USA Seeks Right to Bomb terrorists in Kenya

[ORAC]

Twrroroism spreading further throughout Africa....


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-seeks-right-to-bomb-kenya-as-terrorists-spread-xbrm2fpkk

US seeks right to bomb Kenya as terrorists spread

America is seeking clearance to launch drone strikes against Islamic militants operating in Kenya, according to Pentagon sources, as part of efforts to counter jihadists’ growing reach into Africa.

While US forces have used drones against targets in Somalia for several years, launched from a base in Djibouti, the plan to extend operations to Kenya reflects the growing threat from Islamic extremists (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/terrorism). The plan would involve both responding to attacks by militants and launching pre-emptive strikes against targets identified by US intelligence.

It was drawn up in response to the killing of three Americans (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/united-states), two civilian contractors and a US army soldier, earlier this year in an attack on a small American airbase within the supposedly secure perimeter of a Kenyan naval base on the coast.

At the time US commanders scrambled drones, but in the hours that it took for permission for a strike to be given by the Kenyan authorities the attackers had disappeared.

Responsibility for the attack was claimed by al-Shabaab, an Islamist group that originated in Somalia but has sought to spread to neighbouring states including Kenya and Ethiopia.....

Once affiliated with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab has recently aligned itself with Isis, the militant group that has largely been defeated in Syria and Iraq only to re-emerge in Africa.

Isis has seized on an insurgency in northern Mozambique (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jihadists-massacre-villagers-as-mozambique-army-buckles-wsznrx52s) where its fighters are confounding government forces and foreign mercenaries. Scores of locals, including children, who put up resistance or fled have been beheaded or kidnapped.

Isis-linked militants in Kenya have launched raids into Tanzania while further operations have been staged in the lawless, eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo, including a massive jailbreak and clashes with government forces.

US forces in Somalia have carte blanche from the authorities there to carry out airstrikes, which under the Trump administration increased from 46 in 2018 to 63 in 2019, and 47 so far this year.

US drones operating out of Djibouti have also hit a smaller number of militant targets identified in Libya. The aircraft would be at the limit of their operating distance if they went after targets in Kenya which lies about 1,000 miles south of the base.

If a drone base were to be set up in Kenya itself, a significant commitment of resources and manpower would be needed to mitigate extremist attacks against US personnel and infrastructure.

Lieutenant-colonel Anton T Semelroth, a Pentagon spokesman, told The Times: “We are constantly evaluating and — where needed — utilising available authorities and capabilities required to provide force protection.”

American drones were deployed to Niger following the 2017 killing of four US servicemen there by local militants although there have been no confirmed strikes launched by these aircraft.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You would have thought that the headline writers would have said that the Americans want the ability to hit terrorists in Kenya - as opposed to the country and Governnent.

[Flying Hi]

You would have thought that the headline writers would have said that the Americans want the ability to hit terrorists in Kenya - as opposed to the country and Governnent.
​​​​​​But that doesn't sell newspapers.

[Asturias56]

nice of them to ask for a change......................

[ORAC]

Ahh! But in this operation they ask Kenya to pay for it....

https://youtu.be/wy2JZqPACUo

[etudiant]

It seems clear that the various terrorist groups are gaining ground steadily against the various existing governments in Africa, despite extensive Western military efforts.
There does not however appear to be anyone who considers this to be a problem or who has any plan to reverse this trend.
How can the commanders involved in this enterprise accept this?

[ORAC]

How can the commanders involved in this enterprise accept this?


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x463/africa_map_continent_comparison_2199b7d889a9b1ecf1f7b6905246 5aff4386ca32.jpg

[Easy Street]

It seems clear that the various terrorist groups are gaining ground steadily against the various existing governments in Africa, despite extensive Western military efforts.
There does not however appear to be anyone who considers this to be a problem or who has any plan to reverse this trend.
How can the commanders involved in this enterprise accept this?

I think the West has finally realised that open-ended military intervention to prop up weak societies and governments is not a sustainable strategy given budgetary and societal constraints at home. (I note that the report into the Australian SAS war crimes points to the effect of decades of continual activity, for instance.) If weaker societies or governments do not wish to fall then they must strengthen themselves sufficiently (whether by economic, military or ideological means) to resist whatever aggression they are facing, such that any outside assistance can be limited in scope to that which can realistically be provided under the UN banner. If that means Western states putting greater emphasis on defensive measures against the consequences of hostile regimes establishing themselves overseas, including refusing admittance to any resulting waves of refugees, I think a majority of the Western populace would gladly accept that.

This is a hard argument to make and will upset some people, but the easier it is for populations to flee as refugees, the less likely it is that terrorist takeovers can be resisted. 'War among the people' needs the people to stay and fight back, whether as members of their state's security forces, as part of wider societal resistance, eventually as voters in elections, or whatever. Our much-vaunted Western freedoms came about because people didn't flee in the face of repression, gradually secured greater rights, established functioning states, and then fought to defend them - making enormous sacrifices at every step. It's a harsh viewpoint but there we are. Sorry.

[Flying Hi]

- - - including refusing admittance to any resulting waves of refugees, I think a majority of the Western populace would gladly accept that.
Government snowflakes would never allow that. "Welcome one, welcome all" Just ask the citizens of Kent what they think.

[fitliker]

They should try dropping kegs of beer and whiskey instead of high explosives . Might win the hearts and minds to the beer side .
Just try booze first , throw a giant party . As Frank Gallagher would say “ Everyone loves a Party “

[Asturias56]

That sounds like a remake of the proposed cold war strategy which was to forget about new jets and tanks - just make sure everyone behind the Iron Curtain received a Sears Roebuck catalogue.

Which when you think about it, was pretty much how the wheels came off in 1989 anyway..............

[fitliker]

In any hot country a cold beer can win hearts and minds . Hot and sweaty on the Serengeti with a case of cool beers , malt liquor and MD40 and you will have new friends very quickly .
I do not always stop Wars with beer , but when I do it is Dos Equis :)

Vive la Refreshment :)

[tdracer]

That sounds like a remake of the proposed cold war strategy which was to forget about new jets and tanks - just make sure everyone behind the Iron Curtain received a Sears Roebuck catalogue.

Which when you think about it, was pretty much how the wheels came off in 1989 anyway..............

I've said for many years - only half joking - that we could solve the North Korean problem in six months. Just drop a million or so self contained TV sets over North Korea - rigged to pickup South Korean TV - with enough batteries to keep them running for a while. When the NK populace discovered how the rest of the world actually lives - they dump Kim and his cronies in a heartbeat.:}

It would certainly cost less than what's currently being spent to keep the North in check.

[Asturias56]

"In any hot country a cold beer can win hearts and minds.."

Absolutely - as will a packet/carton of Western cigarettes at roadblocks throughout "sensitive" parts of the FSU

[t43562]

If weaker societies or governments do not wish to fall then they must strengthen themselves sufficiently (whether by economic, military or ideological means) to resist whatever aggression they are facing, such that any outside assistance can be limited in scope to that which can realistically be provided under the UN banner. If that means Western states putting greater emphasis on defensive measures against the consequences of hostile regimes establishing themselves overseas, including refusing admittance to any resulting waves of refugees, I think a majority of the Western populace would gladly accept that.

The terrorists are getting outside support but apparently the western "I'm alright Jacks" are going to win by doing the opposite? That huge land area filling up with billions of people getting under the control of religious zealots that don't believe in birth control and somehow you think you are going to succeed by pretending your part of the planet can be ring-fenced? Wow.

[Flying Hi]

I think the West has finally realised that open-ended military intervention to prop up weak societies and governments is not a sustainable strategy given budgetary and societal constraints at home. (I note that the report into the Australian SAS war crimes points to the effect of decades of continual activity, for instance.) If weaker societies or governments do not wish to fall then they must strengthen themselves sufficiently (whether by economic, military or ideological means) to resist whatever aggression they are facing, such that any outside assistance can be limited in scope to that which can realistically be provided under the UN banner. If that means Western states putting greater emphasis on defensive measures against the consequences of hostile regimes establishing themselves overseas, including refusing admittance to any resulting waves of refugees, I think a majority of the Western populace would gladly accept that.

This is a hard argument to make and will upset some people, but the easier it is for populations to flee as refugees, the less likely it is that terrorist takeovers can be resisted. 'War among the people' needs the people to stay and fight back, whether as members of their state's security forces, as part of wider societal resistance, eventually as voters in elections, or whatever. Our much-vaunted Western freedoms came about because people didn't flee in the face of repression, gradually secured greater rights, established functioning states, and then fought to defend them - making enormous sacrifices at every step. It's a harsh viewpoint but there we are. Sorry.
The difference between the 'Then' and the 'Now' is that 'then' the peoples being agressed fought back, 'now' they just run for it. Clearly their 'country' isn't worth fighting for. They need to grow several pairs.

[t43562]

The difference between the 'Then' and the 'Now' is that 'then' the peoples being agressed fought back, 'now' they just run for it. Clearly their 'country' isn't worth fighting for. They need to grow several pairs.
Not something perhaps that many of those who are so "harsh" have ever done - fighting at home against people better armed and supplied than them. Be harsh if you like but please don't then complain one tiny bit about your own miniature problems.

[Easy Street]

The terrorists are getting outside support but apparently the western "I'm alright Jacks" are going to win by doing the opposite? That huge land area filling up with billions of people getting under the control of religious zealots that don't believe in birth control and somehow you think you are going to succeed by pretending your part of the planet can be ring-fenced? Wow.

That is quite the straw man argument. Where did I say 'no outside support'? Foreign aid (I'm against the cut from 0.7%) and UN-backed military activity both have a role to play, but both have their limits in effectiveness. 19 years of Western involvement in Afghanistan haven’t dampened the influence of the religious zealots biding their time for eventual resumption of power, and many would say the countries doing the intervening now bear the greatest moral responsibility for supporting the migrants and refugees displaced by that extended conflict. That pattern is likely to be repeated anywhere that society lacks the ability to resist 'terrorists' - who ultimately are simply using force to achieve political ends with which you disagree. Things don't look great in Mali either from what I can gather. As for birth control, those in control of developing countries have no incentive whatsoever to implement it as long as emigration and aid allow them to ignore the consequences of overpopulation. Change in Western societies has always been generated from within, largely in response to privations suffered by sections of the population. As long as regimes abroad can insulate themselves from such internal pressures then why should we expect anything to change? Continually intervening in non-decisive ways (realistically, the only ways possible within the legal, ethical, societal and resource constraints under which Western militaries operate) prolongs instability and drives population movement while delivering no sustainable outcome.

[Asturias56]

Birth Control generally takes off when women are educated (even a small amount) and they go and get jobs

In the long run the birth rate will fall everywhere - as it has in every country that has it becomes richer

[t43562]

Birth Control generally takes off when women are educated (even a small amount) and they go and get jobs

In the long run the birth rate will fall everywhere - as it has in every country that has it becomes richer
Nigeria, to take an extreme example, has 150 million people and google says that the growth rate was 2.6% in 2018. At some point one hopes it will start getting richer and growing less but how much population growth will happen before it does? China's civilization is older than the west's but it has a population problem. In fact some of the older bits of the world have very poor female rights especially w.r.t. birth control. I don't think you can be so sure that there is a one-way progression to a better future. I suggest that it's in everyone's interests to try to push things along as best we can. It should also be under consideration that we make the future world a one that is friendly to our ideals. If you took an ancient Roman forward, a lot of people use their alphabet, words, laws and have concepts of government that bear resemblance. They made a future that they would probably be able to cope with even if it is now run by former "barbarians".

[t43562]

That is quite the straw man argument. Where did I say 'no outside support'? Foreign aid (I'm against the cut from 0.7%) and UN-backed military activity both have a role to play, but both have their limits in effectiveness. 19 years of Western involvement in Afghanistan haven’t dampened the influence of the religious zealots biding their time for eventual resumption of power, and many would say the countries doing the intervening now bear the greatest moral responsibility for supporting the migrants and refugees displaced by that extended conflict. That pattern is likely to be repeated anywhere that society lacks the ability to resist 'terrorists' - who ultimately are simply using force to achieve political ends with which you disagree. Things don't look great in Mali either from what I can gather. As for birth control, those in control of developing countries have no incentive whatsoever to implement it as long as emigration and aid allow them to ignore the consequences of overpopulation. Change in Western societies has always been generated from within, largely in response to privations suffered by sections of the population. As long as regimes abroad can insulate themselves from such internal pressures then why should we expect anything to change? Continually intervening in non-decisive ways (realistically, the only ways possible within the legal, ethical, societal and resource constraints under which Western militaries operate) prolongs instability and drives population movement while delivering no sustainable outcome.

Sorry for that. Perhaps I misunderstood and fired off a response too quickly. I am a colonial from one of the bits that fell apart so I take it all too personally. The UK's civilisation fell apart when the Romans left - a Roman would have considered the situation hopeless but it wasn't in the long run and they had a huge impact on the outcome. I just think that these changes that are needed work in terms of generations.

I think there is a sort of "minimum energy" solution to the problem of governing in a society that has a tiny middle class which is despotism. In other words every other type of government requires too much artificial support to be able to function continuously. So it's a natural state that everything tends to return to. If some lucky situation occurs - like great wealth by conquest or trade or being invaded by someone more organised or whatever then the "fire" might get started that will allow other better forms of government to become the minimum energy state. One the whole though, people seem to get fixed ideas and only when they die off can the next lot really act on the change so it takes generations. That's my unscientific viewpoint.