Matthew Yglesias (April 10, 2007) - Here's an Idea... (Foreign Policy)

Let's be realistic. Somalia looked like a place where the radical Islamists could be safe in December 2006. Now it's not. And this was accomplished without spilling US blood. And the lot of the Somalis isn't any worse than it has been for 15 years. And, I have no objection to a policy that demonstrates to people that, if you switch to a government based on radical Islam, your life will get worse.

Success for the US, in this instance, is keeping things from getting worse for the US, not making Somalia safe for Democracy.

As for the US backing up on North Korea to accomplish it...notice the NORKs have been a little less unreasonable lately?

Posted by Appalled Moderate | April 10, 2007 11:39 AM

Actually the lot of the 1,000 killed or wounded and the 100,000 fleeing their homes apparently is much worse than it was. Is that so difficult to understand?

You sound like the sort of guy who wonders why people get upset about the Iraq War, since only 3,292 Americans have died.

Posted by tequila | April 10, 2007 11:45 AM

After all, there was a truce in Mogadishu in place before this all started up.

With due respect, Mr. Yglesias (which is actually quite a lot), do you have any idea whatsoever what was going on in Somalia before (1) Ethiopia invaded and (2) you decided it was a bad idea?

1. The ICU declared war on Somalia's transitional government, in 2006. FTR, the transitional government was the government supported by the EU, the UN, the AU, and Somalia's immediate neighbors.

2. The ICU succeeded in large part because it received the backing of several of Somalia's clan-based warlords, who were unhappy that the transitional government was trying to stabilize the country at the expense of their private armies and control.

3. By spring 2006 -- i.e., one year ago -- the civil war the ICU had started was in full swing. By the beginning of June 2006, the ICU claimed to be in control of Mogadishu. By mid-June 2006 -- 10 months ago -- the last (central) town loyal to the Somalia warlords supporting the transitional government fell.

4. There was then your "truce in Mogadishu" and imagined period of stability, while the ICU consolidated power. This lasted until September 2006, when ICU forces took the town of Baidoa despite the Ethiopian government's statement that it would protect the legitimate government of Somalia if the town were attacked. (At approximately the same time, ICU spokespeople were talking about a "Greater Somalia" that included portions of Ethiopia and actively recruiting jihadist fighters.)

5. In December 2006, Ethiopia intervened.

So, yes, there was a "a truce in Mogadishu" for about a half year, brought about by an Islamist group that forced out the TFG -- Somalia's legitimate government -- at gunpoint. Huzzah for the ICU!

Really, Mr. Yglesias: some conservatives may have drawn the wrong lessons from Ethiopia's invasions, but if you're going to say that the Europeans, the Americans, the Ethiopians, and the African Union all got it wrong and are backing the wrong horse, please provide some evidence. Because, warts and all, Ethiopia's invasion (which had the backing of the Europeans and the African Union, natch), still seems like a net plus.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 11:55 AM

Let's be realistic. Somalia looked like a place where the radical Islamists could be safe in December 2006. Now it's not. And this was accomplished without spilling US blood. And the lot of the Somalis isn't any worse than it has been for 15 years. And, I have no objection to a policy that demonstrates to people that, if you switch to a government based on radical Islam, your life will get worse.

You're understating the basic wrongness of Mr. Yglesias' position. The TFG (transitional federal government) is, quite likely, the only government that has any chance to provide stability to Somalia. The ICU, which, as noted, gained power in early 2006 and was at war for nearly all of its year-long tenure, was a pariah state to nearly everyone, including our allies. The ICU was also a direct threat to Ethiopia; moreover, after the ICU took Baidoa, there was exactly zero chance that the Ethiopians were not going to intervene: better an unstable Somalia than a Somalia headed by a government intent on destabilizing Ethiopia.

None of this is to say that Ethiopia are "total good guys" or we should be BFFs with the current Ethiopian regime (which has done some nasty stuff). But come on. Yglesias' arguments, at best, completely miss the point and, at worst, advocate a course of action that is really, really stupid. Unfortunately, few folks actually know anything about the Horn of Africa, so no one calls him on it. It's just another chance to score political points against enemies in the chattering classes.

Yglesias is much, much smarter than this. Please dig a little deeper into the facts.

von

*Recall that in the past Yglesias has argued that we should have recognized the ICU and negotiated with them, promptly alienating all of our European allies and 90% of Africa.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 12:05 PM

I wondering how you feel about the North Korean arms shipment, von.

Posted by spartikus | April 10, 2007 12:07 PM

UPDATE: See this report from Human Rights Watch: "Fighting between Ethiopian armed forces and insurgent groups in Mogadishu escalated between March 29 and April 2 and resulted in deaths and injuries to hundreds of civilians, including from indiscriminate shelling and mortar attacks on heavily populated areas."

Not to continue to belabor this point, but you do realize that the ICU and its clan and warlord supporters are not simply at war with Ethiopia, right? They're also attacking peacekeeping forces, the transitional government, and pretty much anyone who gets in their way. The ICU will not bring stability to Somalia; the best way forward remains the TFG, which continues to be the legitimate government of Somalia.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 12:10 PM

I wondering how you feel about the North Korean arms shipment, von.

I have, frankly, not formed a final opinion on it. On one hand, I think it's unhelpful to help the NK in any respect. On the other, I cleave to the realist view of foreign policy -- as well as to the view that it is the ends, and not necessarily the means, that are important. (There are some obvious qualifications and limitations on that last clause.) I never say never (much like Sean Connery).

So, assuming the reports are right, am I prepared to condemn our complicity with the Ethiopia government -- a regime with some problems -- purchasing arms from the NK crazy-topia? No. It may have been the right move at the time. (It also may not have been, but I lack the info to make that judgment.)

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 12:15 PM

My take on this matter back in December was, from the standpoint of Devil's advocacy, that using proxy warfare to fight Islamists was a bad idea in an ideal world, but it at least represented an improvement over the first 6 years of Bush foreign policy. Invading random countries that don't harbor Jihadists and ignoring countries that do harbor Jihadists is the worst of all possible counterterrorism strategies. Arming proxies to strangle a nascent Islamist regime in the cradle at least represents a concession to reality. It's perhaps not the way an ideal President would have handled the situation, but it's about the best we could expect from George W. Bush.

Also, Somalia has been a scene of anarchy and tribal warfare for much of the past 15 years. The Transitional Government is almost certainly the best way forward for providing stability in Somalia without abandoning the Somalis to failed statehood or life under Sharia law. I think this needs to be taken into account when judging the current situation.

All of the above being said, I once again failed to take into account the evil genius of the Iran/Contra ex-cons who currently run our foreign policy. Undermining our North Korea sanctions to arm the Ethiopians? There's really no ceiling to their craven idiocy, is there?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 10, 2007 12:24 PM

Von,

As someone who originally had the same position as you, I can say that I'm not impressed by your case. In particular, the argument that the TFG is a "legitimate government" and the most positive way to go forward looks quite tendentious to me; it was a collection of warlords that had, in the absence of any better alternative, managed to win tenuous international support. That it was utterly unable to maintain a hold on virtually any part of the country without foreign support is not evidence in its favor. The argument that the TFG is the only entity likely to provide stability in Somalia is UTTERLY without support; indeed, the proposition has considerable evidence against it.

Also, it's simply ridiculous to say that negotiating with the ICU would have "alienated our European allies and 90% of the African Union". Our European allies simply don't care about Somalia, and their support of the transitional government was little more than verbal.

Finally, please dispense with the notion that Ethiopia is acting altruistically; a unified, stable Somalia is a threat to Ethiopian interests, which everyone in the region has recognized by this point.

I'm familiar with your writing at Obsidian Wings, and although I disagree with some of your positions, I damn certain that YOU are smarter than the argument you're trying to make here.

Posted by Rob | April 10, 2007 12:27 PM

von, give up. If something lends itself as a stick with which he can beat up on conservatives then fat matt couldnt care less about the facts.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | April 10, 2007 12:28 PM

"The Transitional Government is almost certainly the best way forward for providing stability in Somalia without abandoning the Somalis to failed statehood or life under Sharia law."

Again, is there any plausible defense of this statement? The transitional government distinguished itself by being unable to govern, unable to cooperate with itself, and completely incapable of defending itself. Here's a hint; just because the international community would sort of like a government to succeed doesn't mean that it will...

Posted by Rob | April 10, 2007 12:29 PM

Let's be realistic. Somalia looked like a place where the radical Islamists could be safe in December 2006. Now it's not. And this was accomplished without spilling US blood. And the lot of the Somalis isn't any worse than it has been for 15 years.

Two thoughts: first of all, according to Bush administration officials, Somalia is NOW a place where radical Islamists could be safe as well. We have not taken away their sanctuary.

Also, most reports now assess that the level of violence is the worst its been in OVER 15 years. Things have gone from clan-based fighting, to something akin to the near-genocidal civil war that preceded it.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 12:35 PM

. . . the rightwing cheerleaders for the Ethiopians' swift victory seem to have completely lost interest in the subject . . .

No complaints that the media isn't reporting on all the schools the Ethiopians have painted?

Posted by David Tomlin | April 10, 2007 12:38 PM

Eric Martin:

A rejoinder --

The Taliban, now that they have an official safe-haven in Pakistan, as opposed to a somewhat uncertain one, now seems more ominous and a threat to Afghanistan. I think what we have had in Somalia is the reverse. That makes the US better off (marginally, but better off).

On the fighting -- it's not as if the Ethiopians started that. That's the doing of the supporters of the Islamic Courts. Also, given the Islamic Courts announced hostility to the Ethiopians, wasn't the invasion sort of going to happen anyway, with or without us?

I'm sure I betray some ignorance. News of the horn of africa is not exactly reported.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | April 10, 2007 12:49 PM

So, assuming the reports are right, am I prepared to condemn our complicity with the Ethiopia government -- a regime with some problems -- purchasing arms from the NK crazy-topia? No. It may have been the right move at the time.

Couldn't the United States arm Ethiopia directly?

Posted by spartikus | April 10, 2007 12:51 PM

Von, a few thoughts:

The ICU succeeded in large part because it received the backing of several of Somalia's clan-based warlords, who were unhappy that the transitional government was trying to stabilize the country at the expense of their private armies and control.

This is mostly the opposite of what happened. The ICU tamped down clan based activity in Mogadishu - and the clans mostly sided with the TFG in order to get their turf back. Prior to the Ethiopian invasion, road block extortion was almost non-existent, and the population was free to move about with economic life coming back. Now? Back to the warlord based extortion ring, economic paralysis and mass emigration.

At approximately the same time, ICU spokespeople were talking about a "Greater Somalia" that included portions of Ethiopia...

As I've pointed out to you at ObWi before, this has been the policy of every Somali regime for decades. The next Somali regime will have the same policy. Ogaden is disputed territory. That has not changed.

There was then your "truce in Mogadishu" and imagined period of stability, while the ICU consolidated power.

Imagined? If it wasn't stable relative to the current conflict, why on Earth have roughly 1 million Somalis fled after Ethiopia invaded? If it was worse before, wouldn't they have fled already? If it's no worse now, why the impetus to emigrate?

Also: Somalis seem to have a different view of stability than you, in their own words (note: the date of this post is backdated somewhat for archival purposes)

http://tianews.blogspot.com/2005/03/somali-reaction-to-recent-ethiopian.html

...but if you're going to say that the Europeans, the Americans, the Ethiopians, and the African Union all got it wrong and are backing the wrong horse, please provide some evidence. Because, warts and all, Ethiopia's invasion (which had the backing of the Europeans and the African Union, natch), still seems like a net plus.

Here your conflating strategy with tactics. It's entirely possible to support the TFG without supporting an Ethiopian invasion to aid the TFG - as well as Ethiopia's obvious, longstanding and conflicting regional interests. You should try to conceptualize the difference. To my knowledge, neither the AU nor the EU supported Ethiopia's invasion.

The ICU was also a direct threat to Ethiopia; moreover, after the ICU took Baidoa, there was exactly zero chance that the Ethiopians were not going to intervene: better an unstable Somalia than a Somalia headed by a government intent on destabilizing Ethiopia.

Wait a minute, this is preposterous. The ICU couldn't even defend its home turf from an Ethiopian invasion - but you would have us believe that the ICU was going to mount a successful invasion of Ethiopia? Really? Otherwise, Ethiopia could handle itself from the ICU's destabilization attempts.

Recall that in the past Yglesias has argued that we should have recognized the ICU and negotiated with them, promptly alienating all of our European allies and 90% of Africa.

What Rob said.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 12:52 PM

"On the fighting -- it's not as if the Ethiopians started that. That's the doing of the supporters of the Islamic Courts. Also, given the Islamic Courts announced hostility to the Ethiopians, wasn't the invasion sort of going to happen anyway, with or without us?

Maybe, and maybe not. Ethiopian decision-making was, without doubt, made with some expectation of a particular US policy. If the Ethiopians were planning to invade anyway, the attack didn't mean that it was necessary to support the Ethiopian forces to the extent that we allowed delivery of North Korean weapons.

Posted by Rob | April 10, 2007 12:59 PM

Rob, is there any plausible defense of the suggestion that there's a better way forward than supporting the TFG? Here's a hint: there's no Deus ex machina waiting in the wings to turn Somalia into a modern nation-state.

I agree that the ICU has shown that it is much more likely to "stabilize" Somalia internally than the TFG. The more pressing question is whether they would provide the sort of temporary internal stability that will destabilize the rest of the Horn of Africa by promoting insurgencies in Ethiopia and elsewhere, not to mention arming and training international terrorists. By the same token, the Taliban was far better at "stabilizing" Afghanistan than the warlords who preceded them. But they were far more dangerous to the rest of the world.

The ICU are attempting to lock in a fundamentalist regime that enforces Sharia law, is openly hostile to the Ethiopian regime, and are clearly more antagonistic to US interests in the region than the TFG.

Where is the option that is preferable to supporting the TFG? Using the Ethiopians as proxies may have been the wrong way to pursue that goal, but I see no reason to believe we're backing the wrong horse.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 10, 2007 12:59 PM

AM

The Taliban, now that they have an official safe-haven in Pakistan, as opposed to a somewhat uncertain one, now seems more ominous and a threat to Afghanistan. I think what we have had in Somalia is the reverse. That makes the US better off (marginally, but better off).

Perhaps. But we have paid a heavy price for "marginal" gains. Especially here considering that the radicals still can move about with impunity in large swathes of Somalia. Their "official" shelter by the ICU was more or less a paper gain, nothing in real terms. Only now, conflict is attracting more radicals and turning more moderates and fence sitters against the US. Ethiopia being our "ambassadors" is less than ideal.

On the fighting -- it's not as if the Ethiopians started that. That's the doing of the supporters of the Islamic Courts. Also, given the Islamic Courts announced hostility to the Ethiopians, wasn't the invasion sort of going to happen anyway, with or without us?

No, the Ethiopians started it. As for "announced hostility" I say: so? These two nations have been at each other's throats for decades. They fought a long, bloody territorial war a few decades back. They stopped fighting once Somalia descended into civil war and chaos. They only resumed fighting as Somalia began to stabilize.

The Ethiopian government, through policy papers, has acknowledged that a destabilized and weak Somalia is in its interests. So, surprise, Ethiopia invades and turns Somalia into a more chaotic, destabilized and war torn place.

All the while, getting money and arms from the US government. Not a bad deal really.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 1:00 PM

Where is the option that is preferable to supporting the TFG? Using the Ethiopians as proxies may have been the wrong way to pursue that goal, but I see no reason to believe we're backing the wrong horse.

I can't speak for Rob (he's more than capable obviously), but I would say, again, a question of tactics vs. strategy. The ICU were less than ideal, but starting another war in Somalia to change the situation - through a proxy that has instability in Somalia as a stated policy goal - is worse than letting the ICU remain in power. Backing the TFG might have been "right" but backing them using these tactics was a big mistake.

We have not served our interests, nor Somalia's. Ethiopia, though, has come out quite well.

If the Ethiopians were planning to invade anyway, the attack didn't mean that it was necessary to support the Ethiopian forces to the extent that we allowed delivery of North Korean weapons.

We also provided air support and on the ground military assistance through "advisors" and special forces elements. Our involvement went beyond green-lighting the NoKo sale (not that Rob disagrees, just adding more detail).

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 1:07 PM

Rob, a broad point before I address your arguments:

You've made some quite correct criticisms of the TFG, and your point that it failed the ultimate test -- it couldn't withstand the warlords backing the ICU -- is well put. What you fail to do is to explain what (if anything) your criticisms are leading toward. If you believe that the TFG is (1) not the legitimate Somalia govenment and (2) is unlikely to ever be effective as a government, the logical conclusion seems to be that the US should support the ICU as the great hope for Somalia. Is that your position? If that's not your position -- if you prefer a magical third way -- please tell us what it is. Millions are dying to know (some figuratively, some literally).

In particular, the argument that the TFG is a "legitimate government" and the most positive way to go forward looks quite tendentious to me

The TFG continues to be recognized as the legitimate government of Somalia by the types that recognize such things -- e.g., nations, international groups, the UN.

[The TFG] was a collection of warlords that had, in the absence of any better alternative, managed to win tenuous international support.

I like my sophistry bold, and this is just that. The TFG did have the involvment of some warlords -- what credible attempt at peace in Somalia couldn't? Of course, the ICU directly drew its strength from warlords, so I'm not sure why you think that the involvement of warlords in the TFG is some great point in your favor.

But your "in the absence of any better alternative, managed to win tenuous international support" argument is particularly rich. "In the absence of any better alternative"? Sure. We live in the real world. But "tenuous international support"? Hardly. The TFG was overthrown in a civil war. The international support hasn't gone away, but rather increased. Peacekeepers are being deployed. This is not "tenuous" support.

Also, it's simply ridiculous to say that negotiating with the ICU would have "alienated our European allies and 90% of the African Union". Our European allies simply don't care about Somalia, and their support of the transitional government was little more than verbal.

Say you're totally, 100% right on this one. When Ethiopia invaded the day after we started negotiations and overthrew the ICU -- which they were going to, with or without our support -- what would we then be? How about "really f_cking stupid."

The transitional government distinguished itself by being unable to govern, unable to cooperate with itself, and completely incapable of defending itself. Here's a hint; just because the international community would sort of like a government to succeed doesn't mean that it will...

You're right. Of course, the African Union has deployed some peacekeepers (with more to come) and the Europeans are involved in negotiations among the warlords, so it's more than "sort of like a government to succeeed." There's some actual trying going on.

But, as I noted up top, all your criticisms are academic. It's not enough to point out Somalia's many and manifest faults. What brilliant strategy should we have pursued, Rob? Because, right now, all I'm hearing is the left-wing version of "and I want a pony, too!"

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 1:08 PM

Here your conflating strategy with tactics. It's entirely possible to support the TFG without supporting an Ethiopian invasion to aid the TFG - as well as Ethiopia's obvious, longstanding and conflicting regional interests. You should try to conceptualize the difference. To my knowledge, neither the AU nor the EU supported Ethiopia's invasion.

Eric, I'm not going to address every point -- which has been well-covered at ObWi -- but let's reiterate this dispute because it's the start of an actual discussion.

A plausible approach to Somalia would be largely hands off: We prefer the TFG over the ICU -- because only a fool wouldn't -- but we won't take active steps to support Ethiopia's invasion (which would have come with or without our assistance). I have some sympathy for this position. Still, two notes:

1. It's not the position that Yglesias advanced in the past or that Rob is advance now; both have or do advocate negotiations with (and de facto recognition of) the ICU.

2. This position reframes the issue: Gone is the question of whether we favor the TFG or the ICU. Gone too is the issue of whether we will condemn or oppose Ethiopia's removal of the ICU in order to allow the TFG to return. The only question is whether it makes sense to give aid to Ethiopia in its operations. For a variety of reasons -- e.g., Ethiopia was going to invade anyway; Ethiopia is an important power on the Horn of Africa; the ICU was harboring at least some ne'erdowells; it would increase our influence in Africa and in Somalia -- I continue to think that we made, on balance, the right choice.

Is it cost free? No.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 1:17 PM

If you believe that the TFG is (1) not the legitimate Somalia govenment and (2) is unlikely to ever be effective as a government, the logical conclusion seems to be that the US should support the ICU as the great hope for Somalia. Is that your position? If that's not your position -- if you prefer a magical third way -- please tell us what it is. Millions are dying to know (some figuratively, some literally).

How about this: First, start by not supporting Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia.

That has created more enemies for the US in Somalia than before. It has destabilized Somalia worse than before - which itself breeds radicalism. More Somalis are dying now than before. More Somalis are fleeing the country than before. Also: it's been expensive for us, and thousands are dead.

I think it would have been far better to let Somalia try to regain a sense of normalcy, relative peace and stability. If the ICU could achieve this, it would create a momentum on its own. Giving Somalis a sense of normalcy is a crucial first step to rolling back a culture of war and violence. Then it would be easier for the international community to work with Somalis and push and pull using diplomatic and economic levers to compel the behavior and cooperation we desire from the ICU.

Or, empower domestic groups that could wrest power in a more effective manner.

It's slow, methodical and somewhat imperfect in its outcomes, but it sure beats the shock and awe approach which has given us nothing. Less than nothing actually. Besides, if my approach doesn't end up working, it's never too late to launch wars. Unlaunching them, however, not so much.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 1:19 PM

I think it would have been far better to let Somalia try to regain a sense of normalcy, relative peace and stability. If the ICU could achieve this, it would create a momentum on its own. Giving Somalis a sense of normalcy is a crucial first step to rolling back a culture of war and violence. Then it would be easier for the international community to work with Somalis and push and pull using diplomatic and economic levers to compel the behavior and cooperation we desire from the ICU.

Eric, again, what makes you think that Ethiopia was not going to invade? Other than actively taking sides in favor of the ICU -- which would put us at odds with the Europeans and most of Africa -- there was no way for us to stop Ethiopia from invading. Moreover, Ethiopia was likely to crush the ICU with or without our help; it just would have taken more time and, likely, resulted in greater destruction and loss of life.

We need to start with the premise that, unless we take actions that are simply stupid, Ethiopia will invade. The only issue for us to decide is whether we will be part of the invasion.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 1:25 PM

I should point out that I really know nothing at all about the conflict. That said, on this issue:

"The only issue for us to decide is whether we will be part of the invasion."

it seems pretty obvious that the best solution is NOT to be part of the invasion. As a general rule, how about
'Do not get involved in invasions that you do not have to.'
A corallary would be
'Do not take sides in a civil war in an area that breeds terrorists unless there are compelling reasons.'

Posted by theCoach | April 10, 2007 1:38 PM

Backing the TFG might have been "right" but backing them using these tactics was a big mistake.

I'm actually inclined to think this is a very defensible viewpoint, but I'd like to hear it from Rob. He wasn't merely criticizing the Ethiopian misadventure, he was suggesting that the TFG was not the most likely party to bring about a stable, non-expansionist, non-Islamist regime in Somalia.

Doing nothing is always an option. I continue to believe that it was a better option for dealing with Saddam Hussein than the option President Bush chose. But doing nothing might have entailed a future for Somalia that included no meaningful central government, prolonged war with Ethiopia, AND a veneer of internal stability provided by cultural and judicial medievalism that would likely be coupled with attempts to export Islamist insurgencies to neighboring countries.

So I suppose this boils down to the question of whether we really want our foreign policy to strive to contain radical Islamism, or whether we just want to leave the Horn of Africa more or less alone and hope that the ICU becomes more moderate over time. This is an important question, and I'm not going to challenge the patriotism or manhood of anyone who takes the latter viewpoint. But we need to be clear about what the do-nothing option actually entails.

Giving Ethiopia assistance with a military action it was planning anyway, to improve the odds of its success, strikes me as a reasonable (if suboptimal) policy.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 10, 2007 1:41 PM

it seems pretty obvious that the best solution is NOT to be part of the invasion.

And, as I mentioned, this is a defensible position. On balance the wrong one -- IMHO -- but a defensible one.

We need to stop falsely equating the ICU with the TFG, or pretending to some grand period of stability during the 10-or-so months between the ICU starting Somalia's latest civil war and Ethiopia ending it. We also need to eradicate -- fully, forcefully, and without pity -- the notion that negotiating with the ICU was anything other than a really dumb idea.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 1:53 PM

We need to start with the premise that, unless we take actions that are simply stupid, Ethiopia will invade. The only issue for us to decide is whether we will be part of the invasion.

I disagree. Ethiopia receives more aid from the US than any other nation in the Horn - and most, if not all, of Africa for that matter (save Egypt). The US helps in other ways as well like, say, the NoKo arms deal.

Do you really think that had the US threatened Ethiopia with cutting that aid, Ethiopia wouldn't have blinked? I'd say it was at least worth a try. Instead, we coordinated the attack with them. Willing. Eager.

To suggest our influence with Ethiopia is so meager is to question what exactly we are getting in return for all the money and arms we're lavishing on a tyrant like Meles.

We need to stop...pretending to some grand period of stability during the 10-or-so months between the ICU starting Somalia's latest civil war and Ethiopia ending it.

Why? Did you read the link I posted above containing the words of actual Somalis? Should I take your word for it over them? Should I assume that the more than 1 million that have fled Somalia since Ethiopia invaded did so because Ethiopia has made it MORE stable? And in the face of such heightened stability, Somalis fled? How curious.

Also: Ethiopia ended the war? Really? Someone should let all the grieving Somalis know that the dead bodies around them aren't really dead. For example:

"Recent clashes pitting Ethiopian and Somali forces against clan militia and insurgents killed at least 1,086 people and wounded more than 4,300, according to a local committee set up to assess the damage.

The committee's report obtained by Reuters on Tuesday said 1.4 million people fled their homes in the Somali capital because of the March 29-April 1 battles. [...]

"This is a rough estimate and the number is going to be much higher because we have not ventured out of the main roads," Siayaad told Reuters.

"The dead bodies are still there and it will take weeks to collect all of them.""

Huh. But I thought Ethiopia ended the war?

We also need to eradicate -- fully, forcefully, and without pity -- the notion that negotiating with the ICU was anything other than a really dumb idea.

Why? Negotiations may or may not have been able to help us achieve some of our objectives. But under the worse case scenario - where the ICU rejects all of our entreaties and is 100% uncompromising - we can always use the military option.

Again, you can't un-invade. But you can try to avoid invasion in the first place through negotiation.

Also, there were other ways to eventually undermine the ICU - but that's not what you were addressing in this comment.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 2:58 PM

Two thoughts: first of all, according to Bush administration officials, Somalia is NOW a place where radical Islamists could be safe as well.

Link, please!

Thanks.

Posted by Al | April 10, 2007 4:43 PM

After all, there was a truce in Mogadishu in place before this all started up.

But why is Matthew focusing on Mogadishu? There was a "truce" in Mogadishu at the cost of war in the rest of the country, and an ICU declaration of war against Ethiopia. Why Matthew ignores that to cherry pick Mogadishu is unclear.

Posted by Al | April 10, 2007 4:45 PM

Link, please!

...On Thursday, a White House report said that despite recent setbacks to Islamic radicals in Somalia, foreign terrorists are still able to find a haven there because of the country's lack of governance, which contributes to a growing security threat throughout East Africa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_af/somalia

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 4:50 PM

Do you really think that had the US threatened Ethiopia with cutting that aid, Ethiopia wouldn't have blinked? I'd say it was at least worth a try. Instead, we coordinated the attack with them. Willing. Eager.

Eric, as I said above, "Other than actively taking sides in favor of the ICU -- which would put us at odds with the Europeans and most of Africa -- there was no way for us to stop Ethiopia from invading." Ending aid to Ethiopia, much of it humanitarian, would be taking sides in favor of the ICU. The pressure you suggest that we place on Ethiopia would also be directly contrary to the stated objectives and policies of our European allies and the UN. You want cowboy diplomacy? The course you advocate is just that.

Why? Negotiations may or may not have been able to help us achieve some of our objectives. But under the worse case scenario - where the ICU rejects all of our entreaties and is 100% uncompromising - we can always use the military option.

It's a fallacy that "we can always use the military option." After you dissuade Ethiopia from acting by threatening to cut off aid, will they attack when we give them the sign? After the TFG has been eradicated and the ICU given time to further consolidate control, will they be easier to dislodge? Sure, U.S. forces could do it, but that seems to be the worst of all possible worlds.

There was a moment in which this decision had to be made. It's pure foolishness to think that we get unlimited doevers, or that negotiations at most put off military action. Frequently, negotiations replace (either in actuality or effect) any military alternative.

The best course of all available alternatives was to assist Ethiopia at the time it invaded Somalia. The results aren't pretty; they won't be for some time. But it is better than the alternatives.

Posted by von | April 10, 2007 5:08 PM

foreign terrorists are still able to find a haven there because of the country's lack of governance

Sooo, before, terrorists were safe there because the ICU was harboring them. Now, the ICU is no longer harboring them, but the government isn't strong enough to completely eliminate the terrorists ability to find havens there. Sounds like Bush incompetence to me.

Posted by Al | April 10, 2007 5:09 PM

I still don't understand Matthew's position on this one. My impression - which could certainly be wrong - is that Matthew's preferred foreign policy is to support international organizations. Yet here, international organizations (such as the UN and AU) lined up behind the Transitional Government, and yet Matthew supported the ICU. When's Matthew's book coming out??? His posts on the blog outlining in the abstract his preferred foreign policy are maddeningly vague.

Posted by Al | April 10, 2007 5:14 PM

spartikus: re your 12:51: According to the New York Times , the Ethiopian military is equipped mostly with old Soviet-designed materiel (probably a relic from their "Marxist" era in the 70s-80s) - and that North Korea is basically the only country still making spare parts, etc. for the old equipment (mainly armor). I guess the US could "arm them directly" but I don't think the issues involved in extensive military re-equipping are all that easy (maybe some non-civlian can explain better!).

Al: re your 5:14: Where, exactly, has Matt Y. ever expressed any "support for the ICU"? I know he has opined that our offcial support for the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia may not have been the wisest choice (and still less the rightwing blogosphere's sanguinary chortling over it) - but I don't recall reading anything overtly laudatory about the ICU. Cite, please?

Oh, and von and Eric: great discussion; why don't you guys bring this back on over to ObWings? We're still waiting for "J'accuse 2 - The Smackdown!"

Posted by Jay C | April 10, 2007 5:46 PM

Sooo, before, terrorists were safe there because the ICU was harboring them. Now, the ICU is no longer harboring them, but the government isn't strong enough to completely eliminate the terrorists ability to find havens there. Sounds like Bush incompetence to me.

Actually, terrorists were safe in Somalia for many years before the ICU ever existed. The ICU offered them no special privilege that was denied them previously.

The point is that if the goal of aiding Ethiopia's invasion was to eradicate terrorist safe havens: Mission NOT Accomplished.

You are right, though, that the fact that there currently exist such safe havens is not a sign of Bush incompetence.

The fact that we greatly tarnished our image in the region, tied our credibility/image to the Ethiopian Army, stoked the flames of anti-Americanism, further radicalized Somalis and made jihadists more sympathetic, and will now "own" whatever chaos and instability ensues after Ethiopia leaves, all so that we could NOT eliminate those safe havens...well, that's Bush's incompetence.

But hey, I think we got a T-Shirt or something.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Ending aid to Ethiopia, much of it humanitarian, would be taking sides in favor of the ICU. The pressure you suggest that we place on Ethiopia would also be directly contrary to the stated objectives and policies of our European allies and the UN. You want cowboy diplomacy? The course you advocate is just that.

Not true Von. With all due respect, you seem to be having a tough time grasping one simple point:

The UN, AU and EU did NOT, I repeat NOT, want Ethiopia to invade Somalia. If we were to lean on Ethiopia and other regional powers to come to a modus vivendi, that would NOT constitute cowboy diplomacy. You're really out on a limb on that one, and the wind is blowing gale force.

There was a moment in which this decision had to be made. It's pure foolishness to think that we get unlimited doevers, or that negotiations at most put off military action. Frequently, negotiations replace (either in actuality or effect) any military alternative.

You are right that we don't get unlimited do-overs, but to suggest that we could not have attempted a non-violent resolution for a set amount of time (6-18 months) after which Ethiopia would not have wanted to whack its longtime regional rival, is overstating it a bit.

We heard similar appeals to a closing window vis-a-vis invading Iraq. In retrospect, both cases were exaggerated.

Either way, since the military intervention has accomplished very little, and has actually been net-counterproductive, I see no harm in putting it off even if that risks indefinitely.

I'd at least err on that side.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 10, 2007 6:12 PM

According to the New York Times , the Ethiopian military is equipped mostly with old Soviet-designed materiel (probably a relic from their "Marxist" era in the 70s-80s) - and that North Korea is basically the only country still making spare parts, etc. for the old equipment (mainly armor).

Well, I didn't see that in the NYT's article. I did see this: The Ethiopians bought the equipment at a bargain price. Soviet era equipment is plentiful - one might even say ubiquitous - it's simply the North Koreans sell it for the lowest price. It doesn't make any sense to me that the United States couldn't help Ethiopia find an alternate supplier, and perhaps make up the difference in price.

Of course, it doesn't make any sense to me that United States should get involved at all in a military invasion of Somalia.

Posted by spartikus | April 10, 2007 7:11 PM

I've met Ms. Frasier in Africa. She travels all over the continent all the time representing US interests. I don't find anything noteworthy that she would be in Somalia working to create a stable government. And I don't think such a diplomatic move is necessarily directly at odds with supporting the Ethopian incursion. The use of force by Ethopia achieved on significant goal, it destablilized an attempt by the islamic fighters to take control of the country and reinstated the previous status quo, more or less. Now is precisely the time for diplomacy, to ensure that this country gets stabilized and the US should rightly be closely involved. To leave the situation as is, is to invite another Taliban-like situation, which would be untenable for regional security and our national security interests. Consider it a one, two punch.

Posted by Bubba | April 11, 2007 2:14 AM

Bubba,

For the record, I have no problem with us trying to create stability through diplomatic maneuvering now. I don't think we should walk away now. My issue is with our chosen tactics prior to the current predicament.

As for your use of the boxer's analogy, I'd say fine, as long as the number 2 in the 1-2 punch is landed. Then you might have a point about the wisdom of our intervention (including initially supporting, and participating in, Ethiopia's invasion).

But if the follow up punch misses its mark, and all we have accomplished is plunging Somalia into deeper chaos, while becoming the perceived cause of such bloodshed and ensuing refugee crisis, then I don't see that as a knockout win. Not even a TKO, or judge's decision.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 11, 2007 11:11 AM

Oh, and von and Eric: great discussion; why don't you guys bring this back on over to ObWings? We're still waiting for "J'accuse 2 - The Smackdown!"

I've been tied up in a lawsuit that has been consuming everything that it touches -- but, since my client just won a total victory, there may be time to revisit Somalia in the near future.

Posted by von | April 11, 2007 1:01 PM

Here's an Idea...

Comments (41)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories