I've some sympathy with what Max is saying. I don't doubt that children did fight against the US and UN troops in Somalia. And if I'd got to the position that it was me or Joel Osment, Osment dies. But it is best not to get to that position in the first place.
What I thought was telling about Stockman's 'women and children' quote is that the Commander of the US forces had moved so decisively from being the front man for a mission called 'Restore Hope', to being at war with man, woman and child in Somalia.
The plan was bad, because it failed to take into account the one factor that would outweigh all the rest: the United States itself. Supporters of Operation Hope seemed to think that the US would not itself become a factor in the civil war. But the fact was that every where they put their great big feet, Somali society reacted to them, as their social weight was many times greater than that of any other people in the country.
Michael Maren explains how this started even with the aid programme before the troops landed. US aid dumped in Mogadishu reduced the value of the Western Somali farmers crops to zero. Deprived of an income, they upped sticks and moved to Mogadishu, where many of them joined the Aideed militia. Americans were largely unaware, but they had already created the disaggregation of Somali society.
Once the troops landed they employed militiamen to guard grain, creating competition amongst militias for US patronage, which further aggravated the conflict.
Then finally, frustrated at his lack of control of events (which were themselves reactions to his own presence) Stockwell launched the insane policy of targetting the most popular militia leader Aideed, which galvanised a majority of Mogadishu residents against the US.
Aideed's attitude towards his rivals was without doubt self-seeking. But his desire to rid Somalia of its American invaders was quite genuine, and earned him a qualified respect from Somalis (not enough, later he was killed by his own). When the US put him on the most wanted list, he briefly became a national hero.
As far as the intervention itself goes, it is clear that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions are not enough. If you take over a people's country in their best interests but against their will, they have a right to try to stop you.
The real tragedy was in the disproportionate response. 18 US servicemen lost to 500 Somalis is a pretty depressing calculus of the relative value of Somali and American life.
Imperialism is imperialism, whether it springs from good intentions or 'revenge'. After all the British Empire subjugated vast tracts of Africa in the name of improving the natives. Today we find it hard to believe, but those Victorians really believed that they were doing it in the best interests of the Africans. That's what made them so dangerous.
In message <NFBBICFMIKGPJNEEGOLOOEODCKAA.sawicky at bellatlantic.net>, Max
Sawicky <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> writes
>I've said I thought the operation would
>have been better if never undertaken.
>
>But if a toddler with apple cheeks
>and an adorable curl is pointing
>an assault rifle at me, and
>if I can't avoid being shot at,
>I'm afraid I would shoot him.
>
>In the Somali battle, U.S. troops
>were on the ground too, not just in
>helicopters, and they were besieged
>on all sides. Nor did they go into
>the city to shoot people. They went
>to capture a militia leader who was
>obstructing food relief efforts. If
>things had gone according to plan,
>there would have been few civilian
>casualties. You can criticize them
>for a bad plan and an associated thoughtless
>disregard for human life, but I don't
>think you can accuse them of striving
>for the actual result -- one which was
>a major political debacle for the military
>and the Clinton Administration.
>
>I've read in the papers of a murderous
>bandit gang in Thailand or Burma, I forget
>which, lead by ten or twelve year-old
>twins. Would you send Mister Rogers
>out to deal with those youngsters?
>
>Funny that for all the talk about materialist
>analysis here, there is a kind of raging
>moralism -- not particularly coherent in
>its own terms either -- that is substituted
>for analysis and politics.
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>
>>I read "Blackhawk Down." There is no question that
>>the U.S. policy during the mission to snag
>>Aideed was to shoot anybody in the way,
>>but there also seems little doubt that
>>women and children were among the combatants.
>
>I think you entirely miss the point being made of the quote as a criticism
>of the military action,
>which is that they are condemned by their own words.
>Unless you think that it us justified to attack and kill children using
>helicopter gunships if they are "combatants".
>Paul
>
-- James Heartfield