To quote one of the readings: “The United States entered Somalia in December 1992 to stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Although it succeeded in this mission, the chaotic political situation of that unhappy land bogged down U.S. and allied forces in what became, in effect, a poorly organized United Nations nation-building operation.” I had the exact same thought as I was reading. I was wondering about what would have happened if the U.S. had not gotten involved politically, if in fact that was possible. Both readings told stories just full of one defeat after another. It was kind of depressing, especially when I considered what happened to Jones and Spinelli after they left Somalia. In the end, the order that the U.S. and U.N. sought was not there in Somalia. Rival warlords continued to fight. Normally, we’ve seen successes on the part of the anti-Communists forces against the Communists. Here, in a situation were just chaos is in control, metaphorically speaking, it’s a no-win situation. I found that to be very interesting. I’ve heard it said that “the thing about chaos…it’s fair.” That means chaos happens to everyone; it’s not limited to just a few people. But it’s things like this that make me see that, no, it isn’t that fair. Because we maintain it. Without us, there is no chaos. So…does that mean the U.S. just made the situation worse in Somalia? If we hadn’t gotten involved politically, American soldiers would not have died there. That seems certain. But did we honestly help anything in getting involved in that area? That’s what I want to know.
I loved reading in the stories of the Americans who received Medals of Honor. It was cool to hear their story. it was also very interesting to read more about the CIA in "the CIA in Somalia"
Nate I wondered the same thing. Something that I thought was interesting from both of the readings was that they never said if it was a good thing or not. Both readings focused a lot on the negative side. They described how many Americans or U.N. peacemakers were killed. Particularly "The CIA in Somalia" described a lot of negatives. It showed how those involved did not do well in communication and how Jones and Spinelli were affected horribly afterward. It was disappointing how unsuccessful the U.S. and the U.N. were. But if we did save "hundreds of thousands of people" then it would have been worth it. But what happened to those people when we left? Did we really save that many people or did we just helped them survive a little bit longer?
A quote that struck me from the same reading as Nate was, "But the best soldiers in the world can only lay the foundation for peace; they cannot create peace itself." The intentions of America were good, but I agree with the article, it doesn't seem like creating peace is possible in a foreign culture, especially in a country like Somalia. I think America made a positive impact with stopping the starvation issue, but whether or not their involvement had an overall positive result, I can't say. The nation didn't become a peaceful one afterwards. From the movie, I got a sense that the Somalians didn't want America there. One guy says near the beginning (can't remember his name) "This is civil war. This is our war. Not yours.” Although it appears America helped with the starvation issue, it seems the Somalians were unhappy with American presence in the country.
It's so hard to tell if America did any good in Somalia. And why were we there helping if the Somalians didn't want us there? I think America should have let Somalia fight their own civil war. This could be incredibly wrong because I don't understand politics and whatnot, but it seems like America often gets involved in things that it should have no part in.
Wow interesting reading. I like reading the same story but from two different accounts. Gives you multiple perspectives. I agree with cristy about the whole "negativity thing" but I suppose that is to be expected, I mean, look how it turned out for the two guys in the "CIA in Somalia" reading. But despite all this negativity there is this thing that I love about America. It likes to help were it can. I think America did the right thing. Mr. Rogers said to, "look for the helpers," meaning in small catastrophes (Boston bombing for example) but I think that this is also true on national levels. When I look for the helpers I often see America. Although it did not work right in the end at least we tried. At least America is good in someways right.
“Greater love has no man than this that he lay down his life for his friends.” I love this scripture and the remembrance that Jesus, because of His love that surpasses knowledge, sacrificed Himself for us. I enjoyed reading about how Gordon and Shughart, the men who received the Medal of Honor, lived this verse, giving up their lives to save others. Their service inspires me. I see the contrast between those who sacrifice themselves and those who serve themselves. And right now even though I’m not literally laying down my lives for my friends, Christ still wants me to get my mind off myself and my selfish desires and live as a sacrifice!
I see America as a helper too. And Rob the other day I heard Mr. Roger’s quote on the radio! (and was gonna post about helpers and the connection to Boston)
The death toll statistics for Operation Gothic Serpent really struck me: 19 U.S. dead to possibly 1500 Somalian dead. Of course it's important to note that the U.S. had superior technology and trained commandos, while the Somalians were simply civilians running around with guns, but it's still a shocking and horrific ratio. It goes to show how elite the U.S. troops were. I also found it interesting from the readings how when the U.S. transferred power in Somalia to the UN, everything fell apart. In regards to the U.S., one quote that rather stood out to me was this: "In a country where the United States, perhaps naively, expected some measure of gratitude for its help, its forces received increasing hostility as they became more deeply embroiled into trying to establish a stable government." (The U.S. Army in Somalia, pg. 26) Bridging off of that, I also thought it was interesting how Jones said, when questioned about his actions in Somalia, "You'll have to ask the president...I don't know what we were doing." These different quotes reminded me somewhat of Vietnam, though there wasn't communism to blame.
As for Black Hawk Down... I watched it, unaware that it was an "R" rated film, though that quickly became apparent. While the graphic imagery was definitely disturbing, I found the film to be quite powerful. The message and mannerisms of the soldiers reminded me of the Vietnam lit. we read for Mrs. G. On a lighter note, I found it quite humorous to see so many well known English actors using American accents.
@Jacqui I agree about Gordon and Shughart. Their last stand was also epically portrayed in the Black Hawk Down movie. Lots of pathos! (It was cool to make all the connections between the film and the readings, it was quite an accurate movie!)
A line that really stood out to me from the film in relation to the soldiers' willingness to sacrifice was, "It's about the men next to you and that's it." (Black Hawk Down)
I think these two readings were very interesting, especially "The CIA in Somalia." I think it really showed that (like Corrine's thesis said) communication is vital in government operations. There where many things that went wrong because of the lack of communication. Several missions where compromised because the agents where not informed of changes, or new developments/problems. They also had very little to work with as the country was in a total state of disarray. I also think it is interesting how the CIA bashed their representatives in Somalia after they did the best they could with the information they had. When James sent a truthful report about what he saw in Somalia, and what the policies of the US where, he saw they didn't match up and suggested the government to re think them. The response he got was not encouraging but reprimanding. He saw what the government could not and yet they did not listen. Not only did the government not listen to Jones, but they never filled him in on the other operations that where going on as well. And he never really knew what the armed forces where doing there.
This was an interesting reading. It’s hard to say if America was right in going to Somalia or not. I mean if they hadn’t gone thousands of people would have starved, but it didn’t seem like many people in Somalia wanted American help in the first place. Neither one of the readings seemed to say whether America’s involvement in Somalia was a good thing or not. Also a lot of American soldiers died because of their involvement in Somalia. One part I did like in the reading was the part about Gordon and Shughart. Like Jacqui said I admired their sacrifice.
This war reminded me of the Vietnam war a bit. In both wars the U.S. went in with good intentions and came out defeated. The war in Somalia definitely had a better result, though. The military operation may have been a failure, but it didn't get out of control like Vietnam did. The success of the humanitarian effort alone made it better than Vietnam.
Was the Somalia conflict right? At this point, the Cold War was over. It's interesting that the US doesn't step down from operations in foreign countries. In past studies, we saw the CIA and Military ordered into countries because the race was on against the KGB and the Soviets. In 1993 however, the USSR had already collapsed and we see the US not in a struggle with a sworn enemy, but with a foreign warlord. I thought the CIA in Somalia reading was interesting. I've never thought of CIA operatives suffering from post-traumatic stress. It makes sense now, but I always connected unrest as strictly a military affect. After seeing Argo this week, I can see how stress would be a problem. On the other hand, post-military stress makes sense too. Even before seeing Black Hawk Down it was easy to see how understanding friends getting ripped apart by bullets, crashing noises, and the inhuman suppression of emotions demanded of soldiers could contribute to problems after the battle. While my problems are not nearly those of the CIA or the Military, I think I can connect more with CIA stress. Unless I ever fight in the military, I don't think I could understand (a common theme in both the film and in All Quiet on the Western Front).
@Ian: Although we had superior technology, we were vastly outnumbered. I think the Somalian's liked RPGs.
I think its interesting (maybe even comical) that Osama Bin Laden used Gothic Serpent as an example of America's weakness which he used as a springboard to plan 9/11. It's interesting because all though the attack resulted in America withdrawing its forces, they only suffered 19 casualties to the Somali's one thousand-plus losses(a ratio of roughly 2:50). We also saw this in the Six Days war where Israeli losses were minimal relative to the combined losses of the Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians. However, the reading commented that the smaller Israeli losses was still a relatively tough blow to the Israeli military. I'm not sure if this is because in both the attacks, the "good guys" military ability was so substantial, that even numbers that low were significant, or because of their military numbers as a whole compared to their highly-numerous adversaries.
P.S., just scrolled up to see Ian basically commented on the same thing...Oh well--I'm to lazy to change it.
@Max and Ryan, We've been asking that question a lot lately, haven't we? We seem to address this question in the same manner each time more or less, that is, relative to what was happening in the Cold War at the time, or what could of happened without American intervention. I suppose one way we haven't really looked at the Cold War is from the point of view of the question: "is war in general, even for a 'good' cause, right?" We discussed this partially in our "All Quiet" discussions, but I figured I post it again for all to ponder. I'm just that evil I suppose.
"Americans consider themselves to be a compassionate people, and the United States Army has a long tradition of humanitarian relief operations both within and outside the continental United States." That quote from the US Army brochure continues to describe the United States as a country, even today. We strive -- too much, sometimes -- to help underlying countries to get out of whatever financial, political, etc. rut they might be in. Supplying the starving Somalians was no exception. I marvel at how once the US' aid came to Somalia, all these other countries (Canada, France, Australia, etc.) came to help the Somalians, and how the warlords were just like "Okay, we'll comply with each other -- for now."
It's like, once the US comes in, overshadowing everything like a typical cartoon bully standing behind a small child, everything and everyone falls into place immediately.
Even with all the conflicts going on in the country, the majority of the soldiers kept their cool; only killing if absolutely necessary. In the case of the man with his sunglasses.. That's just a shame. When Aideed decided to begin crushing the different forces, the US reacted in a rational, yet forceful manner, throughout the entire experience.
@Mark: You can always count on someone to point out the smallest failures just to make someone look bad.
15 comments:
To quote one of the readings: “The United States entered Somalia in December 1992 to stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Although it succeeded in this mission, the chaotic political situation of that unhappy land bogged down U.S. and allied forces in what became, in effect, a poorly organized United Nations nation-building operation.” I had the exact same thought as I was reading. I was wondering about what would have happened if the U.S. had not gotten involved politically, if in fact that was possible. Both readings told stories just full of one defeat after another. It was kind of depressing, especially when I considered what happened to Jones and Spinelli after they left Somalia. In the end, the order that the U.S. and U.N. sought was not there in Somalia. Rival warlords continued to fight. Normally, we’ve seen successes on the part of the anti-Communists forces against the Communists. Here, in a situation were just chaos is in control, metaphorically speaking, it’s a no-win situation. I found that to be very interesting. I’ve heard it said that “the thing about chaos…it’s fair.” That means chaos happens to everyone; it’s not limited to just a few people. But it’s things like this that make me see that, no, it isn’t that fair. Because we maintain it. Without us, there is no chaos. So…does that mean the U.S. just made the situation worse in Somalia? If we hadn’t gotten involved politically, American soldiers would not have died there. That seems certain. But did we honestly help anything in getting involved in that area? That’s what I want to know.
I loved reading in the stories of the Americans who received Medals of Honor. It was cool to hear their story. it was also very interesting to read more about the CIA in "the CIA in Somalia"
Nate I wondered the same thing. Something that I thought was interesting from both of the readings was that they never said if it was a good thing or not. Both readings focused a lot on the negative side. They described how many Americans or U.N. peacemakers were killed. Particularly "The CIA in Somalia" described a lot of negatives. It showed how those involved did not do well in communication and how Jones and Spinelli were affected horribly afterward. It was disappointing how unsuccessful the U.S. and the U.N. were. But if we did save "hundreds of thousands of people" then it would have been worth it. But what happened to those people when we left? Did we really save that many people or did we just helped them survive a little bit longer?
A quote that struck me from the same reading as Nate was, "But the best soldiers in the world can only lay the foundation for peace; they cannot create peace itself." The intentions of America were good, but I agree with the article, it doesn't seem like creating peace is possible in a foreign culture, especially in a country like Somalia. I think America made a positive impact with stopping the starvation issue, but whether or not their involvement had an overall positive result, I can't say. The nation didn't become a peaceful one afterwards. From the movie, I got a sense that the Somalians didn't want America there. One guy says near the beginning (can't remember his name) "This is civil war. This is our war. Not yours.” Although it appears America helped with the starvation issue, it seems the Somalians were unhappy with American presence in the country.
It's so hard to tell if America did any good in Somalia. And why were we there helping if the Somalians didn't want us there? I think America should have let Somalia fight their own civil war. This could be incredibly wrong because I don't understand politics and whatnot, but it seems like America often gets involved in things that it should have no part in.
Wow interesting reading. I like reading the same story but from two different accounts. Gives you multiple perspectives. I agree with cristy about the whole "negativity thing" but I suppose that is to be expected, I mean, look how it turned out for the two guys in the "CIA in Somalia" reading. But despite all this negativity there is this thing that I love about America. It likes to help were it can. I think America did the right thing. Mr. Rogers said to, "look for the helpers," meaning in small catastrophes (Boston bombing for example) but I think that this is also true on national levels. When I look for the helpers I often see America. Although it did not work right in the end at least we tried. At least America is good in someways right.
“Greater love has no man than this that he lay down his life for his friends.” I love this scripture and the remembrance that Jesus, because of His love that surpasses knowledge, sacrificed Himself for us. I enjoyed reading about how Gordon and Shughart, the men who received the Medal of Honor, lived this verse, giving up their lives to save others. Their service inspires me. I see the contrast between those who sacrifice themselves and those who serve themselves. And right now even though I’m not literally laying down my lives for my friends, Christ still wants me to get my mind off myself and my selfish desires and live as a sacrifice!
I see America as a helper too. And Rob the other day I heard Mr. Roger’s quote on the radio! (and was gonna post about helpers and the connection to Boston)
The death toll statistics for Operation Gothic Serpent really struck me: 19 U.S. dead to possibly 1500 Somalian dead. Of course it's important to note that the U.S. had superior technology and trained commandos, while the Somalians were simply civilians running around with guns, but it's still a shocking and horrific ratio. It goes to show how elite the U.S. troops were. I also found it interesting from the readings how when the U.S. transferred power in Somalia to the UN, everything fell apart. In regards to the U.S., one quote that rather stood out to me was this: "In a country where the United States, perhaps naively, expected some measure of gratitude for its help, its forces received increasing hostility as they became more deeply embroiled into trying to establish a stable government." (The U.S. Army in Somalia, pg. 26) Bridging off of that, I also thought it was interesting how Jones said, when questioned about his actions in Somalia, "You'll have to ask the president...I don't know what we were doing." These different quotes reminded me somewhat of Vietnam, though there wasn't communism to blame.
As for Black Hawk Down...
I watched it, unaware that it was an "R" rated film, though that quickly became apparent. While the graphic imagery was definitely disturbing, I found the film to be quite powerful. The message and mannerisms of the soldiers reminded me of the Vietnam lit. we read for Mrs. G. On a lighter note, I found it quite humorous to see so many well known English actors using American accents.
@Jacqui
I agree about Gordon and Shughart. Their last stand was also epically portrayed in the Black Hawk Down movie. Lots of pathos! (It was cool to make all the connections between the film and the readings, it was quite an accurate movie!)
A line that really stood out to me from the film in relation to the soldiers' willingness to sacrifice was, "It's about the men next to you and that's it." (Black Hawk Down)
I think these two readings were very interesting, especially "The CIA in Somalia." I think it really showed that (like Corrine's thesis said) communication is vital in government operations. There where many things that went wrong because of the lack of communication. Several missions where compromised because the agents where not informed of changes, or new developments/problems. They also had very little to work with as the country was in a total state of disarray.
I also think it is interesting how the CIA bashed their representatives in Somalia after they did the best they could with the information they had. When James sent a truthful report about what he saw in Somalia, and what the policies of the US where, he saw they didn't match up and suggested the government to re think them. The response he got was not encouraging but reprimanding. He saw what the government could not and yet they did not listen. Not only did the government not listen to Jones, but they never filled him in on the other operations that where going on as well. And he never really knew what the armed forces where doing there.
This was an interesting reading. It’s hard to say if America was right in going to Somalia or not. I mean if they hadn’t gone thousands of people would have starved, but it didn’t seem like many people in Somalia wanted American help in the first place. Neither one of the readings seemed to say whether America’s involvement in Somalia was a good thing or not. Also a lot of American soldiers died because of their involvement in Somalia. One part I did like in the reading was the part about Gordon and Shughart. Like Jacqui said I admired their sacrifice.
This war reminded me of the Vietnam war a bit. In both wars the U.S. went in with good intentions and came out defeated. The war in Somalia definitely had a better result, though. The military operation may have been a failure, but it didn't get out of control like Vietnam did. The success of the humanitarian effort alone made it better than Vietnam.
Was the Somalia conflict right? At this point, the Cold War was over. It's interesting that the US doesn't step down from operations in foreign countries.
In past studies, we saw the CIA and Military ordered into countries because the race was on against the KGB and the Soviets. In 1993 however, the USSR had already collapsed and we see the US not in a struggle with a sworn enemy, but with a foreign warlord.
I thought the CIA in Somalia reading was interesting. I've never thought of CIA operatives suffering from post-traumatic stress. It makes sense now, but I always connected unrest as strictly a military affect. After seeing Argo this week, I can see how stress would be a problem.
On the other hand, post-military stress makes sense too. Even before seeing Black Hawk Down it was easy to see how understanding friends getting ripped apart by bullets, crashing noises, and the inhuman suppression of emotions demanded of soldiers could contribute to problems after the battle. While my problems are not nearly those of the CIA or the Military, I think I can connect more with CIA stress. Unless I ever fight in the military, I don't think I could understand (a common theme in both the film and in All Quiet on the Western Front).
@Ian: Although we had superior technology, we were vastly outnumbered. I think the Somalian's liked RPGs.
I think its interesting (maybe even comical) that Osama Bin Laden used Gothic Serpent as an example of America's weakness which he used as a springboard to plan 9/11. It's interesting because all though the attack resulted in America withdrawing its forces, they only suffered 19 casualties to the Somali's one thousand-plus losses(a ratio of roughly 2:50). We also saw this in the Six Days war where Israeli losses were minimal relative to the combined losses of the Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians. However, the reading commented that the smaller Israeli losses was still a relatively tough blow to the Israeli military. I'm not sure if this is because in both the attacks, the "good guys" military ability was so substantial, that even numbers that low were significant, or because of their military numbers as a whole compared to their highly-numerous adversaries.
P.S., just scrolled up to see Ian basically commented on the same thing...Oh well--I'm to lazy to change it.
@Max and Ryan, We've been asking that question a lot lately, haven't we? We seem to address this question in the same manner each time more or less, that is, relative to what was happening in the Cold War at the time, or what could of happened without American intervention. I suppose one way we haven't really looked at the Cold War is from the point of view of the question: "is war in general, even for a 'good' cause, right?" We discussed this partially in our "All Quiet" discussions, but I figured I post it again for all to ponder. I'm just that evil I suppose.
Cheers,
-Mark
"Americans consider themselves to be a compassionate people, and the United States Army has a long tradition of humanitarian relief operations both within and outside the continental United States." That quote from the US Army brochure continues to describe the United States as a country, even today. We strive -- too much, sometimes -- to help underlying countries to get out of whatever financial, political, etc. rut they might be in. Supplying the starving Somalians was no exception. I marvel at how once the US' aid came to Somalia, all these other countries (Canada, France, Australia, etc.) came to help the Somalians, and how the warlords were just like "Okay, we'll comply with each other -- for now."
It's like, once the US comes in, overshadowing everything like a typical cartoon bully standing behind a small child, everything and everyone falls into place immediately.
Even with all the conflicts going on in the country, the majority of the soldiers kept their cool; only killing if absolutely necessary. In the case of the man with his sunglasses.. That's just a shame. When Aideed decided to begin crushing the different forces, the US reacted in a rational, yet forceful manner, throughout the entire experience.
@Mark: You can always count on someone to point out the smallest failures just to make someone look bad.
Post a Comment