However, I respect what you have to say and will defer on quibbling over points about whose failure it was. Yes I will say that the Somalia political mission was a failure in the broad sense of the word because Somalia is a failed state. Personally I put the blame on the Republican Congress who used it as a way to attack Clinton. If memory serves correct, we had already restored some semblance of order after the tragic “Blackhawk Down” scenario. That is neither here nor there. What you really want to know is why did Alan go to Somalia?

All I can say on that is Alan is visiting a variety of East African countries to learn more about the area. I know Alan and if he’s interested in something he does it. There doesn’t need to be an ulterior motive other than it seems interesting. The man has traveled the globe because there is stuff out there to learn. You may not believe that, but I do because I’ve seen his family do it often enough. That’s about the best I can explain it. He does it because it can be done.

Really Rick I know based on your comments in the Orlando Sentinel that you tend to paint Alan as anti-troop, but I challenge you to talk to the man and decide for yourself. Unlike a lot of people I think Alan has worked hard to show just how bad the troops have been shafted in Iraq. Being anti-Bush or anti-war doesn’t make you anti-troops. What person of good conscience could say that the government hasa not abused the troops beyond any semblance of decency by asking them to do what the Bush administration has done?

If Alan is anti-troop then so am I. I would like to think that people who know me well would disagree with that. Bring it On! has worked hard for years to support the troops with more than just yellow ribbons. Our staff includes several vets; our extended community has several members whose loved ones are serving in Iraq. We cry with them here as a family. We worry for them as a family. We support anyone willing to put on a uniform and serve his country. I wouldn’t work for a man who would dishonor the sacrifices made by our men and women who put on that uniform. It’s as simple as that.

Thank you again for the discussion Rick. Maybe we will run into each other face to face one day and share a beverage or two.

In early 2003, the UN (at Clinton’s direction and support) created UNISOM II. This was simply a more “worldly” approach to Unitaf with a somewhat expanded scope, but nothing inappropriate given the situation. It was not nation building, but was a more long term approach which included about 15 nations. US involvement was significant, but our troops were not engaged in direct combat operations. FYI…I think Clinton’s spearheading of this effort was outstanding and I credit him with the first cohesive use of US forces in humanitarian roles…which I believe is a good thing. While Clinton did not allows execute his military humanitarian interventions well, he at least had the vision to try to do what is right.

However, it is completely wrong to blame Bush 1 (who had little humanitarian vision) with the failure of Somalia…he sent us there, but he didn’t screw it up. What went wrong in Somalia was TF Ranger and the attempt to apply surgical force to affect a political outcome in a country that has never had a chance for a political outcome. Most Americans never complained about UNISOM, it’s mission, or it’s almost negligible casualties (US casualties in Unitaf and Unisom were almost ALL non-combatant). TF Ranger on Oct 3, 93 as depicted in Blackhawk Down changed all that. The 18 soldiers who died that day were doing great things, but the politics which put them in that situation was failed (ie, taking out Aideed so that nation building could occur).

As for Mr. Grayson…my question really is why Somalia. I’ve been there many times, and lived there for more than 2 years. No one visits Somalia! If this was a humanitarian visit…then I think he is doing great things. But if so, then why attempt to cover a humanitarian visit inside a political one? Your article mentioned one line of the humanitarian issue, the rest was on politics. There is absolutely no way you could convince an informed person that Grayson went to Somalia to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Bush’s failure. First, the 15th anniversary isn’t until Dec. Second, no real scholar on Somalia credits the failure to Bush. If a failure at all, it is Clinton’s…although I think very undeserved. So what’s the real reason he went????

The fact is that Pres Bush committed 25,000 American troops to combat after he lost an election. The invasion came a little more than a month before Clinton took over. I guess you could technically say that Mr. Bush had no plans at nation building - but to do so implies he had no long term strategy for the area after military operations started.

It would seem reasonable to assume that any President who is willing to commit that many troops to a war zone must have at least some rudimentary plan to “build a nation.” To assume otherwise is folly. Therefore in my mind, the first President Bush did indeed commit the United Stated to a disastrous nation building exercise. Somalia is a failed state today. There is simply no way around that fact. We could argue all day about whether that is George H.W. Bush’s fault, Bill Clinton’s fault, the U.N.’s fault or the fault of the Republican’s in Congress. The truth of the matter is that Somalia was a failed policy.

Please understand though that this isn’t a criticism of the military. They preformed miracles. They always do. You will find no bigger supporter of our troops than me. This is a discussion of political actions and their consequences.

You are right in one other way though Mr. Monahan, Iraq is not like Somalia. Iraq is worse. For the sake of my friends who have served, their families who wait and those that are back but not the same - I hope we can bring them home soon. You guys did your job, it’s time for Congress to do theirs.

(PS and no, Alan is not their on a 3rd world investment opportunity. I read the blurb on the Sentinel site and was disappointed you would end on to that bit of conjecture. maybe we should all learn a thing or two about shallow, hurtful and inaccurate comments)

The truth: In Dec 1992 Bush 1 sent American troops to Somalia as part of Operation RESTORE HOPE. This was the first time that US ground forces were used in a purely humanitarian role. There was no nation building, no national interest with oil - just our country helping hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were caught in a very violent, chaotic civil war.

While Grayson would have us believe this was a Republican venture saved by a Democrat (Clinton), the truth is the opposite. Clinton took office in Jan 03, and during the summer of 2003 he expanded the scope of the mission in Somalia to include the specific target of rebel leaders in an attempt to shape the nation. This mission, given to the Rangers depicted in Blackhawk Down, was completely separate from the humanitarian mission Restore Hope.

Mr. Grayson, please do more reading and talk to people who were there before you cast such negative aspersions on the actions of others. You want to lead our community, then act like a leader. Leaders make positve change, not criticize. Leaders forge new ideas, not revise history to meet their needs.

Mr. Baker, I sincerely hope you publish this as part of your commitment to free expression. I do think we need a change, and if I knew more maybe Mr. Grayson is that man. However, shallow, hurtful and innacurate comments about historical events are not what is needed now.