Administration Moves to ‘Plan B’ In Somalia
Administration Moves to ‘Plan B’ In Somalia
Last month, news reports revealed that the administration was “secretly supporting secular warlords†in Somalia against Islamic militias as a way to “crack down on terrorism†in East Africa. Some of these secular warlords “reportedly fought against the United States in 1993.”
The Islamic groups have since taken Mogadishu and are “consolidating their hold over a large swath of Somalia.” Some American officials believe our actions “thwarted counterterrorism efforts inside Somalia and empowered the same Islamic groups it was intended to marginalize.â€
Having seen their policy fail, the administration is now “preparing for a more diplomatic kind of interventionâ€:
On Thursday, the US will initiate a “Somalia contact group” of interested countries and organizations to begin deliberating on how the international community can help stabilize what experts consider to be a “failed state.” The tone suggests a carefully revised US position on Somalia, analysts say. The broader lesson, they add, may be that instead of rejecting Islamist political groups outright, the US will have to do more to differentiate friend from foe within Islamist political movements.
“It sounds like Plan A didn’t work, so we’d better try Plan B,” says Jim Bishop, who was the last US ambassador to Somalia, before the US evacuated its embassy there in 1991. [...] “Of course, we want stability and we don’t want to see a terrorist haven there, but discussion and finding a compromise is better than Plan A.”
Leave it to the Bush administration to set aside diplomacy as their “Plan B.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Having seen their policy fail, the administration is now “preparing for a more diplomatic kind of interventionâ€
Too late. Diplomacy has to be the first, because if you by other means first, and fail, then diplomacy will be ten times as hard, or impossible, as has been a lot of times before.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThere is nothing wrong with funding Somali warlords. You fund who can give you the most help at the present time. Do you really what Islamists running Somalia? We really could do without another Afghanistan, thank you very much. So what if these warlords have casued more death and destruction in Somalia than the “terrorists” have caused in Iraq? Bush and his guys know what they are doing, now leave them alone to do it.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmUmm Herman,
if you read the article, the Muslim terrorists have taken over the country. Despite funding the secular warlords.
maybe you are being snarky?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:44 pmPut the Bush administration’s Oprah on the case. It’s Karen Hughes time!!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#3 – Holy shit, Krazny, click on his name.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWe have truly learned nothing from aiding and sponsoring militant guerillas? I mean, no bells go off in regard to 9/11 being a direct result of the CIA – under Rumsfeld – funding Osama and the pre-Al-Qaeda against “commie” Russia? Sheesh…
June 15th, 2006 at 12:49 pmnow we are seeing one of the indications of clinton’s failed policies and why the Iraq war is justified. if clinton had had a spine in somalia we would not be facing another problem there. blaming Bush for somalia is like blaming forks for rosie o’donnell for being fat.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:50 pmHerman wrote So what if these warlords have casued more death and destruction in Somalia than the “terrorists†have caused in Iraq?
You are answering yourself. If the warlords have caused so much harm to the Somalia’s people, and the USA comes and fund them, what do you think the Somalian people feels just now about the USA?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:50 pmToo late.
Besides, there is a difference between Islamists and terrorists. One is a religious group, the other is a type of evil bastard. Are you saying Islamists are evil bastards? I know lots of Muslims who aren’t evil bastards.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:51 pmPlan B? Lol whatever > I doubt the Bush Regime has a plan B for anything!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:52 pm“now we are seeing one of the indications of clinton’s failed policies and why the Iraq war is justified. if clinton had had a spine in somalia we would not be facing another problem there. blaming Bush for somalia is like blaming forks for rosie o’donnell for being fat.”
Comment by reddog
Read some history before commenting next time. Clinton was cleaning up after the FIRST Bush’s mistakes.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI thought they didn’t want to use Plan B. Too close to an abortion.
lol
June 15th, 2006 at 12:55 pm“Are you saying Islamists are evil bastards? I know lots of Muslims who aren’t evil bastards.”
Islmasist is generally accepted as a subset of Muslims containing the extremists, not all Muslims. Sort of like the religous right here dosn’t represent all christians.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:55 pmExactly, Squegueboo. And not all the religious right bombs abortion clinics or federal buildings.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pmZoo
I did look at his site, it has to be a joke
June 15th, 2006 at 12:58 pm“This is probably the most absurd thing I have ever read. I’m not a Christian? I am the measure by which all other Christians should be judged.” Was prob. my favorite line after about a 5 minute glance thru.
#3 – Holy shit, Krazny, click on his name. – - Holy shit, I think he out Colbert’d Colbert. Or I hope so.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:58 pmNevermind I found my new favorite from that site:
On how illegal immigrants should be redifined to include:
“Anyone who speaks Spanish fluently
June 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pmHomosexuals
Non Christians”
I did, I am not sure if he is for real or not. the funny bit, is if he is doing a colbert the rabid righties who post on his site, don’t realize it. If he is for real, then he needs blowjob. Preferebly from Jeff Gannon
June 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pm“And not all the religious right bombs abortion clinics or federal buildings.”
Nope, just the ones true to the cause :)
Wait, you agreed with me on something? Does this mean you hate welfare now also?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:01 pmYes, Squegeeboo. I would negate welfare for you forever ;)
June 15th, 2006 at 1:07 pmOh, gee, I could not see that coming.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:10 pmIt is always plan “B” or “C” with Republicans, just before failure. THEY CAN’T GOVERN!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pmIf they negated welfare, how would I buy my twinkies and mountain dew?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pm“thwarted counterterrorism efforts inside Somalia and empowered the same Islamic groups it was intended to marginalize.â€
How does funding their enemy empower them? If we didn’t fund their enemies, they would have just taken over sooner, no?
June 15th, 2006 at 1:15 pm“If they negated welfare, how would I buy my twinkies and mountain dew?”
I’ve got 2 words for you,
by being gainfully employed.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI don’t know squeegee, work really cuts into my xbox time.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:18 pmThe Bush Regime has NO plan B for Iraq, so why would they have another plan for Somalia? Iraq is a quagmire fiasco debacle, but Bush says he will keep the troops there forever no matter what happens, including if Iran invades and kills all of them > no plan Bs exist for W!
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThe american policy in somalia. shows one thing. The state department is doing a very good job. but no one listens. and the CIA waisting the Taxpayers money. We know what happen in iraqa. and now somalia.
In a First Bush adminstration. the USA embassador to Kenya told the adiminstarion do not go to somalia. he told them beroute will be a heaven comparied to mogadisho. they did not listent. and we know what happen.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pmNow the USA Embasssy employee. sent a cable asking not to support the worloads. since they do not have a polatical base . and they can’t winn. he was transfered to chad or uganda. .
“work really cuts into my xbox time.”
And it also really cuts into my TP time, but if I’m not careful, that could stop being an issue :) Stupid TP addiction….
June 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmComment by unbelievable
Of course they have learned. They have learned that it is a really great business if you have stupid people on your side that can be scared too easily, like #7 who supports this kind of actions. For example, in Burundi, you have the hutus and the tutsis who get along pretty well so time ago.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pmNow, wouldnt it be great that we start selling them arms and provoke a war between each other? Oh, guess that already happened.
War is plain business.
Anyhow, Squegeeboo, you seem surprised. I’m not so intolerant with the right. I’m intolerant with the violent, selfish and greedy people. If a guy/gal is a religious zealot, but don’t force his views of sexuality and marriage on me or anybody else, it’s ok for me. s/he can use whips and punish himself, if he thinks that thus is earning a ticket to the heaven. Even I will pay happily my welfare taxes knowing that are helping him, if he is in a great personnal trouble, such as illness or unemployment.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:24 pmLast month, news reports revealed that the administration was “secretly supporting secular warlords†in Somalia against Islamic militias as a way to “crack down on terrorism†in East Africa. Some of these secular warlords “reportedly fought against the United States in 1993.â€
By the shades of Ronald Reagan, say it isn’t so! Did they try sending the warlords cake and bibles? Get Colin Powell, he’s got the most experience at this sort of thing. (making deals with terrorists).
Remember this?
KIRKPATRICK: If we can’t get the money for the anti-Sandinistas, then we have to make the maximum effort to find the money elsewhere.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pmSCHULTZ: I would like to get the money for the Contras also, but … Jim Baker said that if we go out and try to get the money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense.
CASEY: Jim Baker said that if we try to get money from third countries without notifying the oversight committees it could be a problem.
SCHULTZ: Baker’s argument is that the U.S. government may raise and spend funds only through an appropriation of the Congress.
PRESIDENT REAGAN: We must obtain the funds to help these freedom fighters.
VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return, so that some people could interpret this as some kind of an exchange.
McFARLANE: I certainly hope none of this discussion will be made public in any way.
PRESIDENT REAGAN: If such a story gets out, we’ll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House until we find out who did it.
“Anyhow, Squegeeboo, you seem surprised. I’m not so intolerant with the right. ”
That I was, generally we seem at complete opposite ends when it comes to anything political.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:27 pmSquegeeboo, the welfare is strongly identified in your country as leftist, but it’s not so in many other countries, where people agree that welfare is a base of modern societies, and is a must in every civilized and fair country. Generally we crash on welfare, where you are strongly against it and I’m favorable to it.
Besides, sometimes you say something not searching the quick confrontation or laugh, and then I appreciate it. Have a cookie! ;)
June 15th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI love how Tony Snow is now using Bush’s excuse for his low poll numbers in his press briefing today. Essentially blaming ‘the tv screens’ for the absolute and enormous mess in Iraq Bush has created.
Bush always says, ‘Ah know wut people er seein’ on their tv screens. Ah know that the tairsts know that when they blow sum’pn up, it’s gonna make it on yer tv screen’.
Tony Snow just said that ‘I understand why Americans aren’t happy about the war.. because they keep seeing tv images of the violence and they want it to stop.’
WTF? Seriously, WTF? We would somehow want it to continue if we didn’t know how bad it was??
Is he/are they saying that this war would be going along just fine if Americans didn’t f’ing know about it ? ? ? ? ?
Would there be less bloodshed, bombings and chaos if Americans didn’t see it ? ? ?
I am soooooooooo tired of the inference that it is still somehow the media who is to blame for Bush’s absolute mess in Iraq. They REFUSE to take responsibility or be held accountable for ANYTHING that is going wrong over there…which essentially EVERYTHING.
So, really what they are saying is that the reason Bush’s poll numbers are so low, especially on the war, is because of 2 reasons:
1) The news who reports the events in Iraq
and
2) The American people who keep watching those
news reports
Everyone should be absolutely outraged about this! This is exactly what Bush et al are saying right between the lines…loud and clear. We, the American people are somehow to blame!
If tv screens, news stations and the American viewing audience were taken out of the equation, then every monumental f*ck up Bush has ever made from the very, very beginning would NEVER EVER HAVE HAPPENED!
The war is a mess not because of Bush’s dishonesty and incompetence, it’s really because we are a bunch of busy bodies.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pmAnd think of this, Paige: the images and the news in your country are heavily scrubbed before being broadcasted. You all only see a very small part of what is happening there.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:40 pm“The war is a mess not because of Bush’s dishonesty and incompetence, it’s really because we are a bunch of busy bodies.”
The first step to recovery is acceptance, congrats on starting your journey.
“Besides, sometimes you say something not searching the quick confrontation or laugh, and then I appreciate it. Have a cookie! ;)”
June 15th, 2006 at 1:43 pmYah, occasionally I let a real comment slip out by accident. I’ll try and let it happen a bit more often.
Paige, I sense your frustration.
But understand this: Republicans don’t want an educated voting populace. If that were the case, they would lose. And lose hard. There are definitely hardcore believers of the Republican agenda, but those aren’t the people the Republicans care about.
They are focused on keeping the middle 40% of America from thinking too hard. That’s their bumper-sticker mentality. Harp on emotional issues, ignore the practical ones. They will lose when people take 30 minutes out of their life to think through the issues and how their vote will directly impact them, the ones they love, and the issues important to them.
How a bunch of ultra-rich, corporate loving elitists got middle America to vote against their self interests is still amazing to me: God, guns, and gays.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#18 – Krazny, I finally had a chance to look at #2’s site. It’s one of the best satire sites I’ve ever seen.
There’s something about those two guy’s pictures that isn’t right. It looks like they’ve got cut out faces. I’m dying of curiousity.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:48 pmCould somebody here click on Herman’s name in comment #2, and look closely at the pictures of the guys who run the site? My eyesight is quite bad, even with my bifocals.
Since when does BuscCo. support Plan B? Didn’t they direct the FDA to squash the morning after pill or something like that?
t-mac
June 15th, 2006 at 1:49 pmHey, BushCO always has a plan B:
- Iraq goes badly -> blame the media.
- Social Security destruction fails -> Ammend Constitution to ban gay marriages.
- Can’t stop entering the States illegal immigrants -> Make the Anthem mandatory language english.
And so and so on.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:53 pmFailed states are one of george’s expertises. No change is necessary.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:57 pmSometimes I don’t understand the items which appear published on this web-site; I’ve seen many that make as their thrust, the detection of some error or fumble on the part of the administration (or some division or mutiny within it)…
And then (to me anyway) the error or fumble seems no such thing at all, but instead seems a carefully crafted talking-point, veiled in such a way as to make progressives (who might be eagerly monitoring the administration for such errors and fumbles) to pick it up and advance it (the talking-point that is), without carefully considering it first…
If you like, first consider the two links provided in the first paragraph: One to a Washington Post article, and the other to a White House press release…
And consider then what these things claim: That the administration is not only attempting to stop the campaign of systemic murder and genocide being conducted by Islamic militias in Somalia, but is at the same time cracking down on global terrorism (or at least attempting to do so) by way of opposing those Islamic militias in Somalia…
And this web-site repeats and advances such bullshit talking-points as those, simply because it thinks it has spotted some type of error or fumble (on the part of the administration) in the process?
You couldn’t be doing a better job of getting out the administration’s rhetoric if you tried; rhetoric which is:
1. “We’re working to stop the genocide and systemic murder in Somalia.”
2. “We’re working to fight global terrorism by way of fighting Islamic militias (in Somalia and elsewhere), and in the process making America and the world a safer place.”
What a bunch of bullshit.
And you think those administration talking-points are somehow lost in your citations of errors and fumbles?
They are advanced by those citations. You can’t see that?
Sometimes I don’t understand the items which appear published on this web-site; they should be considered a little more than they appear to be; you shouldn’t be so eager to think you have spotted an error or a fumble.
These guys are more clever than that.
How else do you think they been so successful so far?
(And don’t even bother saying they are “dumb”, or “idiots”, or “incompetent”; they are, for all that’s been said and done on the matter, virtually undefeated in all of their schemes. Their opposition to those schemes should be so “dumb” and “idiotic” and “incompetent”.)
June 15th, 2006 at 1:58 pmthey are, for all that’s been said and done on the matter, virtually undefeated in all of their schemes.
You can thank the Republican Congress for laying down and not demanding oversight or accountabilty for that. That and the apathy of most of the American voting populace.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmThe UN does not get involved in internal disputes, why should America
June 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#11
Did he clean up and did the Marines accomplish their mission?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#45
I good for you to point out how useless the U.N. is when it comes to solving international crisis.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#47
June 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmRead post #45 again. He said intrernal disputes not international crisis. Don’t let your hatred blind your eyes or thoughts.
This is the same Administration who promoted a failed National Security Advisor to the Secretary of State position — a Cold warrior by educational trade who claimed in a C-Span interview in early 2001 that the “purpose of US foreign policy is to promote stability, not democracy.”
Funny, I wonder what the men on Omaha Beach, Khe Sanh and Hamburger Hill would have thought about?
Stability = Facism = Hitler and Stalin.
Condi Rice doesn’t represent my American foreign policy. Does she represent yours?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pmhttp://cfav.blogspot.com/ – - You MUST scroll down and read Herman’s take on Ann Coulter.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pmHerman is a wingnut with delusions of grandeur and obviously off his meds.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:27 pmA long-lost Bush brother?
The UN does not get involved in internal disputes, why should America
47 and 48#
might I also add America would only get involved if they can make it worse or make money
June 15th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#52
June 15th, 2006 at 4:41 pmlooking back at the trend in my lifetime….yes you can.
There is still nothing wrong with funding warlords, if they are fighting the jihadists. Is “jihadist” a better word for you? Are you happy now that I am being a little more PC?
June 15th, 2006 at 5:01 pmSteal from the poor and give to the rich. The American general public is now a “resource” to be bought and sold to the highest bidders. Even the news outlets, having melted down into 4 or 5 huge corporations, no longer have the interests of every day Americans at heart.
This administration is just the tip of the iceburg, and they know there’s nothing that can be done about it. “This is the end… beautiful friend”.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#54 If Hitler fought jihadists, would you fund him?
I thought 9/11 taught us a lesson about funding murderous SOBs to fight other murderous SOBs.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:06 pm“now we are seeing one of the indications of clinton’s failed policies and why the Iraq war is justified. if clinton had had a spine in somalia we would not be facing another problem there. blaming Bush for somalia is like blaming forks for rosie o’donnell for being fat.â€
That’s right, when 18 soldiers died for lack of armor, Clinton fired his secretary of defense and pulled out of what would have been an unwinnable war. I guess the heartland doesn’t respect such weakness, they want a real man for president willing to stick it out even after 2,500 dead soldiers.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:08 pmWe are tired of being pushed left to right by all kinds of SOB gun totting MORYANS.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pmSomalia needs all the support it can get TODAY and not TOMORROW.
another great quote from Herman’s site:
“As recently as 1997, only one percent of unmarried persons had experienced a sexual encounter.
I derived this figure from an informal survey of my friends, family, and neighbors, and I consider them to be very representative of society on the whole.”
June 15th, 2006 at 5:45 pm#48
OK, internal disputes….Rwanda??? Darfur/Sudan?
June 15th, 2006 at 6:21 pmIf Hitler were to have been fighting jihadists, then yes, he should have been supported through third parties. Of course, we also should have been at war with him. You liberals see things in black and white. It is a grey world.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#57
“That’s right, when 18 soldiers died for lack of armor, Clinton fired his secretary of defense and pulled out of what would have been an unwinnable war.”
Lack of armor and no close air support especially C-130 Spectre gunships that were not allowed to engage because of political reasons.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#62 NO, it was for humanitarian reasons. Let me explain:
Humanitarian reasons: Not leveling an entire city with a massive gunship, and using close air support helicopters instead. The only reason for doing this is to spare innocent lives.
Political reasons: Not invading Fallujah until after the 2004 elections. Bush called off the original offensive and resumed it a week after the election, letting the situation seethe for months. The only reason to do this was to not have carnage on TV hurt his chances of reelection.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:13 pmHerman’s hysterical!
“If there were such things as hormones, they would have mentioned them in the Bible” – I am paraphrasing, but that is so funny… I’ll bet there’s some poor shmo out there agreeing with him!
June 15th, 2006 at 7:49 pmI consider the failure to use the C0130 gunships a disgrace. Who cares about the civilian population? Weak kneed liberals, that is who. There are two kinds of people in the word…Americans and “others”.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pmThe news in Somalia may upset most of you in the US but it brough tears of joy to the long suffering Somali people, no matter who the US goverment supports the Islamists will win as they have 97% support from the defenceless population of somalia.
no wonder the US is the most hated country in the world, even god hates you lot. why dont you imigrate to Mars or someplace that other humans dont have the misfortunes of seeing you people.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:12 pmThis is truly the gang that can’t shoot straight – and we have entrusted the nation to them with two and a half more years to go, exercising their plan B’s.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:15 pmWhy isn’t the MSM blasting this from the front pages — people may still remember the gruesome incident in Mogadishu, and they might be able to connect a dot from that to this FUBAR administration.
Why Where My Comments Deleted?
June 16th, 2006 at 7:37 amWhy Were My Comments Deleted?
June 16th, 2006 at 7:41 amIs It Because U Can’t Face The Truth?
Or Me? A True Somalain Warrior!
#63
First, you would not have to leveled the entire city in order to provided close air support. However that helicopters couldn’t fly effective cover because their altitude subjected them to fire themselves. The AC-130s would have been able to provide ACCURATE fire in order to provide cover for the humvee convoys that were attempting to exit the city without being in range of AAA or small arms fire.
Second if you, Bill Clinton, are not willing to provide ALL the support for the troops you can you shouldn’t have sent them in the first place to get slaughtered. The fact that you DENIED the aircover to your own troops in order not to have civilian casualties be televised all over the world for POLITICALLY CORRECT reasons, not humanitarian as you suggest, makes the U.S. soldiers deaths in Somolia all in vain.
“Bush called off the original offensive and resumed it a week after the election, letting the situation seethe for months.”
Regardless of when the offensive took place wouldn’t have made a difference in the 2004 election…at all.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#65
There weren’t too many U.S. liberals chomping at the bit to “save” the Jews from Hitler so do even go there…
June 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#66
It wasn’t a military reason for Clinton.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#74
“…you’ve adopted values of the D-emocratic platform your party said were wrong.”
A Democratic platform but NOT the platform of the U.S. Democratic party.
“Imagine running a war with clear goals or a defined exit strategy – where have I heard that before?”
Vietnam…althought LBJ was running the war at the time and the objective tend to get lost as he personally chose targets to bomb.
“He says Clinton was doing this, but Rumsfeld and bush are truly the masters.”
I have talked to my friends and family in the military and that have always been clear about their mission. I love to hear the liberal BS about the mission is “unclear”. This type of rhetoric is EXACTLY why most soldiers are fed up with the libs trying to undermine their efforts. Pathetic.
BTW Clinton has never sent troops into any conflict with a clear objective, evidenced by the fact that U.S. troops are STILL in the former Yugoslavia, 10 years after it all began. Other than that it was all about bombing asprin factories in order to divert attention away from his personal problems. What did sending troops to Haiti accomplish other than returning to power a corrupt president that the people wanted out?
June 16th, 2006 at 1:12 pmSomalia is a political construct cobbled together from former colonies of different countries that consists of many different tribes. Their society was very tribal-based even during the best of times, which only encouraged inter-tribal warfare and civil strife. It is now filled with a generation of war-traumatized, chronically malnourished, poverty-stricken, uneducated individuals sufering from a wide range of developmental problems. It is ripe for a simplistic, fundamentalist religion to sweep through like smallpox through the Native American population (e.g. a plague through an unimmunized population with no natural immunity), which appears to be what is happening. People who have spent over a generation in anarchy no longer care about niceties — they merely want the war to stop and to be fed. Strongmen fulfill that role – and if they come wrapped in a religious package, that too will be accepted for a time, particularly if the religion is one that encourages self-sacrifice, provides simple and absolute answers and authority, and easily supports external wars to distract attention from actual problem.s
June 16th, 2006 at 2:59 pm