Skip to comments.McCain Argues for U.S. Troop Withdrawl from Somalia
Posted on 02/10/2008 2:42:27 PM PST by pissant
Senator McCain argues for immediate troop withdrawal from Somalia 1993.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Man... hold on.
Who here on this site wasn’t against the whole going into Somalia in the first place? I was 7 so i don’t count. Lots of people were against this, including George “No nation building” W Bush.
I’m not supporting McCain here I’m just saying for the sake of this forum : Stick to logical arguments or just admit you all just hate everyone who isn’t Reagan.
If McCain was for Food and Water, they would be against it. LOL!
This needs a closer look.
It was a mistake to send the troops there in the first place, for a so-called “humanitarian mission.” The liberals twisted Bush I’s arm until he agreed to do it.
Then when clinton came in he expanded the mission but refused to supply the armor needed to protect our troops. The result was a disastrous humiliation.
If McCain said we should withdraw THEN, he was wrong. We were wrong to go there, but we were also wrong to pull out like defeated cowards. Famously, that inspired Osama bin Ladin to think that America was weak, thus leading to 9/11.
Well Reagan also withdrew from Lebanon after the attacks on our Marines.
McCain wants to pull our troops out of Somalia?
Good for him.
Even a blind pig will root up an acorn now and then.
Pull them out now.
McCain voted against sending troops to Lebanon in his first term as U.S. Rep. And although he supported the Gulf War Resolution, he voted against sending troops to drive Saddam's army out of Kuwait.
Quote from speech given by McCain in 1983:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."
Wrong. He voted yea:
It was a mistake to go in. Your trying to paint McCain with Clinton’s mistakes are you? Don’t really care for either man but your argument should at least make sense. It would have better for our interests to stay in there until 2000 to stabilize the situation in that country? Why? Your down for going into Darfur I take it?
Stick to logical arguments or just admit you all just hate everyone who isnt Reagan.
Attacking and/or baiting people isn't really a very good argument.
I was too. I am against all use of the military for foreign "humanitarian" operations where a conflict exists.
Another similar dark chapter that you might want to study is the ill fated Iranian hostage rescue mission. (http://iran.theatlantic.com/interactive_article_page_1.html)where Carter cut back the amount of equipment the military asked for resulting in a terrible disaster.
Lesson - give the guys what they ask for.
One can mark that as a major milestone in the rise of Al Queda--with the removal of the Shah of Iran by Jimmy Carter being the first. Serious profile in cowardice by Ronaldus Magnus--in great part thanks to Caspar Weinberger.
McCain wanted out of there because it was a waste of good men in an under supported mission that the country didn’t want. Is there anyone on this site who remembers thinking anything different? Okay sure plenty of us probably thought unleashing some serious air power will show those people but this whole mission was a humanitarian thing to make us look good.
Want to talk about the political situation today? The thing to attack McCain on would be where he was when Clinton gutted the armed forces and where he was when we went into Iraq undermanned.
Thanks that's correct. That is some of the relevancy.
Would you rather they fought us over here? I thought not.
Let’s say we want to commit forces in some place or places, but we don’t want to use our military, for various reasons.
Why doesn’t the US create, or at least subcontract, a mercenary army to do these dirty jobs? Here’s the logic.
Either creating some force like the French Foreign Legion, or keeping a company like Blackwater on retainer, in either case, quartered outside of the United States, most likely on a Caribbean or Aleutian island, or both, for hot and cold weather operations. Here are the advantages:
1) Controlled by the US, or its subcontractor. Perhaps staffed with US military Officers, like the FFL, or prior service US NCOs and Officers.
2) Its enlisted personnel do not have to be US citizens. We can recruit the best and the brightest, such as Ghurkas, Sihks, Samoans, and others. US citizenship is not an issue.
3) Such a light infantry brigade would be for two primary purposes: extended humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can go places where our military cannot, and be under UN leadership if needed, without being a problem. If the UN misuses them, they end their contract and leave.
4) This would cost just a fraction of a US military unit, yet be transportable and supported by the US military, being given whatever equipment they needed only when they needed it.
5) Command, Control, and Communications would be selectively integrated with US military standards, so the US military could direct and coordinate with the mercenaries, but they could not tap into US military communications uninvited.
If we had such an organization available, right now, it could replace much of our forces in Bosnia, it could have been used in Darfur, it might be part of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, or available for any humanitarian relief operation that the US was willing to pay to involve itself in.
One other possibility. Given the tremendous amount of training and experience they have, such a mercenary army could be formed in *Iraq*, from Iraqis, specifically for intervention in Muslim nations. It could even be divided into a Sunni unit and a Shiite unit.
Strangely enough, it could recruit heavily vetted foreign Muslims, who had already trained with US forces, from Egypt and Turkey, and possibly one or two other nations, to provide a Muslim intervention force for the entire Muslim world.
Such an organization could have marked advantages. For example, its Sunni unit could be a major barrier between Hezbollah and Israel. It could also be used as a peacekeeping force *inside* Gaza or the West Bank, disarming and keeping the peace, as well as stopping attacks against Israel.
Unlike Iraq’s Army, its purpose would be to project force and order to other countries. (Quite possibly under US CCC, I might add.)
We weren’t fighting a war on terror or against Muslims back then. It was a “humanitarian” mission, urged by the liberals and the press, whose purpose was to hand out food and medical help to people who were starving.
Bush did not support one warlord over another; it was clinton who decided that one of the warlords was meaner than the other ones. At the time, this was referred to as “mission creep.”
We had no intention of fighting anyone, but it predictably drifted into that. When it did, clinton pulled out.
Bump for later.
I tried to find a Bill number for anything to do with the actual deployment of troops to Kuwait and came up empty-handed. And there probably never was a specific Resolution that dealt with troops being sent there, since the deployment was ordered when Congress was on summer vacation, and few knew about it until after the fact.
I found an August 19, 1990 New York Times article titled: "Largest U.S. Force Since Vietnam is Committed in a 15-Day Flurry" by Michael Wines. Here is an excerpt dealing with McCain's comments:
"Most public figures scrambled to support the President's decision, but a handful of supporters like Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is on the Armed Services Committee, have begun raising the first caution flags about the operations."
"I think we'll stand it for a long period of time, as long as there are not casualties," Mr. McCain said in a telephone interview from Arizona. "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
I apologize because the information I had was wrong about a specific deployment vote. I have read elsewhere that he was against sending ground troops in, but supported air strikes in their place. He was also against going into Baghdad and finishing the job in '90.
That's what I was thinking
My initial thought was this is not going to go good.
the mistakes were compounded when Clinton refused to send the equipment necessary to win the war.....denying the troops via phone call while getting a hummer from monica.
All that led to Black Hawk Down....a cascade of mistakes across two administrations culminating in what I consider criminal inaction by clinton in denying resources.
Our troops were not in Somalia to fight. They went there only to feed the people.
For years now 'conservatives' (I use the term lightly) have excoriated Clinton for precipitously leaving Somalia. They constantly bring up the fact that Osama bin Laden specifically referred to the pullout from Somalia and said "that's when I knew America had no stomach for a fight" to show Clinton's folly and weakness.
Now that their favorite RINO is exposed as cut from the same foreign policy cloth as Slick they want to rewrite history. That pig won't fly.
Thank you, pissant.
GHW Bush sent our troops into Somalia.
Your trying to paint McCain with Clintons mistakes are you?
In the video McCain is arguing to do what Clinton did and has been criticized for by conservatives and Republicans ever since.