Somalia: The World's Responsibilty

lindy said:
Base of operations to counter the Chinese takeover/raping of the natural resources of Africa.
Click to expand...
Marauder06 said:
Because they have stuff we want now, namely natural resources and strategic positioning.

I think the Kony thing is OK, it has limited involvement (with the right kinds of troops) and a definitive endstate. As long as it doesn't balloon into a massive commitment, I think it's a good thing.
Click to expand...
I don't quite see how us having a strong presence there will dictate the recipient of their natural resources. As far as I know resources normally go to the highest bidder correct? I understand there is a high interest in the oil and gas industry, as well as the continent being fairly rich in Uranium. However shouldn't that be left for primarily private companies to be exploiting?

Marauder06
When you refer to strategic positioning, are you referring to us having a strong presence in Africa for our interests there? Or are you referring to strategic positioning in relation to the prevention/mitigation of global conflict? If you're referring to global conflict, don't our bases in Saudi Arabia, Japan, and all across Europe etc suffice? Especially with technology these days, distance isn't AS much of an issue as it used to be.
 
Etype said:
What we need to do is to commit to covert and clandestine operations. The last four administrations have been too transparent with the aforementioned types of work. There's should be no such thing as transparency in this field. You can't talk about how successful your clandestine and covert ops are- it's just ridiculous.

Why are we so willing to tell people what is happening?
Click to expand...

$$$$$$$$$$ for votes/backers.
 
Scotth said:
Look at what companies have oil based contracts in Iraq. While the oil companies that bought rights to oil field weren't primarily American the contract work drilling and building the infrastructure is dominated by American companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's like letting the Chinese buy gold mines here in the US, but giving them credit for hiring American workers. At the end of the day (or bottom of the mine :D) the Americans are still employees and the profits are all going to China.
 
fox1371 said:
I don't quite see how us having a strong presence there will dictate the recipient of their natural resources. As far as I know resources normally go to the highest bidder correct? I understand there is a high interest in the oil and gas industry, as well as the continent being fairly rich in Uranium. However shouldn't that be left for primarily private companies to be exploiting?

Marauder06
When you refer to strategic positioning, are you referring to us having a strong presence in Africa for our interests there? Or are you referring to strategic positioning in relation to the prevention/mitigation of global conflict? If you're referring to global conflict, don't our bases in Saudi Arabia, Japan, and all across Europe etc suffice? Especially with technology these days, distance isn't AS much of an issue as it used to be.
Click to expand...

Kind of all of the above. Closer proximity = greater influence. Why is the HQ of AFRICOM in Germany and not say... Kenya? <rhetorical question, I know why it's in Germany> Also, if we really are gearing up for a conflict or a new cold war with China, and China is securing a grip on Africa, it might be good for us to start getting meaningfully involved there as well. And if we're going to go around de-Konying the continent, it might be good to have a big, secure, permanent base there.
 
After watching Blackhawk Down today, I've determined that Somalia can handle their own issues for the foreseeable future.
I liked one of the lines from General Atto (Somali war lord higher up guy) that went something along the lines of, "We're not going to throw down our guns and welcome American democracy just because you kill/capture General whateverhisnamewas". I guess that goes back to the theory of cutting off one head will produce two in its place.
 
lindy said:
Why not move AFRICOM to Botswana?

"Botswana, one of Africa's most stable countries, is the continent's longest continuous multi-party democracy. It is relatively free of corruption and has a good human rights record."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13040376
Click to expand...

Ha, I was just going to say one major problem with an African base is finding a stable enough country, then that Botswana is the most stable country on the continent. However it doesnt have a port.
 
Botswana is also in the south of the continent, a lot of what we're interested in is happening in the north. Germany might actually be closer.
 
Morocco. Partners in the GWOT, and close to Spain- which is good for ... em... many reasons.
 
Freefalling said:
That hurts more than Lindy's comments about my weight...
Click to expand...

Weight and mass are two different measurements...Sir. :p


Marauder06 said:
Botswana is also in the south of the continent, a lot of what we're interested in is happening in the north. Germany might actually be closer.
Click to expand...

South of Europe? O_o Perhaps stability is what we need. The FLINTLOCKs haven't really paid off very well have they?
 

Similar threads

Diddums
British Army Ranger Regiment
Replies
13
Views
4K
Diddums
Diddums
C
Armenia and Azerbaijan
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
7K
Gordus
G
Rapid
Have we been fighting the wrong wars? Our domestic enemies grow stronger
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
11K
Rando375
Rando375
DA SWO
Air Force Rescue Helicopters Raced To The Aid Of Special Operators In Somalia
Replies
11
Views
3K
Gunz
Gunz
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
Gunz
Back
Top