How would 'over the horizon' counterterrorism work in Iraq? Look at Somalia.

Washington Post ^ | May 3rd, 2008 | Editorial

[The_Republican]

TOMAHAWK MISSILES fired by a U.S. Navy ship demolished a house in central Somalia on Thursday and killed a vicious militia leader and al-Qaeda operative. It was a victory for the Bush administration's counterterrorism operations in Africa -- and a demonstration of the limits of a strategy based almost entirely on "over the horizon" military strikes.

Aden Hashi Ayro, the man who was killed, deserved the label of "evildoer." As chief of the extremist al-Shabab militia, he supervised and probably participated in the murder of foreign aid workers, teachers, an Italian nun and a British journalist while directing al-Shabab's insurgency against the shaky, internationally backed Somali government. As al-Qaeda's chief liaison in the Horn of Africa, Mr. Ayro coordinated the movements of militants and money, and he sheltered several of the suspects in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. His death is at least a temporary setback for al-Qaeda and al-Shabab -- which was recently designated a terrorist group by the State Department -- and might even make it easier for more moderate Islamic leaders to participate in peace talks that the United Nations is trying to set up.

But Thursday's U.S. operation had a distinct downside: At least two dozen other people were killed in the attack, some of them apparently

civilians. Al-Shabab responded defiantly, and

Somalia-watchers said new leaders for the militia and al-Qaeda will quickly come forward, while fresh recruits may be gained through a backlash against the American intervention. The attack was the fifth U.S. airstrike in Somalia aimed at individuals with al-Qaeda ties since the beginning of 2007. While at least one other operative was killed, some of the attacks appear to have missed their targets while injuring civilians.

[MCCRon58]

Jack Murtha and his cronies in the DNC don't care about the innocents killed in such operations. The only good war they would approve of is fought from above 15000 feet. And God forbid there be any positive US interest involved.

[Royal Wulff]

How would it fail? Look at Brit experience in Basra. They weren’t over the horizon; they were just outside city limits.

[lp boonie]

I’m not sure killing “civilians” in this case is a downside. Civilian doesn’t translate to innocent. The sh*tbirds were there with the bad guys so adios.

[originalbuckeye]

Agree. The only place the Dems want us to intercede is anyplace that there is no upside for us except humanitarian. Look at Darfur. The Dems wouldn't blink an eye at casualties if they deemed our intercession politically correct.

[MCCRon58]

I disagree. If we went into Darfur, and took casualties, many of the same people who now decry the war in Iraq would do so. For the opposition in many of the camps stem not from any sense of right and wrong, but from a fervent desire that the US not be involved in any conflict in which there is a possibility that things could escalate to the point in which a general call-up of conscripted troop would be necessary.

For they realize that were this to happen, they might be required to get up off their gloriously fat fundiments and have to do something to earn that American citizenship they take so much for granted now.

We forget that it is human nature that we do not value that which is given to us, nearly so much as that which we have earned.

[driftdiver]

Since they are terrorists and not part of a state military aren’t they all technically civilians?

[originalbuckeye]

Understand your point. Why then the outcry to go into Darfur?

[I-ambush]

Because they know we won’t go into Darfur, so they can pontificate without worrying about the consequences?

[enough_idiocy]

Problem is “over the horizon” to Murtha and the democrats meant Japan. That’s not over the horizon, that’s half a world away. There’s no way you could act on intell quickly enough from as far away as the rats want the US.