The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Lawless since 1991’ - Somalia and the Brennan kidnapping > Comments

‘Lawless since 1991’ - Somalia and the Brennan kidnapping : Comments

By David Robinson, published 14/12/2009

The recent release of Australian photojournalist Nigel Brennan is a dramatic cautionary tale that resonates with many intrepidly-wandering Australians.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Having served with Australian forces as part of the US intervention in Somalia I feel compelled to comment on the authors throw-away line; '... the United States chose to play king-maker among opposing rebel groups; abandoned Somalia after losing around 30 soldiers (and leaving a thousand Somalian civilians dead)'. It's not quite the full story and will mislead as much as trite media reportage about the Brennan hostage case.

In response to UNSC 794, the UN (not the US) arranged to negotiate with the 'warlords' who are not the natural leaders among Somali society - elders are. The UN gave the warlords a seat on the international stage. While warlords were still fighting each othel, the UN attempted to deploy a peacekeeping force in Somalia. There was no peace, and the UN was unable to control either the port or the airport as a point of entry for the peacekeepers.

After worldwide coverage by CNN of the starvation caused by fighting warlords (attack a village, kill all the men, rape the women, burn the grain for next year and throw the men's bodies down the well, hence polluting the water source), the US reacted in December 1992 by deploying troops. The Australian Government (Labor) was keen to publicise its part with an election only four months away. The rules of engagement for US and Australian forces were a little more robust than the UN usually authorises for peacekeeping operations. To cut a long story short, after five months the UN was finally on the ground and officially took over from the US (and Australians, Canadians, Germans, Dutch etc).
(more to follow)
Posted by Nigel from Jerrabomberra, Monday, 14 December 2009 4:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Comment cont'd)
The UN forces insisted on such an ineffectual command and control structure supported by weak rules of engagement that they were simply lambs to the slaughter for re-armed warlords who had been, previosly, effectively quelled by the US led intervention.

The US understood that the UN mission was doomed to failure and hence did not disengage completely, retaining a reserve, mostly ship based, that could respond rapidly if needed. 'Blackhawk Down' happened in part because of US rapid deployment of improperly briefed forces, holes in intelligence and poor communications. They should have disengaged completely and left the UN to wear the consequences of its own incompetence. Instead, the US that tried to do the right thing got caned in the court of public approval and that is why they subsequently did not deploy to Rwanda.

The author is right in as much as there is more to the story that some glib one liners that will be trumpeted by the media but glib anti-US sentiment is just as misleading and dangerous.
Posted by Nigel from Jerrabomberra, Monday, 14 December 2009 4:34:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy