US Spectre gunship attacks targets in Somolia

[Cylinder]

U.S. targets al Qaeda suspects in Somalia, Pentagon official says (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/08/somalia.strike/index.html)

A U.S. gunship has attacked suspected al Qaeda targets in southern Somalia, a senior Pentagon official said Monday.

The AC-130 flew its mission within the last 24 hours, the official told CNN. The operation was launched based on intelligence that al Qaeda operatives were in the location, but there was no immediate indication of how successful the strike had been.

Additionally, the official said, the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has moved within striking distance of Somalia, but its jets have not been put to use.

Three al Qaeda operatives accused in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have been hiding in Somalia for years. The US believes they were closely tied to the Somali Islamic group - the ICU.

"We had seen intelligence evidence these three Al Qaeda operative 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, assistant secretary of state 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.

Hrmm... That must have been a fairly high-value and diffuse target to send in the Spectre. Very interesting development...

[Cylinder]

An obvious suspicion has to focus on the suspects in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania during the 90s. The US asked Ethiopia and the new government of Somalia for them last week. Maybe the government decided to extradite them to Allah instead.

[WildCat]

Maybe the government decided to extradite them to Allah instead.
Yes, Allah is just and all-knowing. He will decide. I'm all for letting him decide the fate of many other terrorists as well.

[Mycroft]

U.S. targets al Qaeda suspects in Somalia, Pentagon official says (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/08/somalia.strike/index.html)



Hrmm... That must have been a fairly high-value and diffuse target to send in the Spectre. Very interesting development...

Hmmm, I always thought Spectre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE) would be supporting the bad-guys, not shooting them.

Live and learn, I guess. :cool:

[Cylinder]

Hmmm, I always thought Spectre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE) would be supporting the bad-guys, not shooting them.

Live and learn, I guess. :cool:

Don't you mean S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE)? Nice allusion, though. :)

[Cylinder]

A little more detail from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801635.html).

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.

[Cylinder]

From the same article:


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.

Abu Talha al-Sudani dossier (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/abu_talha_al_sudani.htm) from GlobalSecurity.org. Note that they seem to confirm the strike was against Sudani.

Some basic information (http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/02/kenya-bust/) on al Sudani's network from ThreatsWatch.org.

The East African al-Qaeda network in Somalia established by Tariq Abdullah (Abu Talha al-Sudani) that includes a number of senior al-Qaeda terrorist including operations chief Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who is believed to be the current head of al-Qaeda in East Africa, as well as Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, all of whom are believed have been involved in both the August 1998 bombing of the US embassies in East Africa and the November 2002 suicide bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa that coincided with a failed plot to shoot down an El Al airliner. Other senior al-Qaeda members believed by Kenyan authorities to be based in Somalia include Issa Osman Issa, Fumo Mohamed Fumo, Salim Samir Baamir, and Mohamed Mwakuuza Kuza. In keeping with the al-Qaeda model, these individuals do not so much maintain their own organization in Somalia so much as coopt existing Somali groups for their purposes and act as the primary link between them and the broader al-Qaeda network.

The Counterterrorism Blog is speculating (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/01/us_targets_al_qaedas_1998_us_e.php) that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, aka Harun Fazul, was also a target of the strike. Fazul was the mastermind in the African Embassy Bombings and is under indictment in the US for that attack. Both were key players in the US v Osama bin Laden indictment handed down in Feb. 2001.

[Cylinder]

This is looking more like an al Qaeda in the Horn of Africa version of Appalachin. From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6331786,00.html):

The U.S. military launched a strike Monday against several suspected members of al-Qaida in Somalia, CBS News reported Monday.

The targets, CBS reported, included the senior al-Qaida leader in East Africa and an al-Qaida operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The same operatives are also believed responsible for a 2002 attack on Israeli tourists in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli aircraft the same day, NBC News reported.

Citing Pentagon sources, CBS reported that an Air Force AC-130 gunship led the attack against the site at the southern tip of Somalia. There was no confirmation that the Air Force had killed either of the al-Qaida targets.

I guess we now know why the US Navy has been blocking the sea routes out of Somalia. The use of the AC-130 gunship is critical here because of its ability to loiter above a target. Fingers crossed.

[Cylinder]

Apparently the AP is reporting that airstrikes are continuing this morning (US time).

Last nights raids reportedly targeted Badmadow Island - off the southernmost tip of Somalia's border with Tanzania and the site of the Ras Kamboni terrorism complex where "many" Islamic fighters have been killed and on the outskirts of Afmadow, 150 miles to the north. Ras Kamboni is considered to be the Islamist redoubt after the fall of Mogadishu.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess we now know why the US Navy has been blocking the sea routes out of Somalia. The use of the AC-130 gunship is critical here because of its ability to loiter above a target. Fingers crossed.

I analogized the difference between say a strike fighter or A-10 or even an Arc Light with a Spectre loitering like the difference between a tornado and a hurricane.

Uh-rah.

[Hutch]

Lets hope the intelligence received and acted upon was better sourced than the Afghan wedding we bombed a year or so ago

That out of the way, I have no major compunctions regarding hitting terrorists, especially when they are on the run and out in the open. I just hope the HUMINT or SIGINT (Human Intelligence or Signal Intelligence) we acted on was accurate.

My guess is the Kenyans (who certainly don't want any of this mess to spill over their borders more than it has) probably had a big hand in this--after all, most of the Embassy deaths were Kenyan natives.

We shall see.

[Darth Rotor]

I analogized the difference between say a strike fighter or A-10 or even an Arc Light with a Spectre loitering like the difference between a tornado and a hurricane.

Uh-rah.
AC-130, which technically comes in two flavors (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71), the H and U, is either called Spectre or Spooky. I generally think of them as "cool" and "super cool." They both have a variety of advantages when they can operate in a permissive AD environment: low odds of SAM activity. Their on-station time and low speed allow for rapid target revisit. The accuracy of their targeting with some exotic sensors, and weapons, allow for a selective application of fires, and extremely low odds of collateral damage. Those features make them an extremely popular selection in the MOUT tool kit.

DR

[Cylinder]

Today's roundup:

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801635.html) is reporting the possibility of some success:

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."

US SOCOM Boots on the Ground in Somalia? (http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/americas_boots_on_the_ground_i.php)

The al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic Courts Union’s surprisingly rapid retreat in the face of Ethiopia’s military campaign in Somalia has puzzled many observers. How could the Ethiopians roll up the jihadists so quickly? Pajamas Media has learned that one significant factor is that U.S. air and ground forces covertly aided the Ethiopian military since its intervention began on Christmas day.

U.S. ground forces have been active in Somalia from the start, a senior military intelligence officer confirmed. “In fact,” he said, “they were part of the first group in.”

These ground forces include CIA paramilitary officers who are based out of Galkayo, in Somalia’s semiautonomous region of Puntland; Special Operations forces; and Marine units operating out of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti...

Pajamas Media previously reported that Ethiopia’s use of helicopter gunships capable of targeting the Islamic Courts Union’s ground forces was a decisive factor in the army-to-army fighting against the ICU. A senior military intelligence source says that some of the gunships earlier described as Ethiopian were in fact U.S. aircraft. This has been confirmed by Dahir Jibreel, the transitional government’s permanent secretary in charge of international cooperation, who said that U.S. planes and helicopters with their markings obscured have been striking targets since December 25.

Somali President Green Lights US Strikes; US Navy Joins the Fray (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1986350,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)

he US "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," the Somali president, Abdullahi Yusuf, told journalists in Mogadishu.

Though the US has been mounting covert operations in Somalia in recent years, the attacks amount to its first direct involvement since disastrous "Black Hawk Down" operation during the early 90s.

After the strikes, the US navy confirmed that it had moved the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower to join three other warships patrolling the Somali coast to prevent Islamist fighters from escaping by sea. US planes were conducting "intelligence-gathering missions" over Somalia, a navy spokesman said.

[Beerina]

It's basically the C130 cargo ship loaded up with armaments, and designed to circle around a target or area, keeping it under a continuous broadside attack.

[Ziggurat]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/09/somalia.strike.ap/index.html

"In Brussels Tuesday, European Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio said the U.S. airstrikes would not contribute to bringing about long-term peace."

Amadeu can bite me. Not only are Spookies and Spectres kick-a** machines, this is exactly the sort of thing we SHOULD be doing. If killing terrorists doesn't contribute to his vision of peace, I want no part of it. And the UN peacekeeping forces that Javier Solana proposes sending in would be both incapable of doing and unwilling to do what we just did.

[Cylinder]

If you want to see some combat camera of Spooky at work, try here (http://jje3accounting.com/images/video/AC130_Gunship.wmv).

It's not for the faint-of-heart and possibly NSFW. Broadband recommended.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/09/somalia.strike.ap/index.html
"In Brussels Tuesday, European Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio said the U.S. airstrikes would not contribute to bringing about long-term peace."
That wasn't their purpose, as I understand it. Indeed, the chimera of "long term peace" in the Horn of Africa has been unattainable by a lot of means, to include feeding the foreign aid junkies, and doing nothing, as well as non involvement. See also the current UN and AU operations in Darfur, which are politically hamstrung and thus unlikely to achieve any long term peace beyond the peace of the grave for the targets of jinjaweed irregulars.

The purpose of those air operations was to kill terrorists. That may or may not "bring peace," but it does reduce the capability of that terrorist organization to operate. I don't call blowing up embassies peaceful, but perhaps I am missing some subtle point.

In war, killing the enemy is a method of getting to a peace settlement. Given OBL's pronouncement of a war, I'd say he and his organization would expect to be treated as targets. This gentleman's opinion, from Brussels, hardly addresses the matter at hand.

DR

[Katana]

If you want to see some combat camera of Spooky at work, try here (http://jje3accounting.com/images/video/AC130_Gunship.wmv).

It's not for the faint-of-heart and possibly NSFW. Broadband recommended.

Wow. I have to admit that that was fascinating, and thanks for providing the link. It was striking to hear the soldiers talking about the "two other guys that [they] saw fly apart," but I suppose that's the reality of war. Does it surprise anyone else that such footage is available for the public to see or is it pretty common and I've just been living a sheltered life?

[Darth Rotor]

Wow. I have to admit that that was fascinating, and thanks for providing the link. It was striking to hear the soldiers talking about the "two other guys that [they] saw fly apart," but I suppose that's the reality of war. Does it surprise anyone else that such footage is available for the public to see or is it pretty common and I've just been living a sheltered life?
If this is the four year old, or more, footage in B&W of a mission in Afghanistan, I have heard the following:

The release of that bit of foim on to the internet got some people into serious trouble. The likelihood that more recent footage will make it to the internet is rather small. My browser was unable to open it, but I had ample time to see the old Afghanistan mission footage a little while after it came out.

DR

[Katana]

If this is the four year old, or more, footage in B&W of a mission in Afghanistan, I have heard the following:

The release of that bit of foim on to the internet got some people into serious trouble. The likelihood that more recent footage will make it to the internet is rather small. My browser was unable to open it, but I had ample time to see the old Afghanistan mission footage a little while after it came out.

DR

Ah. Interesting. It was in Afghanistan and in black & white, but there was no information about the date. Maybe Cylinder can speak to that. My guess is that it's the footage that you're talking about.

[Cylinder]

Yup - it was from OEF and I'm certain that it got some folks in trouble because they discuss ROEs.

ETA: That's kind of a "discreet fire" mode. The AC-130 also has a "light 'em up" mode which is a thing to behold.

[Garrette]

Yup - it was from OEF and I'm certain that it got some folks in trouble because they discuss ROEs.

ETA: That's kind of a "discreet fire" mode. The AC-130 also has a "light 'em up" mode which is a thing to behold.Best to behold it from a distance, though.

Or, as I frequently have, simply to have the distant sound of it lull you to sleep.

[Katana]

Yup - it was from OEF and I'm certain that it got some folks in trouble because they discuss ROEs.

ETA: That's kind of a "discreet fire" mode. The AC-130 also has a "light 'em up" mode which is a thing to behold.

Got any clips of that? ;)

[Cello Man]

Cylinder, can you tell us acronym-challenged folks what ROE stands for?

What I don't understand about gun camera footage is that it always seems to be in black and white. I know this is how infrared is displayed, but there must be other types taken, right? And why is it always at such low resolution? If this is what our gunners see, it's hard to understand how they know exactly what they're shooting at. Maybe they keep it somewhat fuzzy to spare us civilians the gory details?

All told, the footage reminds me of playing Command & Conquer. I'm glad we're the ones with this firepower.

[Katana]

Rules of engagement?

[hammegk]

If you want to see some combat camera of Spooky at work, try here (http://jje3accounting.com/images/video/AC130_Gunship.wmv).

It's not for the faint-of-heart and possibly NSFW. Broadband recommended.
Any ideas about flight altitude above ground? Could the targets hear the plane?

[Cylinder]

Rules of engagement?

Yup. Here's (http://www.willieboats.com/Bin%20Ladin%20Images/AFGHANI%20TORNADO.jpg) a cool still of the AC-130 lighting up the night.

[Darth Rotor]

Cylinder, can you tell us acronym-challenged folks what ROE stands for?
As Katana noted, Rules of Engagement. That is a fairly rigorous list of conditions that must be met before you pull a trigger, most of which is intended to ensure that you only shoot at and kill legitimate targets, and not some poor sonofagun walking his goat down a path in the mountains.
What I don't understand about gun camera footage is that it always seems to be in black and white. I know this is how infrared is displayed, but there must be other types taken, right? And why is it always at such low resolution?
Some of what you are seeing is a problem in format conversion, but then, gun camera tech/generations don't move as fast as online video cameras due to the Defense Acquisition system. Gun cameras, like all else, are bought under a "minimum bid" process that does not tech refresh within the Moore's Law cycle.
If this is what our gunners see, it's hard to understand how they know exactly what they're shooting at. Maybe they keep it somewhat fuzzy to spare us civilians the gory details?
No, that film is not generally intended for public release. Note my remarks above: the folks who released that film and associated audio broke some rules. Got into trouble. As to what the gunners see, and how they know who is what and who to shoot at, that's an operational detail that you can ask SOCOM about, but I don't feel comfortable discussing.
All told, the footage reminds me of playing Command & Conquer. I'm glad we're the ones with this firepower.
It is no game. There is real shredded flesh and splintered bone at the far end of the muzzle.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Any ideas about flight altitude above ground? Could the targets hear the plane?
Good questions. Not my place to say on the first, and one suspects "no" on the second, given the apparent surprise of the attack in the video.

DR

[Cylinder]

You can tell they are orbiting at significant altitude. A C-130 flying on the deck gets your attention. Also, if you notice the little x circling the crosshairs - that's the gunship's position in relation to the target. Remember that the targeting sensor swivels. They're flying tight orbits which suggests greater altitude.

[Cylinder]

Yea - I just cannot make out the altitude information below the crosshairs in the clip.

[Cello Man]

It is no game. There is real shredded flesh and splintered bone at the far end of the muzzle.

Yeah, that's what I keep reminding myself about. It's amazing how far technology has come (weapons technology in particular) and I guess it's a mildly morbid fascination I have with the idea that someone's life can be brought to a fiery halt in an instant by someone pulling a trigger miles away. The fact that the means exist for me to see these events halfway around the world compounds that amazement.

At some level I guess it's because of the human need to empathize and put myself in the other guy's shoes. But it's hard for me to wrap my head around all of this because what someone else experiences first hand, it feels to me like I observe them through a microscope which is clouded by my own perceptions and experience.

It's hard for me to imagine being in the situation of the guys pulling the trigger. The closest thing I have to military experience is playing a few rounds of paintball ten years ago. While I can't see myself in a military setting, I do understand why others make the decision to enlist. I guess seeing stuff like this is a way of reassuring myself that we have the means to eliminate those who would do us harm.

[Polaris]

Wow. I have to admit that that was fascinating, and thanks for providing the link. It was striking to hear the soldiers talking about the "two other guys that [they] saw fly apart," but I suppose that's the reality of war. Does it surprise anyone else that such footage is available for the public to see or is it pretty common and I've just been living a sheltered life?

I'm sure the horror is offset a little by the reality of who those guys on the ground who were flying apart were.

[Katana]

I'm sure the horror is offset a little by the reality of who those guys on the ground who were flying apart were.

Did I use the word "horror"? No.

Did I suggest that they shouldn't be doing what they were doing? No.

Can I watch a fellow human being destroy another human being without having some kind of an emotional response? No.

I chose my words deliberately. I was "struck" by what I saw. Yes, I was disturbed, but I didn't say that what they did was wrong.

[Polaris]

Did I use the word "horror"? No.

Did I suggest that they shouldn't be doing what they were doing? No.

Can I watch a fellow human being destroy another human being without having some kind of an emotional response? No.

I chose my words deliberately. I was "struck" by what I saw. Yes, I was disturbed, but I didn't say that what they did was wrong.

Why so defensive? I was referring to the horror of the guys operating the AC-130. They were actually doing the killing, so they would have more of an emotional response than you, the viewer, would, at least I would imagine. It might be masked by training, and preoccupation with doing their job, but "horror" probably isn't too strong a word for it. And that horror, as I said, would probably be offset by imagining that the scum they are annihilating (I refuse to call Taliban and al-Qaida "human beings") were the ones who were behind 9/11, and all the atrocities in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Your tax dollars paid for this webpage, might as well enjoy the content.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123037025

And a couple of neat photos on a search of af.mil.
http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=ac-130

[Cylinder]

CNN is reporting (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/10/somalia.strike.ap/index.html) that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, indicted for his participation in the 1998 African embassy bombings, has been killed in a US airstrike in Somalia.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/termohammed.jpg (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/termohammed.htm)

The suspected al Qaeda militant who planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa was killed in an American airstrike in Somalia, an official said Wednesday.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, told The Associated Press.

"One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."

Mohammed allegedly planned the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people.

He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed in the blast at the hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. The missiles missed the airliner.

Mohammed is thought to have been the main target of an American helicopter attack Monday afternoon on Badmadow island off southern Somalia.

[Merko]

It appears entirely likely there were three anti-US terrorists in Somalia yesterday. Today, we can be quite sure, there are many more.

[Garrette]

It appears entirely likely there were three anti-US terrorists in Somalia yesterday. Today, we can be quite sure, there are many more.No, we cannot. The creation of more terrorists by the killing of actual terrorists is a risk to be considered, but it is not a certainty, and even if deemed to be nearly certain might still be justified by the benefits gained.

Not saying this is so in this instance as I don't know enough about it, but blanket statements like yours add nothing of value to the analysis.

[Katana]

Why so defensive? I was referring to the horror of the guys operating the AC-130. They were actually doing the killing, so they would have more of an emotional response than you, the viewer, would, at least I would imagine. It might be masked by training, and preoccupation with doing their job, but "horror" probably isn't too strong a word for it. And that horror, as I said, would probably be offset by imagining that the scum they are annihilating (I refuse to call Taliban and al-Qaida "human beings") were the ones who were behind 9/11, and all the atrocities in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

I'm really sorry, Polaris. I clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say. I'm not sure why I made the leap I did. Thanks for being more rational in your response than I was - damn, I really do try to avoid those emotional leaps, too.

Shame on me. :o

And I think you're probably right in your observations, too.

[Merko]

The creation of more terrorists by the killing of actual terrorists is a risk to be considered, but it is not a certainty, and even if deemed to be nearly certain might still be justified by the benefits gained.


We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

We know that even western powers, such as the EU, and the new UN GC, have expressed concerns over the attacks. Then what can we expect from Muslim Somalians on the ground? Well, check out with your local exile Somalians to get an idea.

Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals. This is something entirely different.

[Garrette]

The expression of concerns and the possession of amazing anger and grief do not automatically equate to new terrorist.

And, yes, it is different than sending in a "commando" force. While you may with some justification think that the U.S. National Command Authority does not perform a realisitic cost/benefit analysis of military actions, I can assure you that military commands themselves do.

[Cylinder]

Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

To whom - Sylvia Brown? My Magic 8-Ball says Ask Again.

Can you explain to me how the USAF selects targets, ordnance and plans missions?

[Darth Rotor]

We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.
You know this how? Given the sparse nature of the news reportage (more perhaps will be clear in a day or so) I find your assertion to resemble a leap of intuition.
We know that even western powers, such as the EU, and the new UN GC, have expressed concerns over the attacks.
So? That's what bureaucrats do, express concern.
Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals. This is something entirely different.
I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job. Please, Merko, quit wasting time and precious lives all over Africa and the Middle East. Call Secretary of Defenses Gates, and let him know that his choice of Admiral Fallon as the New CENTCOM is a mistake, and that you'll have your bags packed and be on your way to CENTCOM HQ immediately to assume the job.

DR

[Cylinder]

Don't fight it - you'll only make it worse.1

1For those values of it that are not American.

[Ziggurat]

We know that according to the Somali 'government' (a US ally), a 'significant number' of people were killed in Monday's attacks. Clearly, the vast majority of those were not sought after terrorists.

Most of them were likely Islamic Courts fighters. They may not have been "sought after" (in large part because most of them are essentially anonymous to us), but their deaths are still probably a good thing, both for us and for Somalia. It is not possible to win a war without collateral damage. It also makes no sense to let your enemies use collateral damage against their side as a weapon against you.

Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals.

Been there, done that, disaster followed. Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.

This is something entirely different.

Yes, it is entirely different: this time it actually worked.

[Cylinder]

Meanwhile, the air strikes continue (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10249034.htm):

U.S. forces hunting al Qaeda suspects hit four sites in air strikes in southern Somalia on Wednesday, a Somali government source said, as international criticism mounted over Washington's military intervention.

"As we speak now, the area is being bombarded by the American air force," the source told Reuters.

He said the attacks hit an area close to Ras Kamboni, a coastal village near the Kenyan border where many fugitive Islamists are believed holed-up after being ousted by Ethiopian troops defending Somalia's interim government.

Four places were hit -- Hayo, Garer, Bankajirow and Badmadowe, the source said. "Bankajirow was the last Islamist holdout. Bankajirow and Badmadowe were hit hardest," he added.

Pentagon officials confirmed one air attack on Monday, as part of a wider offensive involving Ethiopian planes.

[Darth Rotor]

Been there, done that, disaster followed. Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.
Merko appears to think that conflict with Islamists is like a baseball game, where one cannot tag a man on base. The Islamists were in remote bases, and thus safe. CENTCOM tagged them anyway, no doubt while intoning that

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Some one set those Islamic Courts fellows up The Bomb. :cool:

DR

[Ziggurat]

Some one set those Islamic Courts fellows up The Bomb. :cool:

Move 'Zig'. For great justice. :D

[hammegk]

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Which is what will remain of the Bush Doctrine, imo. It's too bad Rummy bought into the 'passify 'em with kindness' crap. I do agree we don't have the manpower to do what it would actually take, nor the will to do so even if we had (or stick to high-tech & let Allah sort 'em out).

[Garrette]

Which is what will remain of the Bush Doctrine, imo. It's too bad Rummy bought into the 'passify 'em with kindness' crap. I do agree we don't have the manpower to do what it would actually take, nor the will to do so even if we had (or stick to high-tech & let Allah sort 'em out).It takes carrot AND stick to make it work, not carrot OR stick. But there is more than one population to which they are offered/threatened, and the balance between them varies with each audience.

[Azrael 5]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!

[Ziggurat]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!

No, a nuke or a MOAB would be unnecessary overkill. AC-130's are exceptionally well suited to the task at hand.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight, and always bring a gun to a knife fight.

[Darth Rotor]

U.S using a sledgehammer to smash a sandhill!
If they'd have used B-1's and B-52's, I'd agree with you. The AC-130 is very much the right support tool for the job, small unit operations. The US military doctrine is based on combined arms. Close air support to a ground operation is a combined arms operation. This isn't Hollywood.

DR

[Cello Man]

...Close air support to a ground operation is a combined arms operation. This isn't Hollywood.

You mean to tell me that we can't just send Chuck Norris? :D

Alas, if it were only that simple...

[Polaris]

I'm really sorry, Polaris. I clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say. I'm not sure why I made the leap I did. Thanks for being more rational in your response than I was - damn, I really do try to avoid those emotional leaps, too.

Shame on me. :o

And I think you're probably right in your observations, too.

No biggy.

[Ziggurat]

You mean to tell me that we can't just send Chuck Norris? :D

No one can send Chuck Norris. He goes whenever he feels like it. ;)

[WildCat]

No one can send Chuck Norris. He goes whenever he feels like it. ;)
I believe that Chuck Norris would be tantamount to a nuclear strike, the devastation would be so thorough that the UN would be forced to send a strongly worded letter.

[Merko]

You know this how? Given the sparse nature of the news reportage (more perhaps will be clear in a day or so) I find your assertion to resemble a leap of intuition.

It has been reported in Swedish press. Like I said, the source is the Somali 'government', which is, as you should know, a US ally and hardly has any motives to overstate the carnage.


I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job.
I actually suspect that I am, along with most of the world's population.

Most of them were likely Islamic Courts fighters. They may not have been "sought after" (in large part because most of them are essentially anonymous to us), but their deaths are still probably a good thing, both for us and for Somalia.
So you have no idea who these people were, but you're ready to say they were hostile to you because they were close to a location where the army believed that a suspected terrorist was? And that this is enough of a reason to kill them? Can you imagine other people using the same kind of reasoning and apply it to, say... Americans?

How did they get that information, by the way? I think we can be fairly sure how: They got a tip by some of the warlords/government factions. They've been giving such hints to the US for a long time, usually in order to get weapons and other support in return. Problem is, it is extremely difficult to verify these tips. In fact, all factions seem to use such allegations against all the other factions. And none of the factions - including the ICU - appear to have been much interested in plotting against the US. Until now, at least.

It is not possible to win a war without collateral damage.
Sounds like bin Ladin rhetorics.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.

Of course you wouldn't complain, you wouldn't be the one having to take the risks and pay the price.
I think you missed my point. My point is that this is certain to incite hatred and anger towards the US. This will be paid for by the US. Not by me.
I don't deny that the commandos that could be assigned to the task might feel it is safer to stay at home and take the same risk as everyone else, than to go after these types in the field. However, it's not their decision, but that of their commanders. These commanders should make an overall risk/benefit analysis.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It has been reported in Swedish press. Like I said, the source is the Somali 'government', which is, as you should know, a US ally and hardly has any motives to overstate the carnage.

Right, and you are reading into what the Somali government said. You posted that they claimed that a 'significant number of people' were killed in the strikes. People is a neutral term. They did not say a significant number of civilians were killed in the strikes. The people could have been Islamist militant -- especially if that's who the AC-130 was aiming at.

So you have no idea who these people were, but you're ready to say they were hostile to you because they were close to a location where the army believed that a suspected terrorist was? And that this is enough of a reason to kill them? Can you imagine other people using the same kind of reasoning and apply it to, say... Americans?

Though they were aiming at a specific terrorist, there are thousands of Islamic fighters in Somalia. They are an Army who was just driven from the capital. The terrorist they happen to be going after isn't going to be hanging around by himself. If he was in an authority position in the Islamic goverment that was established in Mogadishu, he may be with the rest of the fighters. Neither you -- nor I -- know enough about the specifics from what has been reported to ascertain how strong the intelligence was. They could have had very good intelligence that there was a large group of Islamist fighters there, and not-so-good intelligence that the specific terrorist they were looking for was in that group.

So there is my speculation, which isn't any better or worse than yours.

How did they get that information, by the way? I think we can be fairly sure how: They got a tip by some of the warlords/government factions. They've been giving such hints to the US for a long time, usually in order to get weapons and other support in return. Problem is, it is extremely difficult to verify these tips. In fact, all factions seem to use such allegations against all the other factions. And none of the factions - including the ICU - appear to have been much interested in plotting against the US. Until now, at least.

More speculation. No, we can't be fairly sure how they got that information. There are troops on the ground right now (Ethiopian) who may very well have eyes on some of these fighters.

Sounds like bin Ladin rhetorics.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.


If those three people are in the middle of New York, maybe. If they're in Somalia, in the company of several hundred or thousand Islamic fighters, then no, it isn't easy to swoop in and apprehend three people. That only happens in Rambo movies.

[gtc]

Most of them were likely Islamic Courts fighters. They may not have been "sought after" (in large part because most of them are essentially anonymous to us), but their deaths are still probably a good thing, both for us and for Somalia.

So you have no idea who these people were, but you're ready to say they were hostile to you because they were close to a location where the army believed that a suspected terrorist was? And that this is enough of a reason to kill them? Can you imagine other people using the same kind of reasoning and apply it to, say... Americans?

Merko, you are misrepresenting what Ziggurat said.

These are the keywords from Ziggurat's statement:

Most ... were likely ... may not have been ... in large part ... most ... are essentially ... probably

These are the keywords from your interpretation

...they were ... they were ... this is enough of a reason to kill them?

Notice how your interpretation uses words that are much more definite than the words he actually used.

[Merko]

Notice how your interpretation uses words that are much more definite than the words he actually used.
Fair enough, but I'm not very keen to take the US Navy's word for it that it is not the way I describe it. In fact, I put a greater weight at what I'm hearing from exile Somali sources, because although they are usually very biased, they do have sources on the ground, and they are also very much split up in different factions, making it possible to triangulate the facts.

[Cylinder]

Fair enough, but I'm not very keen to take the US Navy's word for it that it...

USAF - but don't let that get in the way of your reasoned assessment.

[Polaris]

Sounds like bin Ladin rhetorics.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.

What you call 'collaterals' bin Laden calls 'preferred targets'. The only collaterals for bin Laden are Muslims who are killed in his targetting of civilians - because in his mind either they are good Muslims who will be rewarded in heaven or they are kafirs/infidels who deserve to die. In short, he has no compunction with killing everybody and letting Allah sort them out, quit literally.

[Merko]

USAF - but don't let that get in the way of your reasoned assessment.
Thanks for educating me - I mistakenly thought this was a rocket attack from a ship. Didn't know the word 'gunship' refers to an airplane.

[gtc]

Thanks for educating me - I mistakenly thought this was a rocket attack from a ship. Didn't know the word 'gunship' refers to an airplane.

In this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130) it does refer to an aeroplane but it can also refer to a helicopter.

[Huntster]

It appears entirely likely there were three anti-US terrorists in Somalia yesterday. Today, we can be quite sure, there are many more.

If you're right, and they blow up embassies like Fazul did, they'll be the next generation of AC-130 targets.

That's how it works, whether you like it or not.

[Huntster]

....Considering that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, I would actually not complain had the US sent in a targeted commando force to capture selected individuals.

There were plenty of whiners the last time the U.S. sent a "targeted commando force" into Somalia.

[Huntster]

I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job.

I actually suspect that I am, along with most of the world's population.

And therein lies the roots, foundation, and hopelessness of the problem.

I believe it is possible to apprehend three identified people without killing a significant number of 'collaterals'.

Show me.

[Gurdur]

There were plenty of whiners the last time the U.S. sent a "targeted commando force" into Somalia.
Yes, mainly on the right. People like you. Whined away like nothing on Earth. Operation FUBARed in the usual style for the usual reasons, but I am sure you have some myth ready to had to explain it all. Or maybe you will appeal to What Would the WaffenSS Do? instead.

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks for educating me - I mistakenly thought this was a rocket attack from a ship. Didn't know the word 'gunship' refers to an airplane.
This from the expert.
I am glad that you are far more expert in matching means to ends than the professionals assigned the job.
I actually suspect that I am, along with most of the world's population.
I suspect that you have an overestimation of your competence in this matter.

But by all means, play on. Don't let me stop you throwing egg on your own face. I hear it's good for the complexion. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Operation FUBARed in the usual style for the usual reasons.
Yes, it was indeed a mission gone wrong. (That mission is worthy of another post, if people want to agrue about it.) What puzzles me is: why did you Godwin the Waffen SS deal, Gurdur?

DR

[Euromutt]

There were plenty of whiners the last time the U.S. sent a "targeted commando force" into Somalia.Every man jack of them Republicans, based solely on the fact that there was a Democrat in the White House at the time. The GOP only overcame its aversion to body bags post-9/11.

[Darth Rotor]

Every man jack of them Republicans, based solely on the fact that there was a Democrat in the White House at the time. The GOP only overcame its aversion to body bags post-9/11.
Politics baby, don't you love it?

DR

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for educating me - I mistakenly thought this was a rocket attack from a ship. Didn't know the word 'gunship' refers to an airplane.

This is just too funny. I didn't expect it, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance of pretty basic military matters. Not only did you not know "gunship" doesn't refer to naval vessels, but you obviously had no idea what an AC-130 is either, and possibly still don't. That didn't stop you from criticising a military mission whose basic characteristics you completely misunderstood, though.

[SezMe]

Deleted.

[gtc]

What puzzles me is: why did you Godwin the Waffen SS deal, Gurdur?

I wondered that too. Isn't he German? I guess gratitude towards the US military is a little too much to expect but does he have to be such a stereotype of the ugly European?

[SezMe]

Looks like the raid was not as successful as originally reported. Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_af/somalia_us).

[Darth Rotor]

Looks like the raid was not as successful as originally reported. Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_af/somalia_us).

NAIROBI, Kenya - None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al-Qaida were slain, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.

A day earlier, a Somali official had said a U.S. intelligence report had referred to the death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed — one of the three senior al-Qaida members believed responsible for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa.

But U.S. and Ethiopian troops in southern Somalia were still pursuing the three, the U.S. official said Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record to the media.
Rhetorical question: Then why didn't said offical keep his ****** mouth shut? Is this the old "official leak" crap?

Thanks for the follow up, Sez. As usual, first reports are often conflicting, and occasionally just plain wrong.

The bloody "news cycle" for fifty, Alex.

DR

[Garrette]

When training investigators (in my civilian life) I told them the first rule is this:

The first report is always wrong.

Then I would give them a hypothetical in which I (their boss) came up to them and told them about having witnessed a purse-snatching and they should go arrest so and so. Their responses always took me at my word at which point I would say:

Weren't you listening? The first report is ALWAYS wrong! And usually the second and the third.

[Darth Rotor]

Weren't you listening? The first report is ALWAYS wrong! And usually the second and the third.
I have gotten first reports of two aircraft mishaps (off the top of my head) that were right, with no error. In both cases, there was at least one fatality. Granted, the reports were both fairly concise, and not in multi paragraph prose form. :mad:

DR

[Mycroft]

It appears entirely likely there were three anti-US terrorists in Somalia yesterday. Today, we can be quite sure, there are many more.

How do you figure?

[mhaze]

What? I thought we just hit aspirin factories!

mhaze

[Darth Rotor]

What? I thought we just hit aspirin factories!

mhaze
That was in the Sudan, man, not Somalia.

African nations beginning with Sfor fifty, Alex. ;)

DR