 U.S. court case against Osama bin Laden, Sudani was described by a leading witness as an explosives expert who was close to the al-Qaeda leader.

More recently, Sudani was identified by U.S. intelligence as a close associate of Gouled Hassan Dourad, head of a Mogadishu-based network that operated in support of al-Qaeda in Somalia. Dourad is one of 14 "high-value" prisoners transferred last September from CIA "black sites" to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence then disclosed that Dourad "worked for the East African al-Qaeda cell led by . . . al-Sudani" and carried out at least one mission for him, related to a plan to bomb the U.S. military base in Djibouti.

And that's not all. US intelligence has fingered Sudani as the financier for the terrorist attack on our embassies in 1998. And the terrorist who was the beneficiary of that financing may have been killed in the raid as well:

Others have identified Sudani as the financier for Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, believed responsible for the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. All are among the senior al-Qaeda operatives the Bush administration has charged were sheltered by Somalian Islamic fundamentalists controlling Mogadishu, the country's capital. They are believed to have fled late last month when Ethiopian troops drove the fundamentalists out of the capital and toward the Kenyan border.

[In an interview early Tuesday, Abdirizak Hassan, chief of staff for Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi, confirmed the strike. Hassan said he heard from American officials that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed had been killed, although U.S. officials said he had not been in their immediate sights. "Among the targets was Fazul," he said, "and we understand that Fazul is no more."

Hassan also said Somali officials authorized the strike. "We gave permission for actions that are more than airstrikes," Hassan said. "Whatever it means to rout these people out, we have given them permission."]

So to sum up; a multi national effort to destroy fleeing al-Qaeda terrorists, carried out with precision and our military's usual deadly efficiency, with the permission of the UN approved and backed Somali government, may have sent two major al-Qaeda figures along with several others to hell.

One would think that such an operation could be supported by all Americans who wish to fight terrorism. In fact, I would say that this is a no brainer - even for the left.

But what do I know?

These men are believed responsible for acts of terrorism, and the people who were attacked were believed to be the men in question. Evidently that forms a sound basis for administering (or, at least, attempting to administer) the death penalty, at least by U.S. standards.

While this person represents the loopy left, even "mainstream" liberals are clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers in disapproval:

See, here's the thing. The US, again, refused to talk directly to the ICU. The ICU, like Hezbollah, wanted, needed, recognition (even more than Hezbollah). A deal could have been made. But it wasn't. Instead what the US has done is back a foreign invasion in support of a puppet government with no popular support...

If the ICU had taken over Somalia they could have been dealt with as you deal with nations - pressure, sanctions, maybe even bombing runs - plus the carrot of aid and trade relations. As a guerilla movement there is nothing the US can do to them that it has not already done.

The ICU will win in the long run. A lot of people will die in the meantime. Al-Qa'eda will have another haven, and the US will be reviled for putting a bunch of bloodthirsty raping monsters back into power.

All in a day's work in the Bush administration.

I don't know whether to fisk this idiocy or simply sit back and laugh at the breathtaking naivete and appalling ignorance.

First of all, we spent the last 6 months urging urging the Transitional Government to talk with more moderate elements in the Islamic Courts Union:

Frazer, the top U.S. diplomat for Africa, had said late Sunday in Nairobi that Yusuf's government, which was formed by an international conference in 2004 and has never controlled Mogadishu, needed to bring moderate Islamists into the regime.

"I support reaching out to the ... Islamic Courts," Frazer said. "We see a role in the future of Somalia for all who renounce violence and extremism."

The message signaled a more conciliatory U.S. stance on the Islamic Courts Movement, which had seized Mogadishu in June from U.S.-backed warlords. Initially U.S. officials based in Kenya had some contact with moderates within the movement, including Sheik Sherif Ahmed, a geography teacher who emerged as their leader.

But Ahmed soon was edged out by hard-liners, led by suspected al-Qaida operative Hassan Dahir Aweys, who laid claims to territory in neighboring countries and called for jihad against Ethiopia. Frazer made a series of statements starting in November claiming that al-Qaida terrorists had overrun the courts movement.

U.S. officials think that the militants are sheltering three terrorists who masterminded the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Bush administration is widely thought to have given neighboring, Christian-led Ethiopia the green light to expel the Islamists.

Funny how the Agonist writer failed to mention that tiny detail of a declaration of jihad against largely Christian Ethiopia by the radicals in ICU long before the invasion. But then, that just doesn't fit the narrative of the US as bloodthirsty warmongers so it could be safely jettisoned in favor of a comparison of the those gentle souls in the ICU with democratic reformers from Hizbullah.

The stupidity of such a comparison boggles the mind. Hizbullah was enormously unpopular in Lebanon even before they declared their intention to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Prime Minister Siniora. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese place the blame for starting the destructive war against Israel right where it belongs; in Hassan Nasrallah's lap. To say that Hizbullah has any "popular support" at all beyond the Shia minority (and a sizable segment of secular Shias oppose them as well) is laughable and demonstrates a towering ignorance of what Hizbullah is doing in Lebanon - mainly the bidding of their masters in Syria and Tehran.

And the "popular support" for the ICU in Somalia?

Jubilant Somalis cheered as troops of the U.N.-backed interim government rolled into Mogadishu unopposed Thursday, putting an end to six months of domination of the capital by a radical Islamic movement.

Ethiopian soldiers stopped on the outskirts of town, after providing much of the military might in the offensive that shattered what had seemed an unbeatable Islamic militia. Islamic fighters fled south vowing to continue the battle.

"We are in Mogadishu," Prime Minister Mohamed Ali Gedi declared after meeting with local clan leaders to discuss the peaceful hand-over of the city.

The ICU had been taken over by radical foreign Islamists in the previous months. Whatever "law and order" they brought to the country came at the expense of the security of their neighbors in Ethiopia and Kenya as the direct threat of jihad against Ethiopia proves conclusively. Not only that, it became apparent that the ICU was setting up a safe haven for terrorists who could strike US and western interests (and friends) in the region:

"We had seen intelligence evidence these three al Qaeda operatives were very much influencing the leadership of the council of the ICU -- for example providing logistics, fuel and arms to the militias," said Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. State Department's Assistant Secretary for African Affairs.

U.S. officials in East Africa said earlier this week that al Qaeda operatives were developing the ability to attack U.S. targets just as they did when the embassy bombings killed hundreds.

Intelligence shows al Qaeda stepped up its operations in Somalia in June after an Islamic militia took power.

Their camps taught radical Islam to young men, weapons flowed in from eastern European arms dealers and money arrived from the Middle East, U.S. officials said.

"What we were really concerned about was there seemed to be much more recruiting, much more training going on. They were positioning themselves to expand their area of influence beyond Somali borders," said Rear Adm. Richard Hunt of Task Force Horn of Africa.

Before I condemn the entire left for the stupidity exhibited above, let's wait and see if any liberals cheer this victory against al-Qaeda. I am hoping that there is some sanity both in Congress and among the netroots who recognize that as flawed as the Transitional Government might be, they are a damn sight better than an Islamist-backed, radical fundamentalist outfit like the ICU running things.

And if we can convince the legitimate government to talk with more moderate elements in the ICU and perhaps bring them into the government in some sort of power sharing arrangement, even the left might celebrate.

Analysts who had been critical of U.S. policy in Somalia said the Bush administration might be focusing on achieving political stability there after years of being preoccupied with preventing al-Qaida cells from taking root.

"If the U.S. is indeed doing more than making a few public statements in support of dialogue with moderates, then it does represent a shift in the public face of its policy," said John Prendergast, senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, a research center on global conflict.

The Islamists' ouster left a power vacuum in Mogadishu, where the transitional government has little support. The city's powerful Hawiye clan accuses Yusuf, who's of a rival clan, of being a puppet of Ethiopia.

"If southern Somalia is to stabilize, it is essential that the transitional government hold substantial power-sharing talks with the Hawiye clan elders and Islamic Courts officials," Prendergast said.

Trying to sweeten the deal, the U.S. has pledged $40 million in new aid to Somalia, including $14 million to support a proposed African peacekeeping mission. Frazer said the money wasn't conditional on the transitional government negotiating with the Islamists.

We appear to be undertaking a substantial, determined effort to make the right moves in Somalia now - both militarily and diplomatically. As to the latter, patience may be a virtue that I would urge on my lefty friends. Somalia has resisted efforts to coalesce into a nation for the past 15 years and it will take time for our policies to bear fruit; that is, if we can sustain them.

But if the above excerpts from lefty blogs is the kind of mindless, knee jerk reaction to our efforts and the efforts of a sizable portion of Africa to defeat the ICU and establish a viable government in Somalia, then we can do well to ask our lefty friends a very pointed and pertinent question:

Just what will it take for you to support military action to kill our enemies?

Cross Posted at Right Wing Nuthouse.

I can say that I shed absolutely no tears for them. We (the U.S. military and Special Forces inparticular) have spent an enormous amount of time training the Ethiopians these past couple years. While a typical U.S. strip-mall security guard has more discipline, the Ethiopians were eager and fun.

With any luck, Allah is about to run out of virgins.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Hitting Somali terrorists from air and sea is excellent! I hope to see more of it. But if we ever put boots on the ground there again, we should let our guys do whatever's necessary.

We sacrificed the lives of our soldiers last time in Somalia because our political leaders lacked the guts to be brutal. When that crowd started overwhelming our forces, they should have been allowed to fire at will and kill everyone in sight.

It's WAR. Muslim extremists in Somalia and everywhere else have to know what happens when you harm Americans, whether soldiers or civilians.

that the Deltas that were overwhelmed weren't feeling compunctions about firing at the crowd rushing them. If you're defending a downed helicopter, and a crowd is rushing in, nobody thought they were selling girlscout cookies.

When everything was said and done, weren't there over 1000 Somali dead compared to our 19? We did kick some serious butt.

is that in a soccer stadium in Mogadishu was a Battalion of locked and loaded Marines from the 15th MEU. They had APCs and could have gotten to the Delta guys in about 15 minutes by ABC, no more than an hour on foot, even if they had to fight there way in. I have friends who were sitting in the stadium.

They were not allowed to rescue the Deltas by direct order of the NCC. There might have been civilian casualties.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

If I'm not mistaken, Les Aspin personally refused ANY armor to get those guys out. Mr. Aspin spent exactly the same amount of days in a military uniform as his boss......ZERO!!!

where it needed to be to rescue those Delta operators.

I have a friend who was in the stadium. He told me that the Col had to be physically restrained by staff officers and NCO's from losing the order that they couldn't go rescue the Deltas. It was a really ugly scene.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

is that there haven't been pictures posted yet of a bunch of dead kids with a claim that these are the people we slaughtered.

Before I condemn the entire left for the stupidity exhibited above, let's wait and see if any liberals cheer this victory against al-Qaeda.

At least they haven't yet said how this will make "them" hate us more, which is what I expected the libs response to be.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

The burning question on all our minds should be "Will the New York Times approve?"

Nothing focuses the mind like terrorist being blown into a fine, red vapor.

Soldiers' Angels

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Thanks for the link but there's something a lot worse at work here then stupidity, which for some is a blessing. The Agonist has chosen sides, chosen enemies, and at least by default has chosen allies. He, or it, is not alone and has company in high and influential places, particularly those bearers of the lamp of truth, our media. But far be it for me to question their patriotism, their sanity maybe.

I think it's time we find a Jack Kevorkian for these tormented souls, strictly voluntary of course. This would encourage and expedite their death wish, end their misery, and allow normal people to continue their lives without being dragged down with them. The End would be made more comfortable with tapes of Cindy Sheehan and words of consolation from Pastor Pinch Sulzberger along with a last will leaving everything to the Democratic National Committee. Who could ask for more ?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

here's some links. The AC130 Spectre Gunship has been around in various forms since Vietnam. It's nick-name is Spooky.

Fact sheet and photos: here.

A Google video, about 7 minutes long, of Spooky at work in Afghanistan is here.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Am I getting my equipment mixed up again?

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Got it's name from the appearance at night, tracers looked like a dragons fiery breath. It was an AC47, converted C47 transport with three 7.62mm Gatling guns. It looked like this...

And an excellent link is here.

The current version, AC130 Spectre/Spooky is equipped with side-firing, trainable 25mm, 40mm, and 105mm guns. All that with all weather advanced targeting systems.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Then what was the name of the C-130 with the Vulcan Cannon?

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Or maybe it was Fred. Or Vinnie. Or something... :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

for a link on the C-130 Spectre. It always fascinated me that the AC-47 was named for the first open, if allegorical, dope-smoking song to reach the charts in the 'sixties; "Puff the Magic Dragon" by Peter, Paul, and Mary. Where are they now?

In Vino Veritas

they're not held, by some of us anyway, in the same esteem as the AC47.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

While we're down there maybe we could swing by and take out the Janjaweed in Sudan too...

Don't mess with Texas.

I am probably to the left of most of you guys, but I don't see any problem with the US assisting a country's legitimate government in their fight against radicals. I think it is vital that we support the goverment of Somalia as much as we can - I certainly don't want to see another Taliban state take hold. Sorry to say this, but I think it is somewhat of a steoreotype to assume that "lefties" are always against the country's military interventions abroad. But I do conceed that some bloggers with whom I might agree on an issue or two do take it that far - I just hope you don't assume that all liberals or moderates follow suit. That being said, I am not sure how much US involvement I would support - but given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, anything besides special ops, air strikes, logistical and intelligence support is probably out of the question, and all those means are fine by me.

If you're looking for "cheering" of the operation, well, you probably won't find that on most liberal blogs. That's not because they are dead set against our involvement, rather, they do have a political agenda, and that is to get the Republicans out of office. I know it sounds bad, but from my experience of living in this country (I am an immigrant originally), this happens on both sides of the aisle. There wasn't much cheer for the US successes in the Balkans in the 90s, nor there was much cheering for US airstrikes against terrorist bases in the late 90s from the opposition party at the time. But this is just politics. For the mast part, I think most rational liberals would not object to giving assistance to the Somali government provided we don't all of a sudden send a large number of troops. There is always this porition on the left that is against virtually ALL military actions that might cause civilian casualties, but what can you do about them.

There wasn't much cheer for the US successes in the Balkans in the 90s,

Maybe because there wasn't much, if anything, to be gained by the United States in the Balkans. It can hardly be compared to the GWOT. The Serbians weren't in the habit of targeting Americans for death, so far as I know. It was simply part of our job as World Policeman.

nor there was much cheering for US airstrikes against terrorist bases in the late 90s from the opposition party at the time.

I suppose it might be because they didn't accomplish anything. Blowing up some empty tents with cruise missiles doesn't seem like much reason to break out the champagne to me.

I would've been more than happy to cheer Clinton on if he had seen fit to seriously deal with the jihadist attacks on Americans during his term. Unfortunately, he didn't. If it helps any, I'm not sure Bush I would have done any better on that score... certainly not with the team he had in place during his term.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Sorry to say this, but I think it is somewhat of a steoreotype to assume that "lefties" are always against the country's military interventions abroad.

It seems pretty clear that the lefties are against interventions unless:
1) The UN is on board, or
2) A Democrat is in the White House.

There may be an occasional exception, but in general this seems true.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

I posted something sarcastic here about the raid. Here's a snippet of my sarcasm:

Now that we’re in the ‘era of bipartisanship’, I expect Ted Kennedy, John Kerry , Harry & Hillary to hold a press conference saying that (a) President Bush is pretty effective in fighting the terrorists wherever they are and (b) his ’stay on the offensive’ strategy is brilliant.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service