Good post from Eric Martin. Good joke from Jim Henley: "Eric Martin discovers a curious fact: if locals bomb foreign troops when there are no American reporters around to hear it, it still makes a guerrilla war." The point being that conquering foreigners and reconstructing their political arrangements is objectively difficult, and not just something rendered hard by the liberals in the MSM.
« Best. Article. Ever. | Main | Education Policy for the Paranoid »
Guerilla War in Somalia
14 Mar 2007 12:27 am
Comments (12)
Back before Matthew even realized that Somalia existed - you know, pre-December - the insurgents weren't fighting an insurgency, they were fighting a plain old war. But if there's an actual war and Matthew doesn't realize it, does the war exist? I guess not.
The situation in Somlia is clearly objectively better today than it was a year ago. The Islamists are reduced to fighting an insurgent war, rather than an actual war as before. Matthew seems to think the opposite - at least that's implied by his many posts saying how bad things are now that there's an insurgency. But it's never been clear to me why Matthew seems to think that the state of war that existed pre-December was preferable to today.
The most hilarious thing about the whole episode is that Matthew pretends that his preferred international policy is to support international institutions. And yet, here we have both the UN and the African Union supporting the Transitional Government. And Matthew seems to think that the government supported by the UN and the African Union is the badguy. Odd that.
1. When you try to take territory, the locals always fight back, and usually really hard.
Since in Somalia it is locals against locals, and neither the US nor Ethiopia is "trying to take territory", I'm not sure how this applies. There's been a war for years there, with the locals "fighting back" against the other locals continually.
The point being that conquering foreigners and reconstructing their political arrangements is objectively difficult
And this is an odd sentence, since the Transitional Government in Somalia - the government backed by the UN, the African Union, Ethiopia, and the US - are locals; what they are engaged in is not "conquering foreigners".
And who will be the first to get sucked into engaging Al on his deliberate obtuseness? In 3...2...1
Seriously dude, three comments in a row? Come on buddy, make it last a little. Recite baseball stats or something.
Seriously dude, three comments in a row? Come on buddy, make it last a little.
Go easy, man. I was up at 5am feeding a baby!
The situation in Somlia is clearly objectively better today than it was a year ago. The Islamists are reduced to fighting an insurgent war, rather than an actual war as before. Matthew seems to think the opposite - at least that's implied by his many posts saying how bad things are now that there's an insurgency. But it's never been clear to me why Matthew seems to think that the state of war that existed pre-December was preferable to today.
Clearly objectively, huh? Not so sure about that Al. Check out this article in Foreign Affairs. An excerpt:
"Although Ethiopia's intervention this winter dislodged the potentially hostile Islamic courts -- which can be considered a short-term counterterrorism success -- it is too early for Washington to roll out the "Mission Accomplished" banners. Ethiopia's invasion has only displaced the most visible part of the Islamist movement; other elements have survived, including a network of mosques, madrasahs, and businesses, as well as a militant wing, known as the Shabaab, that has threatened to wage guerrilla war. Meanwhile, the courts' collapse has left a huge vacuum that the transitional government cannot fill. The courts had brought peace and stability, and their defeat has returned Mogadishu to the warlords who have preyed on Somalia for much of the past two decades. Two related insurgencies are likely to break out in the future, one led by the remnants of the courts, the other by disaffected clans."
The ICU was popular because they brought order and stability to Mogadishu. So, despite their odious fundamentalism, Somalis were willing to put up with the bad for the good. Now there is a power vacuum again, and a spider web of conflicts. Instability, conflict and failed statehood are breeding grounds, and staging areas, for terrorists. Increasing their size and scope is clearly objectively against our interests.
The most hilarious thing about the whole episode is that Matthew pretends that his preferred international policy is to support international institutions. And yet, here we have both the UN and the African Union supporting the Transitional Government. And Matthew seems to think that the government supported by the UN and the African Union is the badguy. Odd that.
Ethiopia invaded Somali territory. Neither the UN nor the AU supported or authorized that. Ethiopia itself is in violation of UN brokered border agreements with Eritrea. It's not that the TFG if the "badguy" it's that Ethiopia is playing regional political games of destabilization. Not. Good.
And this is an odd sentence, since the Transitional Government in Somalia - the government backed by the UN, the African Union, Ethiopia, and the US - are locals; what they are engaged in is not "conquering foreigners".
The TFG are not foreigners, but Ethiopian and US forces are. I can't believe I had to actually type that sentence. Keep in mind, the US had Chalabi and some other exile and local support in Iraq, but that doesn't seem to have qualitatively changed the response on the part of the locals now does it? The TFG won't attack the Ethiopians, but other Somalis will.
Eric,
I take it you're not familiar with "Al." He's perhaps the most legendary hack on the intertubes. He first appeared at Washington Monthly, and then migrated over here. (He made such an impression there that there are still people imitating him years later.)
Here you're addressing him as though he were an ignoramus, who could be enlightened with the facts. But he already knows the facts. He just chooses to lie about them.
There really is no level of dishonestly to which he won't sink. It's clear he gets some kind of thrill in seeing how far he can degrade himself in service to The Party. I've said many times that if you want to know what Stalin's hacks were like, just look at Al.
That said, recent events have been hard on him, and his level of hackery (as seen here) is falling. Watching him in action these days is more sad than anything else -- like coming across one of Stalin's old pensioned-off hacks sitting on a park bench in 1959.
grh,
Duly noted. I still kind of have a soft spot for him - call it the part of me that, like Luke, always thought ol' Darth would come around. But no, Al is not my father. At least...
But more seriously, I try to limit my responses to Al to situations where I think I can add a little to the discussion for the benefit of the rest of us. I know he's not going to be persuaded by facts as such, but sometimes it's useful just to show how certain specious claims would be rebutted.
Either way, thanks for the heads up.
And long live Al in all his incarnations.
I've been meaning to read that Foreign Affairs article; all I've gotten to in the latest is Drezner's article.
The ICU was popular because they brought order and stability to Mogadishu.
First, I don't think the ICU was all that popular, as you saw celebrations once they were booted out. Second, Mogadishu isn't all of Somalia. Peace in Mogadishu (to the extent there was peace, and I'm not sure you can call the Islamist regime "peaceful") does not mean there wasn't a war elsewhere in Somalia. Indeed, there was a regular, conventional war in other parts of Somalia, and now there isn't. When assessing whether Somalia is better off now than before, you can't note a new violent insurgency in Mogadishu without also noting the absence of conventional war elsewhere in Somalia. The latter outweighs the former, IMO.
Instability, conflict and failed statehood are breeding grounds, and staging areas, for terrorists. Increasing their size and scope is clearly objectively against our interests.
Islamist states are ALSO breeding grounds for terrorists. Which is why we had to depose the Taliban. I would rather have an instable state than an Islamist state; would you? If you wouldn't, then by extension you don't support our deposing the Taliban, right?
Ethiopia invaded Somali territory. Neither the UN nor the AU supported or authorized that.
Ethiopia invaded after the ICU declared war on Ethiopia, making the invasion justified under international law. Neither UN nor AU authorization was necessary.
Ethiopia itself is in violation of UN brokered border agreements with Eritrea.
Even if true, that is irrelevant to the Somlia question.
It's not that the TFG if the "badguy" it's that Ethiopia is playing regional political games of destabilization.
But this is wrong. Ethiopia isn't playing "regional political games of destabilization"; it is supporting the side in the Somali civil war that hadn't declared war on Ethiopia. Ethiopia's interests are in a stable, non-hostile Somali government (as is clear given their welcoming of AU troops to support the Transitional Government). The ICU was not such a government.
The TFG are not foreigners, but Ethiopian and US forces are.
And yet the insurgency is not confined to attacking the Ethiopian forces. The insurgency is thus not a reaction to Ethiopians who "conquered" Somalia. (Of course, there are no US forces in Somalia.)
I know it from the best authorities than the sole reason for the problem is that radicals in Mogadishu are emboldened by the rabid liberal press in Addis Ababa. And late night shows on Ethiopian TV -- horror!
As I said re Al: very sad. You approach the pensioned Stalinist hack as he sits on the park bench as he feeds the pigeons, and you find he won't stop fulminating about counterrevolutionaries.
Comments closed March 28, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I can't take much credit for being right about Iraq. When I found myself in pre-war arguments, I just had two basic talking points:
1. When you try to take territory, the locals always fight back, and usually really hard.
2. Nowadays, the locals have real weapons.
Now, that may be awfully primitive doctrine, but it sure pegged the outcome.
Posted by dj moonbat | March 14, 2007 1:11 AM