Etc., Etc., Etc.

New entry for The Weekly Standard's ever-expanding list of regimes that need changing: Eritrea, which "is looking ever more like a state sponsor of terrorism." Eritrea's sin is backing the ICU is Somalia.

All Eritrea's doing in the real world, of course, is trying to prevent its larger, hostile neighbor from growing even more powerful. But this is what happens once you decide that you need to be in the proxy war business. We've decided that backing Ethiopia's bid for regional hegemony in East Africa is identical with fighting terrorism, so any group or state that seeks to check Ethiopian power is now de facto a pro-terrorist enemy of the United States. Since it's the Horn of Africa probably none of this really matters at the end of the day (except, of course, to Africans) but that doesn't make this kind of mucking around advisable.

Comments

Wasn't Eritrea on 'our' side when it was fighting Ethiopia under its old dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam and the Dergue?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 15, 2007 3:59 PM

Davis X. Machina,

Eritrea was still part of Ethiopia at the time. The US did have an electronic listening base in what is now Eritrea for many years.

If you haven't read it yet, I recommend highly Michela Wrong's book I Didn't Do It For You, certainly one of the most readable books about Eritrea, especially regarding its relationship with Ethiopia.

Posted by Randy Paul | January 15, 2007 4:12 PM

now, i wouldn't endorse any neo-con plans, but eritrea (and ethiopia) have gotten quite unpleasant to their political opponents (eritrea much more). they have tossed into jail most eritrean journalists on charges of sedition. they also started the war with ethiopia. it's depressing that these countries (ethiopia and eritrea) fight over what is basically a bunch of sand, all at the cost of thousands of lives.

Posted by ga73 | January 15, 2007 4:21 PM

Weekly Standard wonks get excited thinking about possible new proxy wars the way regular guys get worked up over who might meet in the Super Bowl. The only problems are that real people die and there is all sorts of unpredictable blowback.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2007 4:28 PM

It's interesting that the Weekly Standard poster makes a big deal about Eritrea developing ties with China, since Ethiopia is also developing ties with China. The ruling parties in both countries started life as Maoists. Meles Zenawi, the dictator of Ethiopia, recently gave a speech about the "development state", in which he quite explicitly endorsed China as a model.

Posted by Pithlord | January 15, 2007 4:32 PM

I've often thought that the First World War could be thought of as a war against terrorism. Someone had to take on all those evil countries that sided with and protected terrorist-sponsoring Serbia.

Posted by David Tomlin | January 15, 2007 4:43 PM

There ought to be (if there isn't already) a 'mortality leverage' measure inspired by the shocking findings of 'excess mortality' in the 2006 Lancet study. Mortality leverage would measure in which regions our tiniest actions can most easily tip the scale to famine and death on the scale of millions. Because if we do even a single thing wrong with Eritrea and Ethiopia, and weather conditions go bad, we could be back to 1985 all over again. It'd be a measure of fragility of life among the general population with respect to underlying health conditions, environmental stresses, rivalries, ethnic tensions and such. And then of course, our leaders would have to pay attention to it.

Posted by djangone | January 15, 2007 4:44 PM

Ties with China?! OMG! Next they'll recognize the government of France. Slippery slope, that. As long as were in the force projection business, we might as well project some their way. After all, we've got this major surplus of troops with nothing to do.

Posted by BroD | January 15, 2007 4:44 PM

I've often thought that the First World War could be thought of as a war against terrorism. Someone had to take on all those evil countries that sided with and protected terrorist-sponsoring Serbia. - David Tomlin

Indeed. Maybe it's 'cause I'm a Jewy Jew whose forefathers immigrated to this country to escape Czarist oppression, but the whole "the allies were the side of democracy in WWI" argument they tried to teach us in elementary school never did sit well with me, considering on which side was Russia and I tended to agree with this assessment.

In this vein, though, some have argued that those who violate Godwin's law w.r.t. labeling Bush & CO are indeed wrong, as Bush I most resembles the Kaiser, not Hitler ... and our actions do resemble those of Germany in WWI. So, I guess all of my co-religionists who think GW Bush was so good for the Jews should ask themselves -- was German leadership in WWI so good for the Jews in the long run, considering what was the backlash against it?

Posted by DAS | January 15, 2007 4:58 PM

This administration looks at EVERYTHING through the lens of "for us or against us" and fails to understand that other countries operate on their own self interest. For an administration whose motto is "shoot first, diplomacy is capitulation" what do we expect (other than more failure)?

Today Condi notes that Palestinians and Israelis have failed to hold peace talks for over 6 years. Who presided over this failure, Condi? With President "I don't talk to terrorists and anyone who disagrees with me is a terrrorist" in office for 2 more years, US failure to lead diplomacy in the Middle East is a safe bet.

The public recognizes that Bush is a failure and it is time for the media to get on board. Bush foreign and domestic policy has been a failure and it is a failure because it is based on flawed philosophy. Anyone who shares Bush philosophy should not be elected because it will mean more failure for the US.

Posted by bakho | January 15, 2007 5:00 PM

Let me guess - there is a substantial amount of oil there. Because, I have yet to hear any calls for regime change in Myanmar, Western Sahara or Bangladesh.

Posted by Spud1 | January 15, 2007 5:03 PM

New entry for The Weekly Standard's ever-expanding list of regimes that need changing: Eritrea, which "is looking ever more like a state sponsor of terrorism."

I wonder what state sponsor's of terrorism typically look like. And do you think they have an identifiable smell?

This kind of comment reminds meof the Will Farrel sketch a few years ago in which he portrayed Bush impulsively and erratically placing all his various enemies on the Axis of Evil.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 15, 2007 5:06 PM

The nasty but hilarious War Nerd put it best in regards to Eritrea's priorities:

"And Eritrea, which I'm sad to say has been going kind of Islamist lately, is backing him and his court officers, if only because they make Ethiopia nervous. Eritrea would back a giant asteroid if it would just promise to wipe out Ethiopia one millisecond before obliterating the rest of the planet."

Posted by Hank Scorpio | January 15, 2007 5:15 PM

Wouldn't this just pave the way for an Ethiopian occupation of Eritrea? Then again, occupation by our "allies" of Muslims isn't exactly unpopular around the water cooler at the Weekly Standard.

Posted by Reality Man | January 15, 2007 5:21 PM

The government of Eritrea is increasingly oppressive and intentionally self-isolated. American diplomats in-country, for example, must personally import fruit, because Eritreans can no longer obtain such luxuries. The fact that they backed the ICU is an absurd reason to advocate "regime change." On the other side of the same coin, the fact that TWS called for regime change is an absurd reason to say that Eritrea's actions - including provoking long wars over barren, worthless towns that cost thousands of lives and wreck already-poor economies - are purely out of self-defense against big, bad proxy-war fighting Ethiopia. Do not fall into a trap of defending an awful regime simply because conservatives dislike it as well.

Posted by Anon | January 15, 2007 6:31 PM

Wouldn't this just pave the way for an Ethiopian occupation of Eritrea? Then again, occupation by our "allies" of Muslims isn't exactly unpopular around the water cooler at the Weekly Standard.

Eritrea is actually 50% Christian [ref], a slightly higher percentage of Christians than Ethiopia.

Posted by Constantine | January 15, 2007 6:34 PM

"Weekly Standard wonks get excited thinking about possible new proxy wars the way regular guys get worked up over who might meet in the Super Bowl. The only problems are that real people die and there is all sorts of unpredictable blowback."

Their wanking is more like "Could Wolverine beat Superman if Wolverine had a kryptonite light saber?"

Posted by Jon H | January 15, 2007 7:22 PM

It's not just the Weekly Std. PajamasMedia's lede the other day was that Eritrea sides with Al Qaeda.

The principle here evidently is that the enemy of the enemy of the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Posted by KH | January 15, 2007 7:32 PM

Clearly, Yglesias is motivated by his poisonous anti-Ethiopianism. Does Abe Foxman know about this?

Posted by Peter Principle | January 15, 2007 7:32 PM

Is this what GW would rather we do than find OBL in Afghanistan - or hiding in Pakistan - and kill him?

Do we have to keep wondering about those Saudi-Bush family business connections Michael Moore brought up so long ago?

Seems like not too long after we bombed Afghanistan silly GW lost all interest in any further pursuit of OBL or Al-Qaeda, and went haring off in 3 or 4 totally unrelated directions.

Like into Iraq, for instance. And now East Africa.

Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus | January 15, 2007 7:49 PM

"Wouldn't this just pave the way for an Ethiopian occupation of Eritrea?"

Couldn't that be the unofficial quid pro quo for Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia? Landlocked Ethiopia wants that access to the sea, and both Eritrea and Somalia could provide it.

Posted by MarkC | January 15, 2007 9:49 PM

The MSM continues to ignore the growing threat presented by Iceland. With their continued failure to support U.S. strategy in the middle east Iceland's true sympathies are clear. Despite insistence that their aims are peaceful Iceland continues to develop a highly suspicious network of dual-use geothermal power stations. Stakes have never been higher and this is not the time for the U.S. to shirk its responsibilities. We must immediately begin supporting freedom-loving opposition forces within Iceland. Failure in Iceland means failure in Iraq, failure in the war on terror, and the descent of all human institutions into lawlessness and anarchy. I hope that the Democrats in Congress are brave enough not to oppose the President's bold vision.

Posted by silkteddiesmedia | January 16, 2007 12:05 AM

Jon H. writes:

"Their wanking is more like "Could Wolverine beat Superman if Wolverine had a kryptonite light saber?"

Indeed.

My son was just asking me that. He has a great future in punditry, or perhaps in the Vice President's office as head of global strategic analysis.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 16, 2007 1:05 AM

Meanwhile,

We're basing our AC-130 "Wedding Crashers" in Eritrea's neighbor Djibouti...propping up a government whose two main businesses are shipping drugs to Europe and underage female sex slaves to Asia.

Posted by alphie | January 16, 2007 2:36 AM

Wasn't Eritrea part of the Coalition of the Willing? Is it still?

Posted by Neil | January 16, 2007 6:38 AM

Steve Sailer on January 16, 2007 01:05 AM

My son was just asking me that. He has a great future in punditry, or perhaps in the Vice President's office as head of global strategic analysis.

Maybe he could have an oil tanker named after him and later become Secretary of State. Given that the current Secretary of State is nothing more than an official government pundit, of course.

Your son would have to learn to talk like Joe Isuzu, though. Engage mouth, disengage brain.

Posted by raj | January 16, 2007 8:41 AM

it's depressing that these countries (ethiopia and eritrea) fight over what is basically a bunch of sand, all at the cost of thousands of lives.

Everything old is new again.

We watched Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" yesterday. Despite having read the play a half dozen times, I'd never really caught the line about Fortinbras going to fight a war over a scrap of land not big enough to be the graves of the men doing the fighting.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 16, 2007 11:10 AM

Eritrea is getting a bad rep here. "Everyone" believed that there were 2,000 Eritrean troops in Somalia backing the ICU, but nobody managed to find them. The Sudanese government has also given up on the theory that the Eritreans are major arms smugglers in the region.

Matthew is dead wrong to say that the Horn of Africa doesn't matter, btw. It matters at least as much as Afghanistan; look at the width of the Mandab Strait.

Posted by dsquared | January 17, 2007 6:46 AM

i think its funny reading all of your opinions when you dont even know whats going on.

the fact is that eritrea and ethiopia just had a war again, and the outcome of that war was that the u.n awarded the place they was fighting for to eritrea, meaning eritrea was rightfully defending its land. And Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian Dictator is part of Tigray, they represent 2% of the Ethiopian people and wish to be independent from Ethiopia. Ethiopia had a election not long time ago and Meles lost it, but did aa recount where they cheated the Ethiopian people of justice and democracy. this is all fact and there more to this but its late over here in scandinavia and i have to go to sleep but please people ccheck the fact before you make half ass posts. and Americans trully need to look at their part of whats wrong with this world today.

Posted by Daniel G | January 17, 2007 7:42 PM

Ethiopia is the reason why the horn is so messed up. They fought Eritrea over an ERITREAN CITY that was ruled by international courts. To make it even worse, after signing a contract that stated "final and binding", the dictator of Ethiopia REFUSES to follow the contract he signed and as a reward for breaking an internationally legal contract, he recives logistics and hundreds of millions of dollars from the EU, China and the US.

The UN also is on the Ethiopian side, after CLEARLY lying about the "2,000 highly trained Eritrean soldiers in Somalia" it reported before Ethiopia and AMerican invaded Somalia, till this day, NOT A SINGLE ERITREAN SOLDIER WAS EVER FOUND IN SOMALIA.

The sad thing is you know the UN lied big time, but instead of saying "we lied and messed up", they continue to blame Eritrea, which isn't a rich country as "suplying weapons" to jihadist....

The problem is the WEST is clearly and ILLEGALLY backing Ethiopia to continue to destablize the whole regine because the Ethiopian governemnt is one of very few governments that will allow their troops to be killed in forign nations fighting for the US's interest. A good puppet will be rewarded, even if he's hated by all of the people of his nation and the whole East African reigine.

The saga of Eritrea continues, no other African nations had to endure what they went through. Go read a book called "i diddn't do it for you" by miss wrong...or "against all odds", a story that tells you how the people of Eritrea are here today despite the massive powers of the soviets, cubans and over a million Ethiopian troops to become the nation you see on google map.

Posted by Fred baker | February 25, 2007 4:14 AM