For Love of War

Eric Martin and Robert Farley comment on Ethiopia's troubled counterinsurgency campaign in Somalia as we approach the first anniversary of their US-backed invasion and conquest of that country. Here's Farley:

It's remarkable that so many conservative commentators identified deeply not just with the Ethiopian operation, but with the Ethiopian methods, while simultaneously embracing the counter-insurgency manual of General Petraeus. That the manual lays out a campaign plan directly antithetical to the Ethiopian methods seemed to escape them...

It is remarkable, but it's not surprising. They nominally embraced COIN doctrine because that's what one had to do to continue to be an enthusiastic armchair backer of the Iraq War. And they embrace contrary methods in Ethiopia because that's what one has to do to be a supporter of war there. They like war, especially war against Muslims, and are happy to embrace whatever sort of theories can maintain war fever in as many parts of the world as possible.

Comments

Ethiopia's troubled counterinsurgency campaign in Somalia as we approach the first anniversary of their US-backed invasion and conquest of that country

This is an odd way of putting it. Ethiopia came to the aid of the UN- and AU-backed Baidoa transitional government. That's an odd way of "conquering" a country.

Moreover, this is an odd post because there already was a civil war going on in Somalia prior to the Ethiopian invasion - a civil war that the internationally-backed transitional government was on the verge of losing. Matthew has this odd idea that the current insurgency is somehow worse than the prior civil war. Clearly, though, an internationally-backed government winning the civil war with Ethiopia's help (and defeating its Islamist enemies to an extent such the Islamist enemy is reduced to fighting an insurgency) is much a better situation the prior civil war.

I never can understand why Matthew thinks that the history of Somalia began last Christmas when the Ethiopian invasion occurred. As far as I can tell, he has never acknowledged that there was a civil war in Somalia for years prior to the invasion - a civil war that no longer exists.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2007 5:49 PM

Sincere props to anyone who can explain Al's point about wingnut support for anti-insurgency doctrines.

Posted by SqueakyRat | October 17, 2007 8:26 PM

Squeaky Rat, even Al doesn't know what he means. He just disagrees with everything that is posted on any blog he skims over. I don't think he even reads more than the headline.

Posted by merlallen | October 18, 2007 2:47 AM

Is it a "troubled" counterinsurgency campaign? I thought the word was "catastrophic".

Even with the AU there (well, a bunch of poor bloody Kenyan and Ugandan soldiers wearing the AU as a fig-leaf to gain Bush brownie points for their governments) the place is much more of a mess than it was before the Ethiopians invaded and destroyed the government. The foreign-installed government is even more of a joke than the Afghan government.

More of a mess means that the Ethiopians have had to keep troops there, weakening them against the Eritreans, who must be cackling up their sleeves.

Posted by MFB | October 18, 2007 4:25 AM

"I never can understand why Matthew thinks that the history of Somalia began last Christmas when the Ethiopian invasion occurred. As far as I can tell, he has never acknowledged that there was a civil war in Somalia for years prior to the invasion - a civil war that no longer exists."

This is an odd way to defend yourself against the claim that war-loving conservatives grasp at straws to defend any war aginst Muslims anywhere in the world. As far as I can tell, you have never acknowledged that there was no civil war in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 18, 2007 10:34 AM