NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: We hear a lot about Iraq, and a bit about Afghanistan, but the job US military personnel are doing elsewhere often goes unnoticed. This little article sheds a bit of light on how the American military is heading off insurgents and an insurgency in the Horn of Africa.


U.S. Forces Succeed in E. Africa (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,84290,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | January 03, 2006
DJIBOUTI - al-Qaida is active in Somalia, but U.S. counterterrorism forces are succeeding in keeping its influence from spreading in East Africa - using shovels as their weapons, a commander said Monday.

Maj. Gen. Tim Ghormley, who assumed command of the task force in May, said his troops are focusing on humanitarian projects including drilling wells and refurbishing schools and clinics to improve the lives of residents in the region and keep them away from the terror network.

"We know that al-Qaida al-Itihaad is in Somalia," Ghormley told reporters in an interview at his base in the impoverished nation of Djibouti. "They'd like to export that ... if we weren't there they would be."

While the al-Qaida linked group al-Itihaad was largely destroyed or disbanded by Ethiopian troops fighting inside Somalia by 1997, some of its members have regrouped under new guises and have begun to grow in strength, according to an International Crisis Group report released in July.

Somalia, divided into warring fiefdoms and with no central government, remains fertile ground for terrorists.

The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, set up in this former French colony in June 2002, is responsible for fighting terrorism in nine countries around the Horn of Africa: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Somalia in Africa and Yemen on the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

"I believe we're winning," Ghormley said, sitting on a wicker sofa under ceiling fans in a reception hall. "You can't contain them (al-Qaida), but we can take away their recruiting pool and deny them access and that's what we're trying to do."

He singled out a well-drilling project near the eastern Ethiopian hamlet of Gode, which drew the gratitude of the villagers.

But he also acknowledged the threat posed by terrorists taking sanctuary in Somalia and other lawless regions. African governments have historically had a hard time providing security in remote rural areas or patrolling vast borders where nomads frequently cross without detection.

Ghormley spoke after a New Year's pep rally for troops by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, who is on an eight-nation tour with his wife, Lynne, "American Idol" star Diana DeGarmo and other entertainers.

Pace told the troops their job was important despite the remoteness of the outpost, saying they were the "wave of the future."

The impoverished region, which is home to many Muslims, is a well-established recruiting ground for terrorist groups and U.S. officials describe it as a critical theater in the fight against terrorism.

The region has already suffered four terrorist attacks, all either claimed by - or attributed to - Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network. In August 1998, car bombs destroyed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; in October 2000 suicide bombers attacked the USS Cole while it was refueling in Yemen; and in November 2002 attackers tried to shoot down an Israeli airliner minutes before a car bomb destroyed a hotel on Kenya's coast.

I like how they sorta forget to mention that there are other forces (like the French :eek: , and the Germans :eek: ) involved as well. They do mention that it is a former French colony though (Somalia was British when it gained independence, Djibouti was French but is a tiny speck, Eritrea was Italian, then British and so on and so forth)...

I guess you can always put a slant on things.

The article is about what the US troops are doing, so I guess it's ok if they focus on them, although a passing mention of who else is there would have been good and surely appreciated.

I think this kind of efforts at fighting poverty and misery conditions are much better in the long run to contain the spread of terrorism than bombing or invading countries and there should be a lot more of it. Good for them.

I think this kind of efforts at fighting poverty and misery conditions are much better in the long run to contain the spread of terrorism than bombing or invading countries and there should be a lot more of it.
I whole-heartedly agree.

The article is about what the US troops are doing, so I guess it's ok if they focus on them, although a passing mention of who else is there would have been good and surely appreciated.

I think this kind of efforts at fighting poverty and misery conditions are much better in the long run to contain the spread of terrorism than bombing or invading countries and there should be a lot more of it. Good for them.

Yes, I second or third that motion.

*yawn*

The article is about what the US troops are doing, so I guess it's ok if they focus on them, although a passing mention of who else is there would have been good and surely appreciated.
You could say that.
Right now on another thread I have to argue that France and Germany wouldn't break their treaty commitments to NATO if the US was attacked.

Why would someone even think that?
The answer is that apparently the US media could not give a shit about its Allies in important missions like this. It's always "US" here and "US" there. Governments from all over the world have sympathised with the American people after 9/11, and have done what they could (and believe me, Germany does not take the decision to send troops anywhere lightly - as we are speaking the newspapers are trying to get to the ground of accusations that German special forces might be involved in assassination missions of drug barons in Afghanistan) - and all these trustworthy Allies get in return is spite, ignorance or outright hostility.

And reporting that the place is some sort of French colony is not only wrong, but also suggests that it's somehow the French's fault that the place is in such a bad shape.

I think this kind of efforts at fighting poverty and misery conditions are much better in the long run to contain the spread of terrorism than bombing or invading countries and there should be a lot more of it. Good for them.
I agree here - the missions in Afghanistan and Africa are enormously important in turning this ship around.

is it true that
US forces are in Columbia too?

is it true that
US forces are in Columbia too?
Perhaps in the "District of", but if you're wondering about Colombia - no.

is it true that
US forces are in Columbia too?
I think there are a few military assessors attached to the Embassy to provide assistance in training, strategy, and such, against drug trafficking; but no troops on the ground.

is it true that
US forces are in Columbia too?

There are private security people employed by the Department of Defence in Colombia, but no troops.

is it true that
US forces are in Columbia too?
Yes.

A lot of disagreement there, hey?

Let's just clear this up:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/history/hst0605.pdf

Apparently the US does have 53 normal military forces deployed in Colombia, and 27 in Venezuela.

Going slightly off-topic... Iraq is turning into a total disaster much quicker than I expected. Iraq is having trouble selling their oil, even more than they did during Saddam's era. 1.1 million barrels of oil per day versus 2.2. million barrels before the invasion.

What the neocons in the whitehouse have achieved here is really phenomenal...
In 3 years they have shrunk Iraqi oil exports by 50%.
But wait... there's more... the fuel prices in Iraq will rise in some cases as high as 300%. This will lead the Iraqians to having much less access to electricity and water that they continue to lack.

And on top of all this the US no longer is willing to help the reconstruction of Iraq. When the money runs out from the last time Dubya asked congress for it there will be no more american money to help out Iraq. At that moment Iraq will be on it's own with it's pitiful oil exports and lacking the electricity and water it's population needs.

So what we have here is that a nation that was allready in pretty bad shape was destroyed by the invasion. It's oil production that was allready low considering it's considerable existing oil reserves was cut in half.
Now the invader is beginning to notice that it cannot correct the shit it got into... and it wants to get out. It will probably be attempting to place the blame on Europe and the international community also.

See children... This is what happens when Republican neoconservative rhetoric gets the best of american voters.

Message to american voters from a citizen of the world... think before you vote next time.

A lot of disagreement there, hey?

Let's just clear this up:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/history/hst0605.pdf

Apparently the US does have 53 normal military forces deployed in Colombia, and 27 in Venezuela.
The latest intel I have on that is that both were a bit higher than those figures, but that both governments, in a fit of pique, have asked them to leave.

The latest intel I have on that is that both were a bit higher than those figures, but that both governments, in a fit of pique, have asked them to leave.
There's a lot of internal pressure in Colombia, plus elections are coming, so it doesn't surprise me, although I'm sure they'll keep the cooperation somehow.

And Venezuela, well, it surprises me there are still some left.

And Venezuela, well, it surprises me there are still some left.
The Venezuelan military has a lot of US equipment...chances are that advisors etc will stay no matter what.

Going slightly off-topic... Iraq is turning into a total disaster much quicker than I expected. Iraq is having trouble selling their oil, even more than they did during Saddam's era. 1.1 million barrels of oil per day versus 2.2. million barrels before the invasion.

What the neocons in the whitehouse have achieved here is really phenomenal...
In 3 years they have shrunk Iraqi oil exports by 50%.
But wait... there's more... the fuel prices in Iraq will rise in some cases as high as 300%. This will lead the Iraqians to having much less access to electricity and water that they continue to lack.

And on top of all this the US no longer is willing to help the reconstruction of Iraq. When the money runs out from the last time Dubya asked congress for it there will be no more american money to help out Iraq. At that moment Iraq will be on it's own with it's pitiful oil exports and lacking the electricity and water it's population needs.

So what we have here is that a nation that was allready in pretty bad shape was destroyed by the invasion. It's oil production that was allready low considering it's considerable existing oil reserves was cut in half.
Now the invader is beginning to notice that it cannot correct the shit it got into... and it wants to get out. It will probably be attempting to place the blame on Europe and the international community also.

See children... This is what happens when Republican neoconservative rhetoric gets the best of american voters.

Message to american voters from a citizen of the world... think before you vote next time.
Holy one-sided, biased, rhetoric, Batman! :eek:

:D

I was pushing my luck a bit.

Iraq oil exports have gone down 50%. Fuel prices will go up. US monetary help will stop. This much is fact.

Holy one-sided, biased, rhetoric, Batman! :eek:
It is true that Bush decided to abandon the Iraqi people by agreeing not to spend any more money on reconstruction. And it is true that if the Neocons hadn't been elected, this mess would not be as it is now.

The latest intel I have on that is that both were a bit higher than those figures, but that both governments, in a fit of pique, have asked them to leave.

God forbid that they should have control over foreign troops on thier soil.

His stats are right though. And it is true that Bush decided to abandon the Iraqi people by agreeing not to spend any more money on reconstruction. And it is true that if the Neocons hadn't been elected, this mess would not be as it is now.

I think it's very important that this is said. I don't mean whispered in confessionals and written on post-its. This needs to be shouted off hilltops and news headlines.

But nevermind this now... this is terribly off-topic. There will be a time and place for this.

It is true that Bush decided to abandon the Iraqi people by agreeing not to spend any more money on reconstruction. And it is true that if the Neocons hadn't been elected, this mess would not be as it is now.
That's like saying that your born, which hurts your mothers vagina, and then you die, which breaks your children's hearts, therefore life is all bad and we shouldn't bother.

When you want to talk about a subject, and you leave out everything that doesn't support your opinion, it makes you looked like a biased, closed minded, extremists with no grip on reality.

Are those statements true? Yes.

But you left out the mass graves.

The fact that sewage and water services are far better and more prolific now than before the war.

Or the fact that people actually get to vote now.

Or the fact that the Olympic team can lose without being tortured for it.

Or the fact that all the people that are bitching about the government there haven't had their tongues cut out for it.

Or the fact that the reason the oil isn't flowing is because of asshole, murderer, douche bag terrorists are the ones blowing shit up and killing anyone who tries to help. We're the ones trying to fix it.

Or the fact that we've offered countless opportunities to the insurgents to put down their weapons and stop the killing. (remember the countless Amnesty offers?)

So if you wanna bitch about something, that's fine. But at least look at the whole picture before you call people nothing but evil. If we were pure evil, this war would have been over 3 years ago.

So if you wanna bitch about something, that's fine. But at least look at the whole picture before you call people nothing but evil. If we were pure evil, this war would have been over 3 years ago.
I was aware of the bias, and you won't see me arguing otherwise.

My point is primarily with Bush deciding not to spend any more money on reconstruction, which IMHO is one of the worst decisions he has made so far - and that has got to mean something.

The place is not repaired. The people there do not live a normal life, and that is not only due to terrorism. It's also due to the poor job done by us in reconstructing their country. We destroyed their nation, indirectly with the sanctions, directly with two wars, and now we left chaos. It is our responsibility to give them their country back - regardless of any sort of political considerations.

The fact that Bush would consider it okay to start saving money in that place first is outrageous.

Man in Black. That's all very nice and democracy rules... but the GOPs strategy for Iraq is not working. They are far from establishing the export quotas and general economic marks they where hoping to achieve right here..
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5956

Plus... to thank for their well intended but ill-timed invasion they have provided Al-Qaeda and it's several clone groups with the perfect recruiting campaign they could have ever hoped for.

You see... I still remember the day that the world was united with America in the war on terror. When even not-so-moderate muslim were on the US's side. Not being able to remember that day must be some sort of privilege for some people I guess.

Now thanks to Iraq that pro-US tide has turned and it's forgotten. The only tide that exists today is one of an ever growing terrorist threat to all of the western world.

A big WooHoo for Britain tagging along for the ride... Love you Tony xx

I like how they sorta forget to mention that there are other forces (like the French :eek: , and the Germans :eek: ) involved as well. They do mention that it is a former French colony though (Somalia was British when it gained independence, Djibouti was French but is a tiny speck, Eritrea was Italian, then British and so on and so forth)...

I guess you can always put a slant on things.

It's easy. The French are there to capture the treasured Somali Truffles. And goat-cheese. And that oh-so-tasty somali bloodwine.

Heard about it in the French Army magazine "Soldier of Surrender"

Etruscsa Pwn3sss jou!!!111!!!

This is off-topic, but what do the acronyms in your name stand for?

A big WooHoo for Britain tagging along for the ride... Love you Tony xx

Tony Rocks. Love the guy.

This is off-topic, but what do the acronyms in your name stand for?

ARFCOM stands for AR15.COM community. IBTL stands for "In Before The Lock" a popular phrase over there.

It's easy. The French are there to capture the treasured Somali Truffles. And goat-cheese. And that oh-so-tasty somali bloodwine.

Heard about it in the French Army magazine "Soldier of Surrender"
See what I mean?
French soldiers go to war for you guys, they die for you guys and your mad schemes of bringing democracy to the world.
And that's what they get.