They really haven't had their arses handed to them. All reports I've read have said they've inflicted those casualties many times over on the al-Shabab fighters.

I thought he was talking about gold until I read the OP...

this is a hugely controversial subject, and unfortunately, i don't think there's a way to keep everyone happy.

If left entirely on their own, I have little doubt that the most ruthless faction will be the one to prevail, and that would not be the best outcome imo.

Sending in peacekeepers is all well and good, but remember these are largely the same people who handed the US their asses on a platter not so long ago. nasty tactics like using civilians as shields, child soldiers, soldiers acting like civs until the moment they pull out an RPG-7 is just the sort of unconventional warfare these ruthless types will and do employ. Which peacekeeper from the UN forces will willingly fire on a group of children even if these children are firing at them? very few i'm sure, and who would blame them? this also leads to problems such as reliance on foreign troops for stability and eventually resentment in the populace over this reliance.

I would hazard a guess that the best way forward would be to covertly destabilize the Al-Shabab and the warlords, create a mass uprising against them as the tinfoil hats have said that the US and others have done recently in North Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, etc.) and then introduce a more 'civilized' regime. However i fear that they've already tried to do this before unsuccessfully.

personally, i'd like to see them nuke the Al-Shabab and the warlords' strongholds. sure, there will be civilian casualties, but they'll have to learn to play nice, and like bratty little children, sometimes they need a hiding when the naughty-chair just doesn't work.