Department of Obscure Policy Blunders

The new TNR contains a great piece by Eliza Griswold on the situation in the Horn of Africa "Occupational Hazard: The Other Failed Invasion."

And so, last Christmas Eve, the Christian-led government of Ethiopia invaded and--supported, later, by U.S. air strikes--successfully dislodged the Islamist UIC, largely because it believed (correctly) that rebels backed by its enemy, Eritrea, were using Somalia as a staging area for attacks. The result is an occupation by Ethiopian soldiers that fuels the local insurgency, threatens to destabilize the Horn of Africa, and offers Al Qaeda an additional talking point in its campaign to persuade Muslims that the West has declared war upon them. Many of the region's Muslims saw the Ethiopian invasion as a Christmas present from Ethiopia's leaders to America's. "When the Americans started backing the Ethiopians around Christmas," one woman who supported the courts said, "we started calling the Ethiopians kafir, or infidels." [...]

This is certainly how Al Qaeda would like the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to view what's happening in Somalia. In early 2007, Ayman Al Zawahiri called for attacks against the occupying Ethiopian soldiers using "ambushes, mines, raids, and martyrdom-seeking campaigns to devour them as the lions devour their prey." But his message wasn't meant merely for Somali ears; it was also intended to inflame Muslims worldwide by suggesting, once again, that the Christian West is at war with Islam.

In the end, though, resentment toward the U.S.-backed occupation may prove to be a greater destabilizing force for the entire region than Al Qaeda ever was, especially in Kenya, where the war on terrorism is directly linked to the rise of radical Islamic identity. In the name of chasing a few bad men, the Christmas invasion played into millennia of distrust between predominantly Christian Ethiopia (4050 percent of the population is Muslim) and Somalia, which is almost 100 percent Muslim. "The popular perception is that Christian soldiers are occupying a Muslim land," says Roland Marchal, a senior research fellow at Sciences-Po in Paris.

I wonder what James Kirchick thinks now.

Comments

Kirchick is probably patting himself on the back for having tried to help these people, who have, in his mind once again proven that they are incapable of civilization.

Posted by theCoach | July 31, 2007 3:47 PM

Ah, Somalia/Ethiopia. Once again demonstrating that Bush/Cheney really do have a magic wand (like H.P.). It is the turn-to-sh*t wand that Cheney keeps in his safe for use when the US has a crucial choice to make in foreign/military affairs.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 31, 2007 3:52 PM

"millennia of distrust"? Really?

Posted by Ryan | July 31, 2007 4:17 PM

The US did everything except call that episode Operation Prester John. Who knows, maybe on the internal paperwork, they did.

Posted by P O'Neill | July 31, 2007 4:20 PM

The united states is so evil, they destroyed the real islamic goverment of somalia by arming and training the ethiopian military to invade somalia, sad.

And the dumb yanks always say "why does everyone hate us"

Theres a billion reasons why the entire world hates america.

Posted by Somali victim of america | July 31, 2007 4:35 PM

My main worry is that it'll lead to even more Somalian refugees in the West. Black Muslims - double trouble.

Posted by Fresco | July 31, 2007 4:38 PM

It's just a small measure of how completely awful this article is that Ms. Griswold never, ever mentions that the government of Somalia that we backed in the Somali civil war - the government on whose behalf Ethiopia entered the war - is backed by BOTH the United Nations and the African Union.

Really, this is abotu as bad and misleading an article on the situation you can get. The odd thing is that Matthew has written about Somalia often, but for some reason doesn't seem to understand that there was a war ongoing prior to the Ethiopian invasion. To Matthew, history began when Ethiopia invaded, and any violence since then ipso facto stems from the Ethiopian invasion. But that's just wrong - there was a civil war going on in Somalia prior to the Ethiopian invasion, and the ICU (backed by Eritrea) had declared war on Ethiopia. What galls Matthew, apparently, is that the Ethiopian/UN/US side basically won the war. The other side in the war - the Islamists - were so handily defeated that they have had to resort to an insurgency.

Matthew's odd position is that the insurgency is somehow worse that the civil war (and war by the ICU against Ethiopia) that existed before the Ethiopian invasion.

And Matthew's even odder position is that it was wrong for Ethiopia to come to the aid of a UN-backed Somali government against an ICU government that had previously declared war on Ethiopia.

But that's the nature of the isolationist left: they never, ever support any use of US force - not even in support of a UN-backed government, not even in support of a government that has had an enemy declare war on them. Never, ever.

Posted by Al | July 31, 2007 4:45 PM

It's evident that Yglesias, the utterly transparent gimp, only posted the story as a comeback to Kirchick. His actual interest in the reality of warring black African tribal states is zero.

Posted by Trevor | July 31, 2007 5:05 PM

I see three possible solutions to the problem of the Muslim world.

1) The Coulter option: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

2) Mine: Invade Israel, kill its leaders and convert the Jews to Christianity.

3) Leftist. Invade America, kill its leaders and convert the Christians to atheism.

Posted by King Rollo | July 31, 2007 5:30 PM

BTW, if 4050% of Ethiopians are Muslims, how does that make the population predominantly Christian?

Posted by Who you with? Rakim? | July 31, 2007 5:34 PM

Wow, 4050 percent of the population would be a lot of Muslims.

Posted by nbt | July 31, 2007 5:34 PM

Snap!

Posted by JR Ewing | July 31, 2007 5:35 PM

Wow, "Who you with?" and I caught that at the same moment. Spooky.

Posted by nbt | July 31, 2007 5:36 PM

You never heard the one about great minds...well, you know the rest.

On the subject of inflated figures, it's common to hear sportsmen talking about giving 110%, 150% or even 200%. But the Australian cricketer Matty Hayden must surely have set a record when he claimed he and the team were behind their captain, Ricky Ponting, 'one billion percent.'

Posted by John Thornton | July 31, 2007 5:44 PM

What, are you saying that the Crusaders' grand strategy of linking up with Prester John, Christian King of Abyssinia, to form a second front against the Musselmen isn't quite working out?

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2007 6:02 PM

Well, if it's 4050%, maybe someone should have told the Somalis... the ICU can only wish to be that Islamist. (Though John Thornton is right, that Hayden guy makes 4050% look kind of pedestrian).

Seriously, it's not clear to me what Ethiopia was supposed to do. This is a lot more like Afghanistan and a lot less like Iraq - there were attacks on Ethiopia originating there, the ICU wasn't the internationally legitimate government, just an extremist theofascist guerilla group that had kicked out the UN-backed government, etc. (I think 'theofascist' is preferable to 'Islamofascist;' I'd be just as opposed to requiring everyone to wear yarmulkes under pain of death as requiring them to wear burqas).

That things aren't going as well as they might be is a shame, and that the ICU is telling people that if it's losing it's because of American treachery and hatred for Muslims is a problem. Unfortunately, there's no reason to think that if it was winning it would say anything but "this is despite American treachery and hatred for Muslims." We can't have a foreign policy of expecting our allies to ignore aggression and hoping that that'll make our enemies like us better.

Posted by You Can Call Me Al | July 31, 2007 6:25 PM

Well, Matt, if you want to cut into the rich feast of ham over at the plank, dont concentrate on Kirchik today. Chait's post defending O'hanlon is just sweating for the knife! I find it particularly rich that, after Greenwald outs O'Hanlon as a surge supporter, Chait distinguishes this from someone who is optimistic about the war - and thus, of course, makes it seem that being a surge supporter is not pertinent in an op ed that assesses the surge. Ah, much more pertinent is that the two have criticized Bush! With this sense of media honesty - the kind of inside dealing on display gets you canned elsewhere, but not in D.C. circles - no wonder he has swallowed the op ed piece like catnip.

These people are simply creeps. It is one of the blessings of the blogosphere that their creepiness is displayed in all the nakedness of the first thought.

Posted by roger | July 31, 2007 6:58 PM

Cold War habits die hard. When the enemy of our enemy is our friend, the result is an endless parade of "friends" who otherwise wouldn't qualify.

The cast of friends rotates in and out, depending on the enemy of the day. Blowback from one set of payouts and prop-ups gives rise to the next generation of enemies.

Friendship should be based on shared beliefs and common values. Whatever the Cheney cohort's special kinship with the Ethiopian government, I'm quite sure I don't share it.

Posted by Jalmari | July 31, 2007 10:12 PM

Posted by Jalmari | July 31, 2007 10:12 PM :"The cast of friends rotates in and out, depending on the enemy of the day. Blowback from one set of payouts and prop-ups gives rise to the next generation of enemies."

The problem with this state of mind is the utter irresponsible nature of what you are, I suppose, supporting. What do you want to do? Retreat into Isolation? If so, say so. If not, what? The world is a dangerous place full of nasty people. Some of those people have to be fought. No out coming is likely to be perfect, but it still has to be done. If you have a positive solution that does not involve dropping bombs on people I'd love to hear it. If not, why are you complaining?

Posted by Jalmari | July 31, 2007 10:12 PM:"Friendship should be based on shared beliefs and common values. Whatever the Cheney cohort's special kinship with the Ethiopian government, I'm quite sure I don't share it."

There is no evidence whatsoever that the US is friends with Ethiopia or, indeed, that the US was much involved with the invasion. Indeed given the Somali UIC's demands for the "return" of large parts of Ethiopia, it was obvious the war was going to happen with or without American support. So what's your beef? America has to operate in the real world, much of which is a little rougher than Rhode Island.

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 9:01 AM

I'm still not clear on why Matt insists on blaming
Ethiopia for triggering the war. It was pretty
clearly the ICU's boastful insistence on attacking
Baidoa which triggered the invasion.

Ethiopia had repeatedly warned the ICU about
Baidoa. Were they supposed to simply abandon
their government ally against the Eritrean-backed
ICU?

Blind isolationism is no way to do penance for
supporting the disastrous blunder that was the
Iraq invasion.

Posted by DJ | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM

MY:

I'm often in general agreement with you, but this post completely ignores the reason Ethiopia invaded Somalia in the first place. An Islamic jihadist movement violently overthrew the UN, US, EU and African Union-recognized government of Somalia, gathered monetary and military support from Eritrea, then proceeded to launch attacks into Ethiopia. So Ethiopia was, in effect, being attacked by two of its neighbors. Maybe they--and their US backers--screwed up the post-invasion situation. Not a surprise, given the track record, and criticism of that aspect of the situation is fully justified. But I don't think you can really blame the Ethiopians for feeling like they had to do what they did. What was the alternative?

Posted by Claudius | August 1, 2007 10:57 AM