Why did McCain want the U.S. to surrender in Somalia?
Isn't this what he accuses Obama of wanting to do in Iraq? I thought McCain was against waiving the white flag of surrender.
rukidding: If you didn't notice, my link is from a .gov website. Also, all it shows is the bill's name, purpose, sponsor (McCain), and cosponsors. There's nothing biased about it.
To clear this up: The link I've provided is a bill that McCain sponsored in 1993 to pull U.S. troops out of Somalia. The same can be found in the Senate archives.
- wichitaor1Lv 71 decade agoBest Answer
Because Somalia was a mess that nobody wanted to handle. The UN was having a horrible time even getting its own troops out of trouble; a German unit was trapped up country when the Indian vehicles that were to transport it refused to leave the UN safe zone.
As it was, after the losses suffered by Rangers and Delta Force troops that was chronicled in "Black Hawk Down", the American mission in Somalia was seen as unwinnable with the level of support it was getting.
The Defense Department refused requests of area commanders for armor and aerial gunship support. One wonders if Sergeants Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon would not have had to sacrifice their lives to defend Warrant Officer Micheal Durant's shot down helicopter if fire support from AC-130 gunships had been authorized by Washington. Defense Secretary Les Aspin took the fall of the debacle, but the entire administration had no interest in deepening American involvement in Somalia.Source(s):
- 1 decade ago
Somalia was probably the worst place to send US troops - it made Iraq look like a walk in the park. While there is a level of intelligence in some Iraqis, Somalis are void of any thought of democracy. McCain was right.
Hey, blame Bush, Sr,. for leaving this sweetheart for Clinton. Just like Junior is going to leave a mess for whomever wins in November. Like father like son.
- shawnLv 43 years ago
He never needed us to bypass to Somalia. It grow to be the worst botched military incident in modern historic previous. bill Clinton sent in a small style of Marines to a rustic devoid of regulation. a rustic governed by using warlords. there grow to be no danger to win and not utilising an entire scale invasion. Clinton needed it to look like he cared approximately Africa. We went to Somalia on a similar time as RWANDA grow to be going on. great activity. under Clinton, the international commerce center grow to be bombed, 2 of our embassies have been bombed in Africa and the united statesCole grow to be bombed. 911 shouldn't in any respect have got here approximately. we ought to continuously have went to conflict then and it grow to be screwed up. I served for the time of those years and our foreign places coverage grow to be a humorous tale. We have been attacked over and over. we incredibly went to conflict in Bosnia to get a BJ out of the information. human beings say we went there as a results of fact of genocide, yet it incredibly is a lie. If we cared approximately genocide, why weren't we in RWANDA??? Clinton grow to be sturdy on relatives subject concerns, yet his foreign places coverage grow to be a humorous tale. have not we seen that neither party is sturdy at working our u . s . a .? isn't it time to offer somebody else of project? Bob Barr 08
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Do you have a more obscure, biased link we can go to and read the lies? It was Clinton who surrendered in Somalia or haven't you heard of "Black Hawk Down?" You should rent it. Clinton refused to give the marines what they needed to do the job and when the equipment did arrive and the marines wanted to use it to go back in and retrieve the bodies of the fallen, as is their custom to "leave no man behind," Clinton denied them the permission as Commander in Chief. What an embarrassment!