Mystery Terrorists Identified

Spencer spent some time working the phones in an effort to answer the question of the hour: which terrorists are the Islamic Courts Union harboring. "That's a good question," conceded Carl Kropf from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who didn't know the answer.

As you'll see if you read Spencer's post, there is an answer. The Somali terror nexus isn't something invented out of whole cloth. On the other hand, it really doesn't seem to me that there's much there there. We want three guys, one of whom (Abu Tahai al-Sudani) there doesn't appear to be any information about other than that we say he's a terrorist, and the actual relationship between our desire to apprehend these dudes and the question of who controls Mogadishu is pretty vague. They were in Somalia before the ICU took power, and it's at least not obvious to me why kicking the ICU out of the capital (or wherever they're being kicked) would bring them to our custody.

The fact that the designated spokespersons for the US government didn't have an answer at hand to the admittedly good question of what the basis of our policy was tends to indicate to me that the policy is not incredibly well-founded. As recently as the December 20 State Department briefing, Sean McCormack was saying America's top policy priority was "that we don't want to see the conflict in Somalia spread to the region . . . we don't want to see a proxy fight in Somalia," not anything about Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. A week later: Proxy fight on!

Comments

So let me see the timeline here:

December 20: We say we don't want a regional war.
December 21: Somali Islamists declare war on Ethiopia.
December 22 (and thereafter): We no longer say don't want a regional war.

Funny that.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2006 5:44 PM

Meanwhile Spencer seems to be insinuating that we instigated the regional war (am I reading his post wrong?) - a theory that has zero evidence supporting it but that appears to fit well into Jeanne Kirkpatrick's paradigm.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2006 5:51 PM

Usually I expect a higher level of hackery than this from Al, given that he's the Greatest Hack Who Ever Lived. But I suppose even Michael Jordan had his off nights.

Posted by grh | December 27, 2006 5:56 PM

I hope I don't know what Al is talking about, because the only thing I can think that he is saying is so stupid it's embarassing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 6:04 PM

I think I'm still missing the point: should we actually not care whether Somalia becomes an Islamist state? Whether or not there are known terrorists in Somalia now seems a moot point: are you saying we'll talk once Somalia goes completely Islamist and starts supporting terrorism? Don't their already established links to Hezbollah and belligerence vis a vis Ethiopia tell us something about the nature of this faction? Remember who assumed a threatening stance first in this conflict, not Ethiopia. And the U.S.--to my knowledge--has done little more than offer support and advice to the Ethiopians, who have all but routed the Islamists in support of the internationally recognized transitional government. No one wants a wider regional war, but let's pay attention to what's actually developing on the ground. The Islamists are rapidly losing support in Somalia, after they, not the Ethiopians, declared a war which they have now all but lost. I'm perfectly fine with this scenario, as long as it doesn't turn into a humanitarian nightmare. But, absent outside intervention, I fear it would anyway. I want to hear about Maggette.

Posted by James | December 27, 2006 6:20 PM

I don't know what any of you are talking about. Should I be concerned that I don't get the comments in this post, particularly Ed Marshall's (cryptic?) response to Al's illegible comment, or should I be glad Al and the ensuing comments make no sense?

As an aside, I like Glenn Greenwald because he spells everything out for people like me who follow politics but aren't really involved in politics. There's a lot of mysticism over the how’s and why’s of policy – how or why ideas originate and get implemented, how and why other, seemingly better ideas don’t, and Glenn does a good job at de-mystifying the process. None-the-less, posts like these make me feel like a naive outsider looking through some foggy windows for illumination into the inner workings of whatever the hell we're talking about here - foreign policy, Machiavellian politics or affluent people's obsession with perpetuating their own power or just out-and-out propaganda. No matter how vapid the idea or intent or how obvious the consequences, Glenn spells it out. Which is nice.

Posted by matt | December 27, 2006 6:21 PM

where is the evidence that the US has backed Ethiopia's actions? where is the evidence that the US has instigated this war?

Posted by neil | December 27, 2006 6:48 PM

Al's illegible comment

Which comment did you not understand? I thought both were reasonably clear, but perhaps not.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2006 7:11 PM

where is the evidence that the US has backed Ethiopia's actions? where is the evidence that the US has instigated this war?

WASHINGTON, Dec 27 (Reuters)WASHINGTON, Dec 27 (Reuters)

The White House urged restraint by Ethiopia but also said the intervention should not be used as an excuse by Somalia's warring factions to avoid peace negotiations.

_______________________________________________________________

In answer to #2, none, but if you take Israel's destruction of half of Lebanon earlier this year, compare State's press releases all they did was cut and paste in Somalia and Ethiopia. It didn't take long in that case for word to come down it was all drawn up well in advance between Tel Aviv and Washington.

A better answer is that small regional powers that rely on and are obviously trying to favor curry U.S. power don't invade their neighbors before at rock bottom vetting that idea with the State department.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 7:24 PM

bad tag :\

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 7:24 PM

Ed, your theories are interesting but they are not evidence.

Posted by neil | December 27, 2006 7:38 PM

Matt, why do you persist in thinking that the US/Ethiopia
started this particular skirmish? Given how weak the Islamists
now appear, it is hard to believe that *they* were the one
to give ultimatums, but that's what they did.
Am I missing something here?

Posted by Anon | December 27, 2006 7:43 PM

So one of the three guys is "that guy from Sudan, father of Tahai"? I'm feeling pretty good about the solidity of that information.

Posted by Jackmormon | December 27, 2006 7:45 PM

Ed, your theories are interesting but they are not evidence.

As I noted above, this fits right in to Jeanne Kirkpatrick's theory: liberals always blame America first. There's no evidence that the US did anything at all here, but the first thing the liberals say is that the US "instigated" the war.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2006 7:46 PM

Al, the only man alive which "officially we have no one in Ethopia" actually convinces him of US non-involvement

Posted by Rob | December 27, 2006 8:00 PM

The Tao of Al: When in doubt, just lie about everything.

Posted by JP | December 27, 2006 8:01 PM

Ed, your theories are interesting but they are not evidence.

Either you do or don't understand the diplomatic Kabuki or not, but this isn't my theory, it's how it's read.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 8:15 PM

all was asking for was evidence of the US instigating this war. What ever the US did or did not do in Lebanon is not evidence of what's going on in Somalia.

Posted by neil | December 27, 2006 8:21 PM

I obviously can't tell you whose idea this little foreign policy venture came from, but are you telling me you believe that Ethiopia just decided to undertake this all on their own without consulting the U.S.?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 8:25 PM

I'm not finding this discussion very persuasive one way or another. But somehow the fact that State Department spokespersons cannot or will not provide the names of individual terorists working out of Somalia doesn't strike me as weighty. After all, I doubt these same folks could have named a lot of names and provided a lot of individual detail prior to the Afghanistan invasion, but surely it was well-known that there were functioning training camps in Afghanistan, and that they were important.

Now presuamably our intelligence is somewhat better these days in identifying actual individuals, but isn't it at least possible to have very good information that militant Salafists are running weapons, and providing passage, aid, money or training to a flow of jihadist recruits, without knowing much about the identities of the recruits in question? I'm not saying I believe this. I really don't have any clear sense about what is going on in Somalia. But some of the questions raised here seem very superficial. It is also distinctly possible that US officials involved in the more clandestine aspects of the GWOT are not too eager to provide Spencer Ackerman and the rest of the press with lists of names of targets in Somalia, which will then be published, thus alerting these potential targets to the fact that the US government knows where they are, and also perhaps jeopardizing the intelligence sources who provided the names.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 27, 2006 10:01 PM

It is also distinctly possible that US officials involved in the more clandestine aspects of the GWOT are not too eager to provide Spencer Ackerman and the rest of the press with lists of names of targets in Somalia, which will then be published, thus alerting these potential targets to the fact that the US government knows where they are, and also perhaps jeopardizing the intelligence sources who provided the names.

Given the events of the last few years dealing with our "intelligence sources" I think it's distinctly possible that you are talking about a pack of suckers and opportunists who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 11:31 PM

Given the events of the last few years dealing with our "intelligence sources" I think it's distinctly possible that you are talking about a pack of suckers and opportunists who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.

Sure, I don't trust them either Ed. But Matthew's weightless spitballs aren't finding the mark. He's just flailing and tossing off inconsequential "maybes". I don't think he knows any more than I do about what is really going on in the Horn of Africa - and I can assure you that is very little.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 28, 2006 12:46 AM

Al:

As I noted above, this fits right in to Jeanne Kirkpatrick's theory: liberals always blame America first. There's no evidence that the US did anything at all here, but the first thing the liberals say is that the US "instigated" the war.

As I say, Al's hackery is usually of higher quality than the simple "I'm telling you up is down!!!" variety he displays here. Let us wish him a speedy recovery from whatever ails him, so that he can return to his usual standards as the World's Greatest Hack.

Posted by grh | December 28, 2006 3:44 AM

"December 20: We say we don't want a regional war.
December 21: Somali Islamists declare war on Ethiopia.
December 22 (and thereafter): We no longer say don't want a regional war."

Um, Ethopia did invade Somalia much earlier. They declared war on someone who'd already invaded the country they claim to be the government of.

"I think I'm still missing the point: should we actually not care whether Somalia becomes an Islamist state?"

Polictical Islam being what it is, we really need to stop caring and start dealing with these people. We need to figure out if the ICU guys are the sort of Islamists we can deal with, or not.

I personally doubt the war was ordered by Washington, but I do not doubt we're A.) giving logistical support B.) had prior knowledge and the ability to short circuit both the Ethopian moves into Somalia to protect the "transitional government" and to try to crush the ICU.

I've seen some evidence for "liberals always blame America first" trope, from people who clearly didn't have any knowledge of what they were talking about. Now, the fact is that America has done a lot of blameworthy shit over the last hundred years, so the wingnut corollary of "Everything America does is great" is pretty pure bullshit.

Knowing that we spend a lot of money giving military aid and support to Ethopia, I don't think Spencer and Matt exactly qualify for the dirty hippy, blame America first brigade, for thinking that Ethopia might have a the least told its pals in Washington what it was planning in Somalia.

Posted by witless chum | December 28, 2006 7:33 AM

"Knowing that we spend a lot of money giving military aid and support to Ethopia, I don't think Spencer and Matt exactly qualify for the dirty hippy, blame America first brigade, for thinking that Ethopia might have a the least told its pals in Washington what it was planning in Somalia."

Well, after all, who are we arming Ethiopia to fight, if not Somalia? Were our friends on the right expecting maybe an Ethiopia invasion of Venezuela?

Posted by rea | December 28, 2006 8:57 AM

Well, after all, who are we arming Ethiopia to fight, if not Somalia? Were our friends on the right expecting maybe an Ethiopia invasion of Venezuela?

We give military aid to, e.g., the Czech Republic too. Who are we arming the Czechs to fight - Germany?

What puzzles me is the refusal of the "Reality-Based Community" to acknowledge that the Islamists caused the conflict with Ethiopia by declaring war on Ethiopia. Is the "Reality-Based Community" deliberately not saying anything about this, so as to maintain the fiction that it is Ethiopia's fault (and hence the US's fault, for being an Ethiopian ally), or are the "Reality-Based Community" just completely ignorant?

I mean, Matthew has done a number of posts on the Ethiopia-Somali Islamist war now. But he hasn't ever acknowledged that the Somalis instigated the Ethiopian invasion. Why not? Is he just skipping over the paragraphs in the newpaper that recount the timeline? Or is there some agenda to not say anything about it. You'd think that the Reality-Based Community would be more, well, reality based.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2006 11:27 AM

Ah, now THAT'S the kind of shameless hackdom that's made Al an online legend.

But he hasn't ever acknowledged that the Somalis instigated the Ethiopian invasion. Why not?

Yes indeed, the Somalis "instigated" the Ethiopian invasion -- in almost precisely the same way Afghanistan "instigated" its own invasion by the Soviet Union.

And of course, the Soviet version of Al was asking exactly these types of plaintive questions during the Soviet invasion.

The difference, of course, is that Soviet Al would have been the editor of Pravda rather than a blog commenter. It's really quite sad that American Al was born here, rather than in a totalitarian society where he could use his talents to their fullest.

Posted by grh | December 28, 2006 12:29 PM

We give military aid to, e.g., the Czech Republic too. Who are we arming the Czechs to fight - Germany?

What puzzles me is the refusal of the "Reality-Based Community" to acknowledge that the Islamists caused the conflict with Ethiopia by declaring war on Ethiopia. Is the "Reality-Based Community" deliberately not saying anything about this, so as to maintain the fiction that it is Ethiopia's fault (and hence the US's fault, for being an Ethiopian ally), or are the "Reality-Based Community" just completely ignorant?

#1) Ethiopia is a Russian arms consumer.

#2) You idea about "declaring war" is so stupid, anachronistic, has so many obvious, glaring errors that I had thought it was a troll trying to make you look foolish. My mistake.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 28, 2006 3:45 PM