BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:29:44 -0500, wrote:

By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia,

Not enough to take on any real operation in Mogadishu if they sent
them all.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article.

"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?

This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.

BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?

The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

Not really if they effectively profile the mother ships and loiter the
predator when we see them shadowing a target.

Sounds fine.