Posted on 11/21/2005 7:31:25 AM PST by freedom4me
After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.
Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.
"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You beat me to it.
Somalia was reported to be quite frustrated, but she was not available for comment....
I agree with the Somalia pullout. Somalia is a country of no importance. If we didn't pull out - we'd probably still be there, much like Clinton's "one-year" engagement in the Balkans.
Word to your Murtha.
You got that right brother! All of it!
Slick willie will be blaming Murtha for his ill fated Somalia decisions?
Many people learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam and are forever damaged.
I wonder if Murtha's grandfather ordered a pullout of the Union from the Confederacy?
Excuse me, so now Murtha is a mindreader too???
In Somalia a well-meaning humanitarian intervention ended in failure because we interjected ourselves into a civil war. I am not arguing that we should have acted decisively with a larger military force in either case. As I have explained, I opposed the intervention in Somalia from the day the decision to intervene was made.
The first President Bush intervened in Somalia's civil war at the instigation of the bleeding hearts in the MSM and the DNC, who were painting him as a heartless villain. Poor African blacks were being killed by vicious warlords, and Bush was urged that it was our job to go in and feed and protect the victims. After resisting for a while, Bush gave in to pressure and sent in troops on a humanitarian mission.
Then when clinton was elected, he expanded the mission, after the MSM decided that one of the warlords was more vicious than the others, and therefore should be fought. But Clinton refused to supply the armor that commanders on the spot said was necessary for the new, expanded mission.
So the whole thing was a matter of foolish do-goodism compounded by mission creep, as a result of political pressure put on the politicians by the bleeding heart media, who were chiefly responsible for what happened.
So Murtha was right in saying that we had no business there in the first place, and had might as well leave. The unfortunate result, of course, was that bin Ladin was encouraged to think we are paper tigers. It was clinton's fault for confirming bin Ladin, when he refused to respond to a series of attacks bin Ladin mounted on us all through the clinton presidency.
Certainly it would have been better never to have gone into Somalia in the first place. The whole idea was misbegotten.
Still, it's a good catch that the MSM are now lying again, and pretending that Murtha has always been a hawk. Not true.
As I understand it, the warlord was no better nor nor worse than any of the others. He just didn't want to play cards with the UN.
Was it not the Somalia pullout that gave bin Laden the impression that the U.S. wouldn't fight? Is Murtha trying to be two for two?
Agreed- Somalia was a disaster from inception. OTOH- IF we commit troops to an op, I DAMN WELL want to see they have what they need to COMPLETE THE MISSION.
That is my endless rant...from Nam to this day. We deploy with a P.S. "You must fight in a politically correct manner, meaning you can't really complete the mission we're asking you to..."
end rant.
Murtha's formula for fighting terrorism has been proven unsuccessful.
That was a noble effort until C.S. Clinton got hold of it and tried to Liberalize Somalia.
It's a dilemma at best. Somalia was one in a string of problems that cemented conventional wisdom about use of the military. You begin with these nominally humanitarian-only missions, do some actions to try to improve success of that mission, and get burned. I think there was a wide consensus to just stay out of those situations. It amounted to straying from the more popular and proven strategy of either do nothing or go in with overwhelming force.
I think Osama's perception of this as a "congenital" cut-and-run tendency on our part was faulty. A lesson may be to try to avoid giving even the appearance of being weak. But it is too harsh to say, for example, 9/11 was OUR FAULT for showing weakness.
All the warlords were equally a bunch of selfish scum. They fastened on him because they needed a goat, I think. And clinton was happy to cooperate because he wanted to look like the great white knight in shining armor.
we liked that fella better known for his saddle quite well down here..lol
When he was voted out of office his plan to turn the peacekeeping over to the UN was dropped by BJ Clinton. He then launched on a campaign of "nation building" which was mostly involved in trying to get cuts of any aid deals for his cronies.
Then a warlord rose up, sponsored by Osama. And Clinton sent in the Rangers to take him out. But he also refused to give them back up (shades of his hero JFK).
And that's how we got Black Hawk Down. And then Murtha and friends turned it into Vietnam. And now they're trying to do it again.
Tens, if not hundreds of thousands died following the Somalia debacle brought about by Clinton and Murtha.
Millions died after the dims abandoned the people of Southeast asia and millions more lost their freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.