Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 12:59 PM        The Ethiopian example
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07007/751613-373.stm

The Ethiopian example
How to win a war: Unapologetically use force against the bad guys

Sunday, January 07, 2007

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

It's hard to win a war if you quit fighting in the middle. That's the lesson we should learn from Ethiopia's New Year's message to us.


Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

Six months ago, when the militia of the Islamic Courts Union seized the Somali capital of Mogadishu, it appeared that the al-Qaida-affiliated radicals were on the verge of a major triumph. The redoubtable StrategyPage declared them "unstoppable," and the usual hand-wringers were urging us to negotiate with them.

All Islamic extremists are unlovely, but the Islamic Courts Union are a particularly nasty bunch. They modeled themselves on the (now deposed) Taliban in Afghanistan, and imposed their harsh version of Sharia (Islamic law) on the territory they controlled. Movies and the playing of music were banned. So were smoking tobacco and chewing khat, a mild hallucinogen. Women were barred from beaches. People who didn't pray five times a day were threatened with beheading.

More than 20,000 Somalis fled in small boats across the Gulf of Aden to seek sanctuary in Yemen, said the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Thousands more clogged refugee camps in neighboring countries.

In November, the Islamic Courts Union began an offensive against the provincial capital of Baidoa, where the U.N.-recognized government of Somalia had taken refuge, and announced plans to extend its "jihad" to Ethiopia, Somalia's neighbor to the west, and Kenya, its neighbor to the south.

But all that changed in the last week of 2006. A Reuters dispatch Dec. 28 indicates why: "The bloated corpses of Islamist fighters and an unbroken line of tank tracks along the Baidoa-Mogadishu highway tell the story of a swift advance for the Somali government and its Ethiopian allies."

That dispatch was in some ways more politically correct than accurate. Such Somali government forces as there were followed well behind the Ethiopian tanks. Considering how rapidly they fled, to describe the Islamists as "fighters" was excessively kind.

The Islamists swiftly abandoned Mogadishu, but declared they would make a stand at the southeastern port city of Kismayo, but as Ethiopian troops approached on New Year's Eve, the Islamists fled once again without giving battle.

The Islamists hoped to flee into Kenya, but Kenyan troops barred the way. The bulk of the Islamist forces who haven't gone home are thought to be hiding in the forests west of Kismayo, doing their best to avoid the attention of Ethiopian tanks.

Ethiopia won in short order because it unapologetically used force against vicious killers who understand only force. They killed the people they needed to kill without worrying overmuch about collateral damage, and not at all about world opinion. And though the Ethiopian soldiers are Christians, they were hailed as liberators in this overwhelmingly Muslim country.

When, during the march on Baghdad, we unapologetically used force in Iraq, we also had rapid success with minimal casualties. But since the statue of Saddam fell in Firdous Square in April 2003, we've acted as if the war were over. Our focus shifted to peacekeeping and nation-building, though it's hard to be a peacekeeper when there is no peace to keep, and it's hard to rebuild a nation when the bad guys are still out there blowing things up.

We've become a Gulliver bound by our own politically correct strictures. The first battle of Fallujah was called off in April 2004 because Sunni politicians in Iraq's parliament objected. The result was a major propaganda victory for al-Qaida, and a bloodier battle in November 2004.

When Moqtada al Sadr, an Iranian puppet, staged an uprising to coincide with the first battle of Fallujah, he was allowed to remain free, even though he was wanted for the murder of the moderate Shia cleric Majid al Khoie, because the leading Shia cleric, the Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, reportedly insisted upon it. Today, Mr. Sadr's death squads are responsible for most of the sectarian killings in Iraq, and Mr. Sadr is considered the most powerful figure in the country.

President Bush is expected to announce soon a temporary "surge" in U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Troop strength is important. But more important to success is what our troops -- who currently must operate under very restrictive rules of engagement -- are permitted to do.

Half-measures in war typically produce half-baked results. If the military measures we take in Iraq must first be approved by Iraqi politicians and the editorial board of The New York Times, we will not succeed even if we double the number of troops.

But if we remember -- as Ethiopia did -- that the surest way to win in war is to kill the enemy, we may yet match Ethiopia's success.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 06:55 PM       
...and to think what might have happened had our Marines been allowed and equipped to stay and fight WAAAAAAAY back when during the "Blackhawk Down" incident thingy instead of being pulled out...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 07:44 PM       
Seriously, if you're going to fight a war just kill the cocksuckers and get it over with.

Generally, the longer you're at war the more morale drops(usually on both sides) and the more civil unrest there is.
what idiot masterminded this war? because if his intentions were to win he's a dummy. You don't win by sitting on your ass and not doing anything(unless the other side is already falling apart). Not that I don't understand that there's SOME political friction, but it's just a waste to keep having these half-assed wars.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 08:57 PM       
One only has to contrast and compate Ethiopa's actions agaist Israel's attempt at fighting a passive humanitarian in denial....in the end, a war should be concise and to the point.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ArrowX ArrowX is offline
Banned
ArrowX's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Illinois, Alberta, Canada, Thailand, Space, Groundling Marsh, Manhattan, Man Hat Ton
ArrowX sucks
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 10:12 PM       
Its WAR, its not in its purpose to be politically correct and morally sound. When every major US engagement ends theres someone who thinks that they were inhumane in their use of bullets.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
corpexec44 corpexec44 is offline
Forum Virgin
corpexec44's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
corpexec44 is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 11:20 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
...and to think what might have happened had our Marines been allowed and equipped to stay and fight WAAAAAAAY back when during the "Blackhawk Down" incident thingy instead of being pulled out...
you got that right....we could have taken over that city in hours if our troops were allowed to go in full force.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 11:46 PM       
To a point.

If you run in killing anybody that doesn't like you, your list of targets is going to expand faster than you can load your guns. We really do have to do more for the people we "liberate" than their previous leaders. In Iraq, I believe we really are, so I guess we're expected to do WAY better.

You gotta figure these people have been struggling for decades now, imagining that one day, everything would get fixed, somehow, and then everything would be perfect. The key to any successful dictatorship, however, is avoiding revolt. There's only one method for that: know who you've wronged and either buy them off or kill them off, whichever works best. For the West to walk in and start sparing lives for just reasons and build schools and whatnot sorta sends the wrong message for those used to living under a dick like Saddam Hussein.

Under Saddam, to be spared or receive a gift was proof of the unjustness of your existence. Iraqis have been stuck in an incredibly abusive relationship with their government for such a long time that it's pretty silly to think that any prospective new government wouldn't have to work them through all that trauma in order to establish a healthy relationship with a modern government, such as the healthy relationship we have with our own government, or like the Mexicans do.

You can't do that sort of therapy with guns, yet we won't be finished with the job until the therapy is complete.

Yes, when there's bad guys to blow up, that needs to be done unequivocally and, especially, apolitically. We are in the process, however, of developing a second military force... one that's larger and less trigger happy. Like it or not, we will be needing it in order to eventually win the WOT.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 7th, 2007, 11:48 PM       
That last post took like 2 hours to write during commercials, so the last thing I'd read was abcdefg's post...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.