Somalia - same as usual

[A Can of Man]

I came across this CNN article

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/12/somalia2.aidworkers/index.html
(CNN) -- Three aid workers have been shot over the last day in Somalia, two of them fatally, Somali media reports said.

Somalis prepare Monday to bury murdered Osman Ali Ahmed, the head of the U.N. Development Program.

The first fatality was a Somali, Mohamed Mohamud Qeyre. He was the deputy director of the group Daryeel Bulasho Guud (DBG), funded by a German company and affiliated with the group Bread for the World.
Qeyre was shot in the Somali capital of Mogadishu Friday night in what appeared to be a targeted attack, the reports said. He was shot by three gunmen outside the facility where aid distribution is coordinated. The gunmen may have been staking out the facility waiting for Qeyre to exit.
The head of DBG, in Nairobi, Kenya, said he will suspend all aid operations in Somalia for the time being.
The second fatality was a member of the Sodra nongovernmental organization, which is helping with humanitarian efforts in Somalia. Officials said it appears that Ali Baashi was also specifically targeted by gunmen.


Earlier this week, the World Food Program said a truck driver carrying its relief supplies was killed -- the fourth WFP driver killed in Somalia this year. Ahmed Saalim was shot when fighting broke out between convoy escorts and militiamen at a checkpoint, the U.N. aid agency said.
A growing percentage of the Somali population has become dependent on humanitarian aid. A severe famine swept the nation in 1991-1993, devastating crops, killing up to 280,000 people and displacing up to 2 million, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The situation has been exacerbated by drought, continual armed conflicts in central and southern Somalia and high inflation on food and fuel.

-----------------------------------------------

It really does make you wonder if any of this stuff makes a difference.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

My father was with the first german soldiers who went into Somalia with the UN, it was the first mission abroad for german troops.
Hearing this i wonder if things can be changed... and if it mattered that my father was there... risking his life.

 

[A Can of Man]

If it didn't make a difference over there, it makes a difference back home. You bring back lessons from the experience and your force becomes better from it. It will save lives later on. Yes, I'd say it mattered.

 

[MontyB]

If it didn't make a difference over there, it makes a difference back home. You bring back lessons from the experience and your force becomes better from it. It will save lives later on. Yes, I'd say it mattered.

I am not going to disagree with you but I think over all it makes no difference what so ever, sending people in to build a nation when the people of that nation clearly are not on board with the program remains a complete waste of lives, money, time and resources.

I am of the opinion that all of the "stable" nations of this world are in this position because that is what the people themselves wanted not because someone showed up and dumped a ton of food on their doorstep.

 

[A Can of Man]

Monty, I didn't say it made a difference in Somalia. I said it made a difference to the German Army.

 

[MontyB]

Monty, I didn't say it made a difference in Somalia. I said it made a difference to the German Army.

And I agree it makes a difference from the participants perspective and I have no doubt that the people that receive help notice the difference as well I just question the effectiveness of the assistance programs as a whole.

 

[A Can of Man]

Without unity and stability on the part of the country being helped, it is all useless.

 

[AikiRooster]

The problem is the screwballs doing the unnecessary combat are screwing things up for those that do want a better life there at home. For those that want piece and are not killing folks, it's good for the UN to be there but if they leave, then it's back to the same misery they had before. The UN ought to not half ass missions like they love to do. If they aren't going to fight for whats right they shouldn't have gone in the first place. As usual, the UN looks pathetic and extremely weak.

 

[A Can of Man]

When one's own survival isn't an issue, often missions are simply there to give the illusion of taking action.

 

[KJ]

Somalia is a terrible place to live and/or operate.

I´m partial to the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he can eat every day."

That does however require them to stop killing eachother for the period of time it takes to learn how to fish...

 

[WARMUNGER]

I think Somalia will never change until one of the militia's take control so i believe if we really want peace in Somalia we should aid one of the militia's until they take over the country then it would be less fighting but i steal think there would be some fighting .

 

[major liability]

I don't think we should even get involved with a country at war with itself until it settles down and finds a leader. Unless there's genocide going on.

 

[AikiRooster]

Shouldn't get involved if we're not going to do it right. The belly aching when times get tough should not be justification for surrender. Unless it's 110% all the way, we ought to stay out of it.

 

[Gunner13]

You also need to have a very clear idea of what it is you are trying to do (what is the endstate you want to achieve) and how you want to do that (what tools will you use and how)?

Just going in (as the Clinton Administration did), to relieve the suffering and end the madness (or something to that effect) will not get it done. You face the very real possibility of wasting your time, treasure and (most importantly!) your Soldier's lives by not having clear objectives and a strategy to achieve them.

 

[A Can of Man]

The objective is everything. Without it, all action is meaningless.

 

[MontyB]

I don't think we should even get involved with a country at war with itself until it settles down and finds a leader. Unless there's genocide going on.

But this is the problem the UN has, it cant act decisively unless its member states are unified and the chances of that are next to nil, it cant criticise Israel because America wont allow that, it cant criticise the Palestinians because the Russian and now the Chinese wont allow that, it cant get involved in Rwanda because the US wont use the word genoside, it cant get involved in the Balkans because thats a Russian sphere of influence.

Until such times as the right of veto is removed and the UN's decision making processes are moved to a majority vote or similar structure the UN just has to stick to aid programs.

 

[mmarsh]

I think Monty hit the nail on the head.

The Veto power of the permanent five is a major obstacle to getting anything done. Russia, UK. France, China, and the USA are so ideologically different thats impossible for them to agree on anything. A simple majority rules is a better solution.

 

[AikiRooster]

No it's not. The only way that would be somewhat ok is if we didn't put the most resources into it. If the majority go against us and we put more into the UN like we do, that gives those idiots control of our tax money. No way. Unless they only take money from people like you two that support that.

 

[A Can of Man]

A majority rule is a fairer solution as well.
Who says these countries should call all the shots in an organization that is supposed to be equal?

I know it's not perfect but there could be a funding policy. You have to pay so much to be a full voting member and any more money comes from donations. String-free donations.

 

[AikiRooster]

when they start putting in equal resources as we do, then I could see that being a valid argument.