Afghanistan and Iraq have monopolised the headlines but Somalia is arguably an even greater victim of George W. Bush’s ill-conceived and lamentably executed War on Terror. America’s interventions have proved so catastrophic that its best hope of salvaging something from the wreckage is a president it chased from power three years ago, who controls a few square miles of a country three times the size of Britain.
[…]
In 2006 a grassroots movement called the Islamic Courts Union emerged [in Somalia]. Fearing that the Courts would become a new Taleban and Somalia another Afghanistan, Washington sought to stop the Islamists by giving the warlords millions of dollars for arms — the same warlords who had humiliated America in 1993 and subsequently caused such carnage. The plan failed. The Courts drove the warlords from Mogadishu and imposed order for the first time in a generation. The city’s roadblocks and machineguns vanished. Exiles returned, businesses reopened and people ventured out at night.
[…]
Europe broadly favoured engagement with the Courts’ moderate leaders. The Bush Administration backed an invasion by Christian-ruled Ethiopia, Somalia’s bitter enemy, which replaced the Courts with a deeply unpopular transitional government of former warlords. After six months of relative peace Somalia was plunged back into war, with al-Shabaab portraying themselves as nationalists fighting a puppet government. Revisiting Mogadishu in April 2007, I saw how the hopes of peace had evaporated.Today al-Shabaab controls much of Somalia and most of Mogadishu. It has morphed into a jihadist movement with ties to al-Qaeda.
I guess when Bush called the War on Terror a ‘crusade’, he wasn’t kidding. What HAS the War on Terror achieved other than corporate profits from bogus wars and a legion of radicalised Muslims?
“I guess when Bush called the war on terror a ‘crusade’, he wasn’t kidding. What HAS the War on Terror achieved other than corporate profits from bogus wars and a legion of radicalised Muslims?”
If you listened to these people rather than showing how ignorant you are they would tell you they are holy warriors fighting the same war that started when Mohamed began to spread the faith. The war will continue until the last infidel falls.
That isn’t radical for a Muslim. That’s orthodox.
War on terror, ha! If Somalia had the world’s largest oil reserves, then the US would want to fight their ‘War on Terror’ there…
#1 deowll
Wow. The guy at the kabab shop who I chat to while I wait for a falafel and the nice lady at the store round the corner are evil radicals who want to kill me cos I’m an infidel? Who knew?
You americans are just too simple-minded. Somalia has been a basket case ever since they kicked out Clinton and the UN in 93, and in the process taught the world just how easy it is to defeat a US military under Democratic leadership.
It’s no coincidence that Iran has started to flex with the dems back in charge, they will run rings around you.
“What HAS the War on Terror achieved other than corporate profits from bogus wars and a legion of radicalised Muslims?”
The deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of other people.
“Heckuva job!”
I wont say anything..Its your fight and debate.
#5 “What HAS the War on Terror achieved other than corporate profits from bogus wars and a legion of radicalised Muslims?”
Most obviously, democracy in the 2 countries voted “least likely to allow the vote” at their school prom. But if you missed those 2 sitters Uncle Patso, it’s unlikely you’ll understand the finer points of international relations.
Some fun facts to consider: Over the period of the Iraq war approx 40000 US citizens died in traffic accidents each year, about double the rate of Australia, generally similar geographically and economically etc. So about 20000 preventable and unnecessary deaths EACH year, in manner similar to those in Iraq (eg shock, massive blood loss, decapitation etc) yet no notable protest marches took place.
The vast majority of civilian killings in Iraq were perpetrated not by Americans, and you may be surprised to discover that most political murders on this planet (and there are many) aren’t.
While these fledgling democracies may not survive the next 7/8 years, and the chance of a democratic Iran has probably just slipped away, there was a brief period there where lasting peace in the middle east was a real possiblilty.
#7 polybot.
Are you delusional or just a moron?
The strife in somalia was meant to prevent oil exploration and keep oil prices inflated. Then manufacture circumstances that required an invasion gaining control of the untapped resources known to be underground.
sound familiar….
Article: “the Courts’ moderate leaders”
Color me unconvinced. Popular Islamic movements tend to do public order well, but moderation is not exactly a proper descriptor.
The Taliban, and Saddam, were also respected/feared for their ability to impose order.
It’s heartwarming to see that we have a client there and so does Europe. One does love a good game every now and then. The pawns are sure to appreciate it too!
This article could have been two or three sentences saying “I hate Bush. Imperial America is the problem. Did I mention George Bush sucks.” That at least would have been honest. It amazes me to this day how poor a job media does to explain the world.
Somalia is a disaster, there’s no organization over there and all kinds of stuff happens. If you really want to understand what the US is trying to do and the strategic importance read this Esquire article. Yes it’s over 3000 words but at least you will learn something. Otherwise don’t bother with Somalia.
esquire.com/features/africacommand0707
More political BS. Let’s cut to the chase. Africa is China’s turf, and the Chinese couldn’t care less about Somalia or Darfur or any other pit of hell, as long as they can continue to sell arms and buy resources there.
It is a faith built with the sword, but which ironically has historically protected and nurtured Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism.
The War on Terror is the biggest threat to the safety of American Citizens here at home. It is a religious war and as such will incite terrorist incidents in our cities.
I think it is a statement that we hate and persecute non-Christians, and so deserve to be rudely treated, but nobody deserves terrorist bombings
#11, smitty,
Somalia is a disaster, there’s no organization over there and all kinds of stuff happens.
Someone didn’t read the article. The “Courts” were restoring order where none existed before. Bush, in his finite wisdom, sponsored an invasion of this weak, fledgling government. The government collapsed back to the anarchist (AKA LIEBERTARIAN paradise) hell it was before.
NOTE: American troops were sent to Somalia by Bush I under a UN mandate. Bill Clinton wanted to extend their term but Congress, led by the cowardly Republicans, cut off funding. They returned under the original schedule set by Bush I.
#15
That’s right the courts that were enforcing Sharia’h law where girls are forbidden to go to school and if they are raped they get stoned to death for bringing shame to their families. The world of the Left is such a fantasy land it’s tantamount to a lie. “Oh no, that’s not oppression, it’s multiculturalism from a ‘fledgling government’.” Please.
Somalia is a mess, nobody on any side on the Horn of Africa is very good, but you have to pick the lesser of the bad, and that’s as true for Obama as it was for Bush.
Under Bush the US joined (with training and equipment not with soldiers), the African Union Mission in Somalia, and sought to train and equip Somali government forces, when Ethopia and the standing government launched a massive offensive on the ICU. The US or Bush didn’t “sponsor” any of that. Why don’t you read the force involvement report from the UN?
The Bush policies are the basis of the policies the Obama administration is continuing to this day. Oh yes, Hillary too is approving the sending guns and bombs destined for Somalia. Last checkpoint was 40 tons or $10M worth.
washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062604261.html
Nobody is supporting the ICU except for the crazy Leftists in media (I know saying Leftists and media is redundant as they are the same thing), insane history professors (sadly for academia), and radical Arabs in Sudan.
#16 smittybc
Some other sources indicate the US did back the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.
I concur that the Obama administration policy on Somalia is a continuation of Bush’s folly.
I suspect that life was better for Somali’s under the ICU regime than under the current chaos, even considering Sharia law’s anachronisms.
#17
Well yes they backed the government and Ethiopia against the ICU. But the US was not responsible (ie sponsor) for basic military operations, no regular military, no building of bases, etc. It was an advisory role, which in military speak is some logistical support, arms, limited special operations units, basic CIA sheep dipping, and being perfectly happy to kill ICU when the time calls.
Somalia is dangerous and messy, as it has been for some time. The country served as a transit site for money, men, and materials that aided terrorist activity throughout the 1990s. Though multiple transitional governments were attempted, none were nationally unified and instead consisted of weak and ineffective factional coalitions. The ICU was another one of these coalitions.
On the one hand, popularization of ICU, in part, as a response to the country’s pervasive lawlessness, provided order where the Transitional Federal Government and United States-backed militias could not. On the other hand this was the same path to creating a terrorist state that we saw in Afghanistan.
The Taliban initially enjoyed enormous good will from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality, and the fighting of Mujahideen warlords. But under the consolidation of power the Taliban brought down the hammer, and ultimately there was no future in a globalized world for that nation, and so they went back to the 00’s, transformed again, and became dangerous to the world.
From Wikipedia “Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to ban a wide variety of activities hitherto lawful in Afghanistan: employment, education and sports for women, movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and beard trimming. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.” I’m sorry but there’s no way to create a future out of the above paragraph.
So the choice is do you let them go down a dead end road, or do you push for something else. You say let them go down the road and it will work out, I say do what you can to stop going down that road as it’s bad for their future and it’s bad for their neighbor’s future, it’s bad for everyone else’s future. That’s fine, we just disagree.
Here’s my plan (for when I’m crowned ruler of the world): surround the entire “country” (loose term) with a concrete wall with limited exit points. Test all inhabitants for reasonable IQ levels and allow them to expatriate. Nuke the remainder. That would probably net about 5% of the total as potential re-patriots to start over on a better foot.
#18 The Taliban and these Courts people, no matter how noxious their beliefs, restored order where there had only been chaos. People will pick order over chaos even if order comes with draconian restrictions.
We have to stop supporting chaos, and figure out some way of supporting a different order.
smittybc,
Yup, as I said earlier. The LIEBERTARIAN elements will always choose anarchy over order every day.
So paraphrase Phydeau, sometimes it is better to have some rights than no rights.
If the christians had won in Somalia, it would be fine now.