Tuesday, January 09, 2007

US aids Ethiopia and Somalia with air strikes on the jihadis

US attack helicopter gunships went after al Qaeda jihadis fighters in southern Somalia today near the Kenya border in further evidence of US support for the Ethiopia/interim Somali government offensive.

Over 30 jihadis are reported to have been killed.

As I've mentioned before, this is part of a proxy war in East Africa between the US backed forces and the Iran backed Islamic Courts.

There was a great dealof speculation as to whether US forces were actually involved, but the Pentagon confirmed US involvement in the air strike.

One of the big targets, of course was al Qaeda’s East African leader, Abdullah Fazul, from the Comoro Islands, as well as Ali Saleh Nabhan, from Kenya, and Abu Taha al-Sudani, from Sudan. Fazul is wanted for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the 1996 Ethiopian Airline hijack in which four Israeli air industry directors and 3 Israeli civilians were murdered; the Oct. 2000 ramming of the USS Cole in Aden Harbor which cost the lives of 19 US seamen, as well as the 2002 coordinated air-missiles attacks on the Mombasa Paradise hotel and the Israeli Arkia airliner bringing Israelis to the hotel.

Earlier, Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf told journalists in the capital, Mogadishu, that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania" and that the strikes have his support.

Col. Shino Moalin Nur, a Somali military commander, told the AP by telephone late Tuesday that at least one U.S. AC-130 gunship attacked a suspected al Qaeda training camp Sunday on a remote island at the southern tip of Somalia.

Yesterday, Nur said, more U.S. airstrikes were launched against jihadis in Hayi, 30 miles from Afmadow.

The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is now sitting off the Somali coast, and aside from the heliocopter gunships has put Navy SEALS ashore to help round up and capture or otherwise eliminate the jihadis who fled for the Kenya border after being driven out by the Ethiopian/Somali military offensive.

All in all, a setback for jihad and for Iran....


Anonymous said...

let me see if i got this right or not........
five years after AQ attacked the USA we are involved in a pissy ass proxy war?
is that it?
put clinton back in charge.
hell, he would do more than the saudi lap dog we got now.
one thing that ff did not address. i bet the saudi lap dog was trying to cover up the USA involvement in any attack for fear of hurting someones feelings or some such. if the saudi royal family finds out about this, i bet they jerk his chain and put him back in his place.
they probably got 41 on the phone and chewed his ass but good.
this is bullshit.
put the marines on the ground and tell them to kill people.
and make damn sure they run out of people before ammo.

Anonymous said...

Louie, many people thought that we should have liberated Hungary in 1956 from the Soviets.

I guess we're lucky that cooler heads prevailed, no?

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Y'all!
Louie, I disagree with you, old buddy. This is one of those things Bush has done exactly right, and as different from Clinton's non-approach as can be, IMO.

You may have read my article about how Iran was backing the Islamic Courts and how various Somali jihadis actually fought in Lebanon with Hezbollah. They have suffered defeat and humiliation here.

The whole plan for the jihad in East Africa, as I've been writing for months was for Sudan to mop up in Darfur so that Ethiopia could be attacked fromtwo directions...and then Kenya and Tanzania would have been next.

The Ethiopians, with or without Bush's prodding chose not to wait for the trap to spring and that strategy has now been disrupted, with al Qaeda and Iran's entire operation in East Africa in jeopardy. It's no coincidence that the Sudan has stopped its military assault on Darfur and now wants their pal, NM governor Bill Richardson to come over to `negotiate'.

I might also point out that the Ethiopians and their Somali allies aren't subject to the ridiculous `rules of engagement' our troops are unfortunately saddled with, and they're killing the jihadis like vermin.

And we're helping them with the logistics and the tools for the job.

That's way different from sending US forces in without heavy weapons and zero back up ala' Clinton.

What we're doing in Somalia is precisely what we should be doing in Iraq, with the Kurds as allies. And in Gaza, with the Israelis.

Hi Nazar!

I can appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. As we now know from perusing the Soviet archives, the Russians were astounded that we didn't warn them off intervening in Hungary. They would have backed off, just as they did every time we forcefully confronted them.

Hungary would have been free, and the Cold War over a lot quicker.

Here's some irony for you - compare our non-response to the Russians with our threatening of England, France and Israel when they intervened in Suez in the same year to reopen the Suez Canal (and in Israel's case, to end Egyptian sponsored comando raids on their territory and confront Nasser's obvious build up for war).

The Tzahal completely destroyed three Egyptian armies armed with the best and latest gear the Soviets could provide and reached the Canal in 100 hours. They then prepared to link up with the British and French expeditions, who were on the Canal.

The complete destruction of the Egyptian military (and Nasser) was only prevented by Eisenhower directly threatening Israel, Britain and France if they didn't withdraw..which they did.

So the whole game had to be replayed 11 years later, after Nasser rebuilt.

( I recommend Colonel Robert Henriques fine book `100 hours to Suez' for further info)

Evil MUST be confronted and defeated when it comes your way.

`If you would have peace, prepare for war' - Juvenal


Anonymous said...

we may disagree, but as i read this comment:

I might also point out that the Ethiopians and their Somali allies aren't subject to the ridiculous `rules of engagement' our troops are unfortunately saddled with, and they're killing the jihadis like vermin.

you are making my point for me.
why do we have these ridiculous rules of engagement?

to paraphrase your comment, the last sentence should read, "killing the jihadis like marines do."

Freedom Fighter said...

No disagreement there, Louie!

I could do a whole essay on the sources of the current Rules of Engagement handcuffing our soldiers and marines.

A lot of it comes down to President Bush's chimerical (hey, now there's a word for ya) fantasies about `Arab democracy' and `hearts and minds'...and of course, not ticking his friends among the Saudis and the UAE off.

Bush is simply not a war president, but I guess for the next two years we make do.

Unless the dems impeach him, which is a distinct possibility.

Dick Cheney might do some astonishing things as president...

Anonymous said...

I don't buy this theory that the Soviets wouldn't have responded to a liberation of Hungary. You do realize that to even get to Hungary, we would have had to go through East Germany and Czechoslovakia, all of it controlled by the Soviets?

Hungary was in the Soviet sphere of influence. US invading Hungary would be akin to a Soviet invasion of Canada. The only viable option, in my opinion, would be all out war. And in any case, would Hungary be worth all the casualties that it would have surely incurred? I don't know what those much-taunted documents say, but a gamble is a gamble.

And I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of gambling with nukes.

If that still doesn't convince you, then let me rephrase my initial comment to our friend Louie: In 1950, some people thought that we should have invaded China when it fell to the communists.

Now surely you can't argue with that!

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Nazar...how's it goin'?

A couple of things.

a)First of all, I never spoke about an `invasion of Hungary'. A mere stern warning to the Soviets would have sufficed - and, BTW, that's not a theory. It comes right out of the Soviet archives, which we've had access to since the fall of the Soviet empire, and which Putin is now rapidly barring outside access to.

b)I think a number of Hungarians might just be a bit steamed about you referring to their country as `in the Soviet sphere of influence.' Hungary was a slave state,occupied by the communists. Tell me, was the Ukraine in the Soviet Union part of the `sphere of influence' and did they voluntarily endure the famine Stalin deliberately created by shipping all the food out of the country and then closing the borders to bring them to heel back in the 1920's?

c) Are you seriously comparing a sovereign nation like Canada to an occupied country like Hungary?

d) Lastly..umm..had we needed to send troops into Hungary in 1956, there's a leetle country called Austria right next door, which just happened to have US and British bases already there.

There are people I know who walked across this border to escape the communists after the Soviets sent the tanks in to crush the rebellion.

Quod et demonstradum, my friend.

And, to reiterate, postponing the confrontation with evil only prolongs things.

Have a good one!


Anonymous said...

Oh, boy, I do believe this will be another of our roller-coaster debates.

A) A stern warning? And what exactly would that accomplish, unless backed up by force that we're willing to use?

We gave stern warnings to North Korea and Iran, and somehow, they don't seem to be urinating themselves out of fear. Nor abandoning their nuclear programs.

B)I think you just proved my argument about Hungary being in the Soviet sphere of influence with your statement that it was a slave state. Did Hungary or Ukraine want to be under Soviet control? No. Were they? Yes. Remember the Warsaw Pact? Therefore, I think you could say quite accurately that Hungary was in the Soviet sphere of influence.

C)What I was alluding to was that America would not tolerate a Soviet invasion of Canada just as the USSR would not tolerate an American invasion of Hungary, regardless of what those documents may say. Hey, we didn't tolerate ICBMs in Cuba, right? Or Socialists in Nicaragua.

D) No, I believe we would have to take out East Germany and Czechoslovakia first. Otherwise our lines of communication would be open to enemy forces, and any general will tell you that's a big no-no.

I agree with you that evil has to confronted, but there are different ways to do it. Outright war isn't the first option I would take, I think it's better to try different approaches that will cost less lives and money.

Freedom Fighter said...


Your first point is indeed correct. bellicose rhetoric without the force to back it up is worthless..which is exactly why N. Korea and Iran take the President's warnings with a grain of salt.

I mean, when you call another country the axis of evil and do squat about it...

I don't concede the last point, my friend. The Soviets would never have dared to attack us. Remember how devastated much of inhabited Russia still was, a mere decade after WWII.

They would have folded, just as they did every time we forcefully confronted them.

I'll let you have the last word...