Yuku free message boards

sear wrote:

---

...

"Having AK-47s and actually shooting them off are 2 different things entirely." R5

Indeed.
But the AK-47 is a cheaply made, primitively made firearm. Some of the parts (like the wooden pistol grip) are barely even interchangeable parts. They lack the precision of part uniformity that more modern firearms have.
They're relatively heavy. And I can tell you, I wouldn't lug one of those things around with a 30 rnd. banana clip just for show.
If I went to the trouble to carry it, I'd be prepared to use it.

"the US, and every state within it, is ruled by a warlord.
That is exactly what presidents and governors are and have always been.
The police and military they control are armed right?
So what possible difference could there be?

warlord
1 : a supreme military leader
2 : a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area

Is not the president of the US, the supreme commander in chief of the armed forces?" R5

Yes.
And he's a civilian.

"Robert E. Lee and Hirohito were requested to negotiate by nonviolent means of communication, and assurances were given ahead of time.
That is not at all what we did with Aidid. Instead we decided to illegally kidnap him.
The result is entirely different." R5

Whatever.
You presume the outcome.
I don't.

"As to how foolish the US military was, I have no idea what you think they were doing?
Do you really think we only wanted to meet with Aidid, and just did not know how to ask for a meeting?" R5

If you know what the strategy was, tell us.
If you don't, please don't presume the worst possible scenario, and regard your alarmist suspicions as fact.
I'm no huge fan of Gen. Westmoreland.
But generally I've come to have significant respect for the intelligence of our U.S. military commanders.
Some of these guys are Doctorate level educated experts.
Assuming our President is a dummy may be a safe bet.
Assuming all our commanders on the ground in Somalia were may be a bit of a stretch.
...

Primitive and especially African cultures are well known for their posturing and displays of arms.
It is a matter of personal pride, and is a ritualistic way of allowing both sides to save face, without any or at least many from being killed.
But the US did not bother to learn how to play the game.
The generals are total idiots when it comes to anthropology.
They had absolutely no idea what they were doing, when it came to Somali culture.
They violated all the rules, and committed the most outrageous crime of all, trying to disarm a warrior culture.

The solution was obvious and simple. The warlords already existed and were more than capable of establishing peace within their own areas.
All they needed was either a bit of time or a little persuasions to define their individual territory borders more finally.
A little incentive, such as the promise of some future surplus arms, would have been more than enough to avoid any need for violence.

The problem is simple.
Never use the military to solve a diplomatic and cultural situation.
Since the culture is a warrior one, use can use a military presence, in order to impress.
But the military always wants to start shooting, so they should never have been in charge.

As for the president and governors being civilians, that is a nice touch I think, but more symbolic than real, so I can see why much of the world does not bother much over such subtle distinctions.

And presuming outcomes is what military history and modern politics is all about.
It not only is fun, but how you decide the best way to get what you want.