As we see the anti-Ethiopian Islamist insurgency in Somalia continue to pick up steam, even prompting Ethiopian troops to deploy the legendarily successful counterinsurgency tactic of "return[ing] fire with artillery and heavy machine-gun fire throughout the night," can we ask once again what the United States policy in the Horn of Africa has accomplished. None of the terrorists allegedly being harbored by the Islamic Courts Movement have been captured. The Ethiopians cannot (of course) effectively control the country. It seems that hundreds of Somali civilians have died in various kinds of fighting. And we've effectively opened up another branch campus of Jihad University.
« Satellite Monopolies? | Main | War on Parasites »
Remember When?
20 Feb 2007 07:33 am
Comments (20)
Why do men and women choose to bring children into a world when the nation they live in is filled with war, murder and violence? Yeah, stupid question I know. I don't understand foreign cultures as to family planning and the dynamics of relationships between men and women. Obviously most of these war torn nations are misogynistic, with women considered little more than livestock good for breeding and manual labor. Still, there must be some sort of collective insanity present when deliberately conceiving a child while the sounds of gunfire amd mortar rounds can be heard outside the bedroom window. Hell, I'd be ashamed to get pregnant knowing the future mess in the U.S. greeting my child. Just the thought of the American Taliban forcing him to learn ancient societies held dinosaur rodeos and the Grand Canyon was carved from stone last Tuesday is reason enough to get sterilized.
"can we ask once again what the United States policy in the Horn of Africa has accomplished."
We seem to have replaced a hostile government with a friendly government in a strategically important country at a very low cost.
Is this really so complex to understand?
(Standard disclaimer about the Bush administration's ability to mismanage even seemingly simple situations due to their laser-like focus on avoiding elementary policy concerns...)
We seem to have replaced a hostile government with a friendly government in a strategically important country at a very low cost.
Ah, Petey, you remind me of myself when I was a younger man.
Is there any evidence that the ICU was "hostile" in any sense other than "hostile to America's efforts to overthorw it?" Somalia is "strategically important" compared to which other countries? Plus, who's replaced the ICU? They're still fighting, the TNG is still dependent on Ethiopian support, and the Ethiopians are still preparing to leave before trying to occupy Somalia bankrupts them.
More and more US Foreign Policy under George W. Bush reminds me of Matthew Broderick in Godzilla (paraphrasing)
"well ... we fed him."
As we see the anti-Ethiopian Islamist insurgency in Somalia continue to pick up steam,
Um, there was an insurgency for years before Ethiopia invaded. Matthew seems to have this odd idea that Somali history began on December 24. There's no evidence that the insurgency is any worse now than it was a year ago, except that the Islamists don't control the country anymore.
can we ask once again what the United States policy in the Horn of Africa has accomplished
Matthew also has this idea that what happens there is due to United States policy. The United States has virtually nothing to do with what's happening there.
"Ah, Petey, you remind me of myself when I was a younger man."
Ah, yes. I must be reminding you of that brief shinning moment when you were transitioning from your previous unmoored hawkish stance to your current unmoored dovish stance.
There must have been that brief shining moment where you actually had a balanced stance for the national interest...
"Matthew seems to have this odd idea that Somali history began on December 24."
I think it goes even deeper than that. His odd idea is that the US military should have no role in the region, or likely anywhere else on the planet.
------
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: George Bush is annihilating an entire generation of Democratic foreign policy minds.
Petey, we can be sure you will say it again!
So, Petey, if you could take a break from stroking your titanic foreign policy mind:
Is there any evidence that the ICU was "hostile" in any sense other than "hostile to America's efforts to overthorw it?" Somalia is "strategically important" compared to which other countries? Plus, who's replaced the ICU? They're still fighting, the TNG is still dependent on Ethiopian support, and the Ethiopians are still preparing to leave before trying to occupy Somalia bankrupts them.
Answer the goddamn questions instead of just posturing and spouting soundbites.
Um, there was an insurgency for years before Ethiopia invaded
um, yes but the ICU was the only time that the insurgency actually might have been stopped. the u.s. fucked that up when it intervened through the ethiopian invasion.
There's no evidence that the insurgency is any worse now than it was a year ago, except that the Islamists don't control the country anymore.
sure there is, at least if you look at it through the lense of u.s. interests. a year ago, the insurgency (well, insurgencies) were not particularly anti-u.s. now, they definitely are.
Matthew also has this idea that what happens there is due to United States policy. The United States has virtually nothing to do with what's happening there.
it depends on what the definition of "virtually nothing" is. i mean, if by "virtually nothing" you mean arming and encouraging a neighboring country (ethiopia) to invade somalia, get rid of the closest thing mogadishu has had to a functioning government, and return the country to warlord control, and all that with the involvement of some u.s. special forces troops on the ground and several american bombing raids inside somalia, then yeah, the u.s. didn't do anything at all.
His odd idea is that the US military should have no role in the region, or likely anywhere else on the planet.
why is suggesting that u.s. involvement on the side of ethiopia against the ICU is equivalent to the idea that "the US military should have no role in the region"? just because he doesn't think a particular policy didn't work is not the same as believing that we should have no policy at all.
you mean arming and encouraging a neighboring country (ethiopia) to invade somalia,
Of course, there is no evidence we "encouraged" anybody to invade anything. When Ethiopia decided to invade, we didn't object.
get rid of the closest thing mogadishu has had to a functioning government, and return the country to warlord control,
These are things Ethiopia did, not the US. Moreover, the government of Somalia was the government approved by the UN - which is the government that Ethiopia supported. I'm not sure why you think the US should have supported either side in the Somali civil war - but I'm doubly unclear as to why you think we should have supported the Islamist government rather than the UN-supported government. I'm a supporter of the UN; are you?
and all that with the involvement of some u.s. special forces troops on the ground and several american bombing raids inside somalia,
The American forces on the ground were to attack al Qaeda forces that had fled; the US forces had nothing to do with the invasion.
As always, it's difficult to determine whether Al's lying or is just very, very, very stupid.
can we ask once again what the United States policy in the Horn of Africa has accomplished.
BLACKADDER: "Our Horn of Africa policy?"
MELCHETT: "You seem surprised, Blackadder."
BLACKADDER: "Yes, sir. I wasn't aware that we had a policy."
The American forces on the ground were to attack al Qaeda forces that had fled; the US forces had nothing to do with the invasion.
Actually, that's not entirely true. US forces helped Ethiopian forces in every stage of the operation. The US might have been focused on al-Qaeda, but Ethiopia wasn't, and our help was not so neatly segregated.
Of course, there is no evidence we "encouraged" anybody to invade anything.
Oh come on Al. Of course there is. Every time Meles yelped about al-Qaeda, we lavished his regime with money and arms. And how, do you suppose, did we coordinate military ops with Ethiopia? On the fly after they invaded, or, maybe, they sort of like had something planned a priori.
...the government of Somalia was the government approved by the UN - which is the government that Ethiopia supported. I'm not sure why you think the US should have supported either side in the Somali civil war - but I'm doubly unclear as to why you think we should have supported the Islamist government rather than the UN-supported government. I'm a supporter of the UN; are you?
First of all, Ethiopia is currently in violation of a UN brokered treaty with Eritrea. So turning to Ethiopia - or the Bush administration - as the great champions of the UN is more than a little disingenuos. Also, this is not a question of which faction to "support." It is a question of whether that support should include using our military - and arming and encouraging Ethiopia to use its - in order to topple the one relatively stable government Somalia has seen in many, many years.
Keep in mind Al, Ethiopia wants a divided, weak Somalia regardless. That is a stated policy goal of Ethiopia's. They don't have the best interests of Somalia, or the exiled government, at heart. It's just in Ethiopia's regional interests - or so that is the calculation of the Meles regime.
Of course, there is no evidence we "encouraged" anybody to invade anything
are you serious? statements by the bush administration, funding the ethiopian operation, u.s. personnel accompanying ethiopian forces into somalia, and american bombings of retreating ICU personel is "no evidence."
i'm curious what you would consider to be "some evidence."
I'm not sure why you think the US should have supported either side in the Somali civil war - but I'm doubly unclear as to why you think we should have supported the Islamist government rather than the UN-supported government. I'm a supporter of the UN; are you?
the u.s. should have supported the ICU because it was able to bring stability to somalia. after the ICU took mogadishu it reached out to the u.s., and the u.s. snubbed it.
as for UN recognition, the UN is a product of its member states. if the U.S. had taken up the ICU's conciliatory offer, the UN would have supported the ICU's efforts. instead, the u.s. blocked any UN recognition of the ICU as a legitimate government and funnelled arms to the warlords who were fighting them.
The American forces on the ground were to attack al Qaeda forces that had fled; the US forces had nothing to do with the invasion.
no, the u.s. claimed that al qaeda was among the ICU forces. indeed, the bush administration considered the ICU to practically be an appendage of al qaeda. there's no actual evidence that they were.
but at least you're acknowledging that there were u.s. forces on the ground along with the ethiopian troops. i guess it still counts as an all ethiopian operation.
the problem is that the u.s. is allergic to any entity that calls itself islamist. in somalia and much of the islamic world "islamists" means anti-corruption. to the u.s., it's practically synonymous to "terrorist." so by calling itself "islamists" the ICU was writing it's own death certificate. it made sense locally, somalis saw "islamists" as a break from the drug dealing warlords who preyed off the somali population (oops, i'm sorry, i meant "the government approved by the UN"). i just don't think the ICU realized what a panic the "islamists" label would cause to the simplistic strategy-makers in the bush administration.
Eric & upyernoz,
I think you're making a serious mistake by responding to Al with evidence. He doesn't have any interest in that. At best he'll just go away for a while (though admittedly that in itself is something devoutly to be wished).
Al is a degenerate troll; I see the name and spit and move on.
I was responding to Al, for the benefit of Petey ;)
Comments closed March 06, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
we've accomplished what wingnut military experts call "awesomeness." enough of your looking-at-policy-objectively-and-deciding-whether-it-actually-helps-in-the-long-termishness. only pussies do that. caring about our long term objectives rarely results in pretty explosions or mass slaughter of mooooooslims, so what's the point of that?
Posted by upyernoz | February 20, 2007 7:47 AM