I mentioned it as a bit of a throw-away yesterday, and to be perfectly honest, it was something that popped into my head as I typed it, but reading again what I wrote about the American air raid against alleged Somali "terrorist" sites (if Bush told me Christmas were December 25th, I would want some kind of evidence) strikes me as, well, insightful. I think it is something worth pondering.
First, the plane used - I think the designation is the AR-51, but I am probably wrong - is a modified reconnaisance plane that has multiple .50-caliber machine guns mounted on one side. Directed by ground troops (thus, there had to be some kind of recon force nearby), the place circles low, firing thousands of rounds of ammunition a second, usually tracers (better for tracking purposes at night, but also usually containing phosphorus or small amounts of depleted uranium, thus harmful even in cases where they are not instantly lethal). This was the plane that failed miserably back in the fall of 2001 at taking out senior Taliban personnel in Afghanistan; the story then denied all sorts of things that simply had to be the case for the mission to be such an abject failure, not the least of which was the capture and/or death of a group of special forces personnel near or inside the Afghan capital building which was the focus of the attack.
So, what we had in Somalia were a few strikes over a couple days, using "terrorists" (what else?) as an excuse, against a country with which we are not at war, and indeed is a country only in the sense that most people in the world agree that there is an area of the world called "Somalia". This poor, tortured land, the victim of multiple sieges from nature and larger countries eager to control its access to the Red Sea (not to mention a potential fortune in mineral deposits, thanks to the Great Rift Valley) cannot catch a break, and the United States using this flying weapons platform around, shooting pretty much willy-nilly is like rubbing sea salt in festering sores.
The larger point is that there has been almost no discussion about this raid, or its potential long-term meaning for the United States as we prepare to do something monumentally stupid and evil in Iran. We managed to pull off the raid with almost no press or blogosphere comment, certainly no Congressional reaction, and what should that tell the Bush Administration? That, despite all the heat, there is little anyone can do to stop them once they give the order to "let fly" or "unleash hell" (depending upon which Russell Crowe movie you prefer). That, despite all the heat, any air action, as long as it even looks successful - that is, no plane is shot down, no bodies dragged through the streets, no movie made years later, etc. - the American people are OK with it.
To my mind it is encumbent upon us to demand answers to certain questions: what was the source of information that led the US to believe that there were al Qaeda personnel in that spot at that time in Somalia? Were they credible? Was there some kind of independent verification? Which members of Congress were consulted, when, and what information were they given, as opposed to what the President, the Joint Chiefs, and other Executive Branch personnel may have received? Were all American service personnel extricated from Somalia? What was the result of the attack - was the target successfully killed, was the mission accomplished with minimal loss of life and minimal property damage? Was notice given to the current rulers of Somalia that an American warplane would be swooping overhead, shooting what to all intents and purposes looks like laser beams at a building? Was permission granted? If not, why not? If not, why did the mission go forward?
These are some questions that should be answered, and probably not even the really good ones. I think it is a start, though, and it might show the Bush Team that the anti-war crowd mean business.
