Beheadings in Somalia

Eric Martin:

Abu Mook reminds me that it's about time to check in, again, on our Horn of Africa Champion du jour, the brutal Zenawi regime in Ethiopia. Regular readers may recall that in December of 2006, a bevy of conservative pundits were singing the praises of the Ethiopian approach to warfare during its US-backed invasion of neighboring Somalia. This armchair Clausewitz set was asserting, emphatically, that Ethiopia's unchecked brutality, disregard for human rights and contempt for critical media coverage would lead to the swift eradication of any insurgency that might erupt in vanquished Somalia.

This all by way of noting that, fifteen months after the initial US-backed Ethiopian invasion, the Somali insurgency has progressed beyond the roadside bomb phase into the beheadings phase. Long story short, unchecked brutality doesn't work, and our Horn of Africa policy has given the forces of jihad have a new training ground.

Comments

Yeah, but you know how that is going to be spun by the Als of the world - as vindication of the invasion. Sure, it's insane up/downism, but no more crazy than the conventional wisdom on Iraq.

Posted by LarryM | March 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Of course, we know that there was a brutal civil war in Somalia prior to the invasion. A civil war that was about to destroy the United Nations and African Union backed Baidoa government. That civil war was ended - downgraded into a mere insurgency - and the illiberal Islamist government was destroyed. Matthew seems to think that the insurgency is somehow worse than the civil war - for some, strange, unexplained reason (I think because he still is not aware that there was a civil war before Christmas 2006).

We also know that Matthew's response to Somalia is a great of example of why Matthew is NOT a liberal internationalist, but is rather an old fashioned isolationist. If he were a liberal internationalist, Matthew would have supported the action that saved the United Nations and African Union backed Baidoa government. After all, a liberal internationalist is supposed to back governments that are supported by international institutions like the United Nations and African Union, even with force. And especially in the face of attacks by more illiberal opponents like the Islamist government that was on the verge of winning the civil war. But Matthew does not back the internationally supported government, the less illiberal government - therefore he's not a liberal internationalist.

Posted by Al | March 21, 2008 12:32 PM

One cannot fully assess this situation without understanding that Ethiopia is a Christian State which has held the line against Islamic aggression for fifteen centuries. The war between Ethiopia and Somalia is just another manifestation of the age old conflict.

Posted by Hector | March 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Right on cue. Thanks, Al, for making me look good. But in fairness to Al, he does have a sort of point, though not quite the one he is making.

Contra Al, and sadly from my perspective, the Democratic party has not, by any means, abandoned liberal internationalism and become isolationists. Nor has Matthew, though he has gone a little further in that direction (all to the good IMO) than most Democrats. And for a number of reasons which I leave to others (that is people who ARE liberal internationalists) to state, there is nothing about liberal internationalism which mandates support of the Somalia fiasco.

But part of the problem with liberal internationalism is that, to the extent that it shares so many assumptions with the Bush monstrosity, criticisms of Bush's interventions are rather toothless. It IS harder for liberal internationalists to criticize something like the Ethiopian fiasco, while still supporting things like the Kosovo intervention.

Posted by LarryM | March 21, 2008 12:55 PM

Hector,

Ethiopia is almost 50% Muslim as well. And one cannot appreciate the conflict without recognizing that it is Ethiopia's stated policy to keep Somalia weak and divided.

Al:

Matthew seems to think that the insurgency is somehow worse than the civil war - for some, strange, unexplained reason

Here's the main reason: because it is.

The refugee and humanitarian crisis post-invasion has been many times worse. In fact, there was no refugee crisis prior to invasion, and Mog had calmed down to levels of stability not seen in decades.

Since the invasion, hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee (the best indicator of how bad a situation is), many thousands have died, Mog has returned to lawless anarchy and the situation has deteriorated in a number of vital, humanitarian areas.

Also: the UN and AU did NOT, I repeat NOT back the invasion. That is central to your discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of interventionism.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 21, 2008 1:03 PM

Re: The refugee and humanitarian crisis post-invasion has been many times worse.

The Horn of Africa has been one big refugee crisis since the 80s. Remember "We are the world"?
And Ethiopia and Somalia were at each other's throats back then too.
Nothing new under the sun here.

Posted by JonF | March 21, 2008 1:16 PM

"Ethiopia is almost 50% Muslim as well."

It should also be noted that there are more Muslims than Christians in Ethiopia, but the Christians control the government. About 15% of Ethiopians are Animist and about 35% are Christian.

Posted by fostert | March 21, 2008 1:18 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Ethiopia

"According to the latest 1994 national census, Islam is the second most widely practiced religion in Ethiopia after Christianity, with approximately one third (32.8%) of Ethiopians adhering to Islam[1], having arrived in Ethiopia in 615. The CIA World Factbook places Islam as the second most widely practiced religion in Ethiopia, stating that some 30 percent of the population are adherents.[2]"

Posted by Hector | March 21, 2008 1:25 PM

Obviously, Islam could not have arrived in Ethiopia in 615 AD because Mohammed did not flee Mecca until 622 AD. "615" could be on the Islamic calendar, but that would make it 1237 AD, and that strikes me as an unlikely late date.

Posted by Tyro | March 21, 2008 1:43 PM

JonF,

Consider these facts from an article in November:

More than 114,000 people fled their homes over the past two weeks, according to United Nations estimates released on Friday. Humanitarian officials said that many more fled over the weekend after Islamists ambushed a convoy of Ethiopian troops and dragged the dead body of a soldier through the streets, triggering a spasm of Ethiopian reprisal attacks.

"Somalia's worst displacement ever took place in the last few days," said an official with a Western aid agency in Mogadishu who asked not to be identified for security reasons. "Nearly four districts of the city have been totally cleared out."

Some 850,000 Somalis — perhaps one in six — are displaced within their own country, the most in years. Fewer than 10 percent of them are receiving any humanitarian aid, and most live in desperate conditions in makeshift refugee encampments scattered around Mogadishu's outskirts.

The latest turmoil is producing a ghastly conclusion to an apocalyptic year, even for Somalia, which hasn't had a functioning government in 16 years.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21405.html

Posted by Eric Martin | March 21, 2008 2:19 PM

Follow up thoughts:

First, obviously Somalia and Ethiopia have been at it for years. That's why it was dumb to support Ethiopia under the pretense that it was fighting al-Qaeda.

Second, obviously Somalia has been war torn, and refugees are not a new phenomenon. But things have gotten worse. Pre-invasion, the situation in Somalia was better for Somalis, even if far from ideal. That still matters.

Third, Hector, that census is almost 15 years old. Given Islam's rise in popularity, that number is likely higher now. Also, there have been complaints of government bias in its calculation of the religious proclivities of its population.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 21, 2008 2:25 PM

In fact, there was no refugee crisis prior to invasion

Yeah, right.

Mog had calmed down to levels of stability not seen in decades

Mogadishu != Somalia

the UN and AU did NOT, I repeat NOT back the invasion

Who says it did? The UN and the AU backed the Baidoa government. The government that was within days of being defeated in the civil war, had not Ethiopia rode to the rescue. Notably, the UN and AU didn't condemn the invasion either.

It's pretty clear that those who don't care about supporting international institutions were perfectly willing to let the UN and AU-backed Baidoa government be destroyed. Those of us who actually support the UN and the AU's efforts applauded Ethiopia's actions to preserve them.

Posted by Al | March 21, 2008 3:07 PM

Al,

Don't be a twit. Yes, there were refugee problems with Somalia in the past. But the "crisis" was sparked by the invasion of Ethiopia. And the numbers attributable to the "crisis" are unprecedented, especially in light of the fact that the exodus has occurred over a very short period of time. Whereas the numbers you cite are cumulative over long periods of time.

Mogadishu != Somalia

A good portion, yes. In terms of population. But then, there were other calm areas as well, not just Mog. Now...not so much.

And just because the UN or AU say a given government is preferable to another does NOT mean they would support killing tens of thousands of people and plunging a beleagured nation into unprecedented chaos in order to achieve the transition.

Many nations in the UN spoke out against the invasion.

Those of us who actually support the UN and the AU's efforts applauded Ethiopia's actions to preserve them.

No. We were appalled. The results have been horrific.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 21, 2008 3:25 PM

Eric Martin:

Al,

Don't be a twit.

Next up: Eric tells the Pope not to be Catholic.

Posted by 23456 | March 21, 2008 3:28 PM

Matthew seems to think that the insurgency is somehow worse than the civil war - for some, strange, unexplained reason (I think because he still is not aware that there was a civil war before Christmas 2006).

A Civil War that was attempting to spread to Ethiopia as Islamists from Somalia sought to involve Muslims in Ethiopia.
Invasion threw the Islamoids into disarray, ended most of the threat to Ethiopia, as Somali factions reverted to fighting and head-chopping amongst themselves to get power over the refugee populations. Or sought to join the refugees trying to add to the huge Somali refugee population now growing in Maine, thanks to stupid Lefty churches importing the problem here.

Somehow, I believe the Yglesias warning to other nations not to defend yourselves lest the enemy falls back in anarchy to head-chop one another will not be taken seriously.

Posted by chris ford | March 21, 2008 4:28 PM

Re: A Civil War that was attempting to spread to Ethiopia as Islamists from Somalia sought to involve Muslims in Ethiopia.

One of the problems here has to do with an all too usual situation in Africa: the colonial boundaries were drawn with no regard for ethnicity or other factors. Hence eastern Ethiopia (known as the Ogden) contains a population that is not just Muslim, but ethnically Somali, or at least Cushitic by language (Amharic, the official Ethiopian language, is actually a Semitic language). Somalia has claimed this region for years and it was the flashpoint in the war the coutries fought a generation ago. This is not unlike the Turkey-Kurdistan situation where one nation contains a large ethnic minority of another nationality and must therefore be very sensitive to things that are happening just over its border.

Posted by JonF | March 21, 2008 5:07 PM

Tyro,

Your instincts were right to be skeptical of the 615 date but it is actually correct. The Prophet Muhammad instructed some of his followers to flee from the Persecution of the Meccan tribal leaders to Ethiopia years BEFORE the Prophet himself with almost the entire Muslim community moved from Mecca to Medina.

Posted by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee | March 21, 2008 5:50 PM

Al: "A civil war that was about to destroy the United Nations and African Union backed Baidoa government."

Who gives a flying fuck, Al? Answer me that.

Better yet, don't answer me that. I don't give a flying fuck about Somalia, and neither does anybody else in this country with more than five brain cells.

Read my lips, Al. It is NOT our fucking problem whose government is doing what in Somalia!

The US needs to stop intervening in ANYTHING that isn't an obvious - that is, non-military - disaster issue recognized as such by much of the international community.

Sending money and help to countries that are starving is not a bad idea. Taking sides on inter-tribal disputes in Third World countries is fucking brain dead.

We should let those issues sort themselves out no matter who the hell gets killed or how many. When it's OVER and there's some stability, THEN we can decide whether we need to deal with who's left to get whatever resources we need from that country. Better yet, we should figure out a way NOT to need those resources or get them from somewhere else so we can guess all these assholes good-bye.

Otherwise, we're just piling up the enemies until every single solitary person on the planet hates this country - and we're very nearly there now.

And with jerks like Al here, I can understand it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 21, 2008 9:00 PM