US forces asserting aggression in Somalia AGAIN!

[Chengdu J-10]

Your opinions on the US forces asserting actions on Somalia currently. Should the US move out? Should the US stay? Why leave? Why stay? Military strategy maybe. All of these discussion can be posted here.:coffee:

[FuManChu]

How can the US move out? It doesn't have any boots on the ground - these have been air assaults. And it will probably limit itself to air attacks.

If the US has some real intelligence on Al-Q leaders or other terrorists being in that part of Somalia, I can't really fault what they've done so far. Also no one wants the Islamic Courts to regroup and start open war again.

Hopefully the UN will get African Union peacekeepers in there to calm things down ASAP.

[Violet Oboe]

Well, some of the more dirty boots of US power are certainly on the ground in Somalia but much more interesting will be whether the Ethiopians will implant some kind of satellite regime in Mogadishu.

Ethiopia harnessed her dreams of hegemony over the Horn of Africa region since the time of the great emperor Menelik who defeated the italian expeditionary forces thoroughly in Adwa in 1895. After decades of retreat the preeminent ´christian´power in Africa seems to be on the march again and Meles Zenawi has been successful in securing US and European support for his strategy.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not be pleased by the emergence of a new regional power in their backyard which is enjoying sound support by the US and some european countries (France, UK). Perhaps the inherent drawbacks of the US-Ethiopian alliance will show up in the near future since Cairo and Riyadh will probably not abandon their allies in the Horn of Africa region.

[The_Zergling]

I've been disturbed by this recent turn of events for many reasons, but from a purely technical and military aspect, I'm skeptical of the merits of using the Air Force use of AC-130s, some may recall that a reason why they were not used in the first intervention was because they would cause too much collateral damage. Already, there are reports of civilian casualties, and personally I believe that this will lead nowhere good.

[bd popeye]

Already, there are reports of civilian casualties, and personally I believe that this will lead nowhere good.

War of any type sucks. The innocents die along with the combantants. And that will never ever change.

The AC-130H/U Spectre is well suited for it's assigned task;

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

The AC-130H Spectre gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Other missions include perimeter and point defense, escort, landing, drop and extraction zone support, forward air control, limited command and control, and combat search and rescue.

These heavily armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor, navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or area saturation during extended periods, at night and in adverse weather.

[The_Zergling]

Well I realize that its guns are very accurate, my misgivings were about the overkill factor and its extreme power, generally the angle of fire will be somewhat shallow because its guns are only on the left side, and unless it's firing while banking very sharply, (which probably isn't the case) the rounds will go through the target and anything behind it, quite possibly causing unwanted casualties.

The only way to do things here without killing innocents would technically be putting boots on the ground, but that's obviously impossible.

[bd popeye]

The only way to do things here without killing innocents would technically be putting boots on the ground, but that's obviously impossible.

You are 100% correct about the attack angle of the C-130 Spectre. I think it was designed not only to kill but terrorize. Just my opinion.

That would be a very foolish move by the US. I hope it is not being considered.

There are some US forces in the Horn of Africa region. USN SEABEES, USAF types and some US Marines for security. Most are located in Djibouti. The US has a large fuel storage area in that country.

http://www.navy.mil/search/photolist.asp?sort_type=0&terms=Horn+of+Africa&search_type=All&sort_row=1&page=2

[Scratch]

If the US has brawny CAS planes like the AC-130 down there, I would presume they also have A-10. I think those would be much better suited for that job, or perhaps A-6 Intruders from the Ike. These could operate with a little more precission I think. But Spectres are just brute force, not my choice when it comes to taking out just specific personal.

[bd popeye]

If the US has brawny CAS planes like the AC-130 down there, I would presume they also have A-10. I think those would be much better suited for that job, or perhaps A-6 Intruders from the Ike. These could operate with a little more precission I think. But Spectres are just brute force, not my choice when it comes to taking out just specific personal.

Scratch..uh.. the USN scrapped all it's Intruders some time ago. 1997 I'm sure. But A-10's there? Could be. There are plenty in Iraq and could stortie there in no time.

Probally no more than two AC-130 in the area. the USAF has only 21 of thease beast.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

[Scratch]

the USN scrapped all it's Intruders some time ago. 1997
ooops, not up to date :o
Hmm, what else could come from the Ike then besides (Super)Hornets, the Prowlers (these are still in service?) are for EW and such things right ? And currently I can't think of more at the moment anyway.

[bd popeye]

ooops, not up to date :o
Hmm, what else could come from the Ike then besides (Super)Hornets, the Prowlers (these are still in service?) are for EW and such things right ? And currently I can't think of more at the moment anyway.

That's it. But remember these carry PGM(precision guided munitions). The Prowler is still around and "has the USQ-113 Communications Jammer, and may also be armed with the highspeed anti-radiation missile (HARM) for enemy surface-to-air radar destruction and suppression"..

We shall just have to wait to see what happens and what aircraft are used for the mission.

[isthvan]

If the US has brawny CAS planes like the AC-130 down there, I would presume they also have A-10. I think those would be much better suited for that job, or perhaps A-6 Intruders from the Ike. These could operate with a little more precission I think. But Spectres are just brute force, not my choice when it comes to taking out just specific personal.

Actually AC-130H/U is very accurate platform and it was designed for this kind of missions... As for collateral damage I would tend to believe that 105mm artillery shell and 25mm ammo will do less damage then two 500 pound bombs... And no matter how precise weapons you use in urban enviroment there will always be civilian casualties(Ground operations (SF ops) aren't way to avoid civilian casualties) ...

[The_Zergling]

You are 100% correct about the attack angle of the C-130 Spectre. I think it was designed not only to kill but terrorize. Just my opinion.

That would be a very foolish move by the US. I hope it is not being considered.

Various reports that I read noted that the AC-130 was used as well as several attack helicopters, so it's pretty much a done deal. I think they were AH-1s, which is probably the best option (militarily) short of sending in grunts. Still a stupid operation (no offense to anyone) though.

Actually AC-130H/U is very accurate platform and it was designed for this kind of missions... As for collateral damage I would tend to believe that 105mm artillery shell and 25mm ammo will do less damage then two 500 pound bombs... And no matter how precise weapons you use in urban enviroment there will always be civilian casualties(Ground operations (SF ops) aren't way to avoid civilian casualties) ...

Granted AC-130s don't do as much damage as full-sized bombs, but they still cause a gratuitous amount of damage that doesn't help anyone. Slightly better than using F-16s for an airstrike, but not much better. While I did say that the only possible way to avoid civilian casualties would be ground ops, that doesn't mean that it's plausible, just technically possible. The reason for doing so was mostly to underscore how civilian casualties would be inevitable for this kind of operation from the air, hence a reason not to do it.

[BLUEJACKET]

Even with troops on the ground there will be civilian casualties- look what's has happened in Iraq around many US- manned checkpoints, not to mention raids conducted in search of insurgents! Either way, gurerilla wars start that way everywhere- those who didn't pick up a gun promtly do so once their friends & family are killed or hurt!
US air strikes killed over 100 Somalians (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=38646)

Official: Somalia strike missed al Qaeda suspects (http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Official%3A+Somalia+strike+missed+al+Qaeda+s uspects+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=20783701&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2007%2FWORLD%2Fafri ca%2F01%2F11%2Fsomalia.ap%2Findex.html&partnerID=2006)

U.S. Troops Went Into Somalia After Raidhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011102329_pf.html

[Finn McCool]

Various reports that I read noted that the AC-130 was used as well as several attack helicopters, so it's pretty much a done deal. I think they were AH-1s, which is probably the best option (militarily) short of sending in grunts. Still a stupid operation (no offense to anyone) though.

I don't know if I would say that it is a stupid operation. The US is hunting down people who committed terrorist attacks (the East Africa embassy bombings) against us and people who conspire to do the same. I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as we stick with the glamourous raids and avoid sending troops to Somalia, even a small number. As for Special Forces operating in that area, I don't really have an opinion on that because there is no publically available information.

I think that Somalia is actually going to be stabilized.

[Chengdu J-10]

Even with troops on the ground there will be civilian casualties- look what's has happened in Iraq around many US- manned checkpoints, not to mention raids conducted in search of insurgents! Either way, gurerilla wars start that way everywhere- those who didn't pick up a gun promtly do so once their friends & famaly are killed or hurt!
Don't forger car bombs and human bombs. Not mention friendly fire on civilians that either caught in the cross fire or hit from richoeing bullets. The homeless due to the bombings. Civilians suffer the most in war.

[The_Zergling]

I don't know if I would say that it is a stupid operation. The US is hunting down people who committed terrorist attacks (the East Africa embassy bombings) against us and people who conspire to do the same. I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as we stick with the glamourous raids and avoid sending troops to Somalia, even a small number. As for Special Forces operating in that area, I don't really have an opinion on that because there is no publically available information.

I think that Somalia is actually going to be stabilized.

Here's why I don't think any good can come out of it: by looking at it from the viewpoint of the Somalians: US forces killing their civilians again. I don't think that the family of an innocent person deemed "collateral damage" really cares if the airstrike also killed some important Al-Qaeda member, all they will remember is that it was the US that killed them. That in itself probably helps create more resentment, offsetting any gains that the deaths of the terrorist leaders may have created.

[isthvan]

Here's why I don't think any good can come out of it: by looking at it from the viewpoint of the Somalians: US forces killing their civilians again. I don't think that the family of an innocent person deemed "collateral damage" really cares if the airstrike also killed some important Al-Qaeda member, all they will remember is that it was the US that killed them. That in itself probably helps create more resentment, offsetting any gains that the deaths of the terrorist leaders may have created.


There will always be such situations when military operations are conducted in civilian areas... This is simple unavoidable...


On other hand I doubt that general population in Somalia will be to much concerned by few more civilian casualties... I know that this sound cold hearted but we are talking about country that is thorn by civil war for so long, where civilians die en mass at regular basis either by the hand of opposed factions or from disease and starvation.

[The_Zergling]

There will always be such situations when military operations are conducted in civilian areas... This is simple unavoidable...

On other hand I doubt that general population in Somalia will be to much concerned by few more civilian casualties... I know that this sound cold hearted but we are talking about country that is thorn by civil war for so long, where civilians die en mass at regular basis either by the hand of opposed factions or from disease and starvation.

Well I think that the key is that the United States was involved. If coming from the perspective of civilians dying in civil war anyway, it seems like the US is gratuitously coming in to kill people. That is what they will remember one day if they ever stabilize the country. If you know that civilians will die, and that this will cause even more hate towards the United States, then why even conduct the operation at all? The costs outweigh the benefits.

[isthvan]

Well I think that the key is that the United States was involved. If coming from the perspective of civilians dying in civil war anyway, it seems like the US is gratuitously coming in to kill people. That is what they will remember one day if they ever stabilize the country. If you know that civilians will die, and that this will cause even more hate towards the United States, then why even conduct the operation at all? The costs outweigh the benefits.

It is more of "lets take care of currant threat and we will think about rest later"... I personally don't think that this is correct way of doing things but I can understand that point of view...

[The_Zergling]

It is more of "lets take care of currant threat and we will think about rest later"... I personally don't think that this is correct way of doing things but I can understand that point of view...

Yes, that's probably the mentality that the US brought into Somalia, and it's a good point in that it pretty much highlights the perspective that has driven general foreign policy decisions that have been made especially of late. Point seconded...

[caksz]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-somalia12jan12,1,6026192.story


wth ... they survived , if the civilians truly died because of the attack , i guess they died for nothing ... sob :(

[Chengdu J-10]

The US suspected that their were Al-Qaeda member their so what they did is air strike them. Very stupid idea. Their wasn't enough hard evidence to support this in order for an airstrike. It has to be certain not suspect but certain that Al-Qaeda members were there before the airstrike was called. Instead the US recklessly called the airstrike and in so killed lot of civilians. Talk about the US bullying small defenceless countries. If it was the other way around Somalia airstriking the US on home soil due to suspected Al-Qaeda members and thus killing civilians. The US media will go on a frenzy saying that it was a attack from Somalia calling a war or terriosm and thus the US will issue a war. But if Al-Qaeda members were in China the US wouldn't airstrike China 100% sure. If did. Well China will go ape s#@t.

[The_Zergling]

All right, this thread has gotten a bit off-track now away from the military aspects of the strike, and I confess that I played a part. But from now on keep analysis related to military issues as much as possible.

[Scratch]

Found an article on GS of a second US airstrike in Somalia utilising a C-130 Gunship.
It's an anonym "official" making that statment and there's no comment from the US military on that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/01/mil-070124-voa08.htm