Heckuva Job

by publius

Another ringing empirical endorsement of the Kagan/Kristol worldview via the NYT's article on Somalia:

In 2006, Islamist troops teamed up with clan elders and businessmen to drive out the warlords who had been preying upon Somalia’s people since the central government first collapsed in 1991. The six months the Islamists ruled Mogadishu turned out to be one of the most peaceful periods in modern Somali history.

But today’s Islamists are a harder, more brutal group than the ones who were ousted by an Ethiopian invasion, backed by the United States, in late 2006. The old guard included many moderates, but those who tried to work with the transitional government mostly failed, leaving them weak and marginalized, and removing a mitigating influence on the die-hard insurgents.

On top of that, the unpopular and bloody Ethiopian military operations over the past two years have radicalized many Somalis and sent hundreds of unemployed young men — most of whom have never gone to school, never been part of a functioning society and never had much of a chance to do anything but shoulder a gun — into the arms of militant Islamic groups.

This is why we should stop debating neoconnery in abstract theoretical terms. We've gotten to see it in action in several "laboratories," and it's failed miserably -- for entirely predictable reasons. Thank God these people weren't running the country during the formative Cold War years.

Comments

[Cynic]

publius:

Applying categoricals to our foreign policy is precisely the mistake made by neoconservatives; joining in the chorus decrying 'neoconnery' simply replicates that error.

The neoconservatives made some valuable contributions to our foreign policy debate. I don't think that their central insight - that our long-term interests are best served by spreading freedom and democracy - is incorrect. The reason that they gained such influence was that by the end of the Cold War, it was perfectly apparent that an excessive reliance upon realpolitik had led the United States to support all sorts of odious regimes in repressing their opposition, in ways that damaged our standing in the world and ultimately undermined our security. Would you really disagree with that?

Which is not to deny, of course, that an equally dogmatic privileging of the spread of freedom at the expense of a clear-eyed calculation of our tangible interests wasn't equally destructive. Clearly, it led to results that were as bad - if not worse - than the excesses of realpolitik.

But Somalia provides a perfect example of where a blended approach might have been best. The New York Times piece is a farce; to describe the last regime of Islamists as 'moderate' or its tenure as 'peaceful' is to make a mockery of both terms. (Are we now to romanticize the Taliban rule of Afghanistan in the same terms? It was relatively peaceful; those who ruled then, compared to those currently ascendent within the Taliban insurgency, might be described as a 'moderate' 'old guard.') The members of the Somali regime were fundamentalists; their rule was both bloody and repressive. Moreover, much like the Taliban, their regime gave shelter to genuinely international terrorists, who posed an imminent threat to international security.

The American mistake lay not in opposing the regime; it lay in the manner of that opposition. Sending in the Ethiopians as a proxy force intensified regional tensions, and served to broaden conflict and undermine the legitimacy of the transitional regime they were ostensibly there to support. Other reports have already described the fiasco of the intervention of American special operations forces. We relied primarily on air strikes from AC-130 gunships; TF88 was then sent in to mop-up. That strategy seems to have yielded the usual results from air-focused operations - a low rate of actual targets hit, a high rate of collateral damage, and a blown opportunity to cut-off and surround the bulk of the forces being pursued.

So if Somalia is a cautionary tale, it ought to be about the limits of the use of proxy forces, the danger of relying on air strikes instead of boots on the ground, and the fundamental mistake in expecting that any externally imposed regime can ever obtain legitimacy, or that consensus can be forced at gunpoint. But the neocons are also partially right - it was surely in our national interest to oppose a regime that gave sanctuary to our enemies and brutalized its people.

[Model 62]

I don't think that their central insight - that our long-term interests are best served by spreading freedom and democracy - is incorrect.

I disagree with this estimation of the neocons' central insight. For one thing, that view is not unique to them. More critically, freedom and democracy are ultimately about process. Means matter in democracies -- more than ends do. While many neocons claim to support the spread of freedom and democracy, the means they choose to reach that end actually undermine it.

This shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of the central insight, or that the central insight they profess is not fundamentally central to the project.

[Jay C]

The neoconservatives made some valuable contributions to our foreign policy debate. I don't think that their central insight - that our long-term interests are best served by spreading freedom and democracy - is incorrect.

Well, yeah: those ideals are generally Good Things: the problem arises when, as is all too often the case, "freedom and democracy" come to be defined as "support American policies" or "favor American commercial interests" Also, the exact methodology of "spreading freedom and democracy" (and to whom) is of more than trivial distinction. Especially when the implements used in said spreading are weapons.

[Andrew R.]

Okay, let me just say that this notion that the Islamic Courts guys were perfectly nice until we radicalized them has the same level of truth to the statement that Hekmatyar and Haqqani are basically decent guys who can be negotiated with or that Ho Chi Minh was actually a democrat until the U.S. foolishly opposed him. Which is to say, not much.

[avedis]

Agree with Jay C, just one of many possible pieces of supporting evidence; the election of Hamas. Freely elected and democracxy in action - heralded by the neocons until the results came in - and then decried by the neocons.

I guess another another piece of evidence would be the neocon plan to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq.

The problem with the neocons is that they are essentially promoters of US imperialism and believers in US exceptionalism. Everything else, all the talk of democracy and freedom and blah blah blah, is just the window dressing excuse making/justification.

Some US citizens might delude themselves by buying into these excuses, but the rest of the world does not. This is the problem.

Neocons = same old pig, different color lipstick.

[yusuf]

As a somali, it’s quite interesting and exciting to see non somalis discussing our politics. For far too long the whole world has ignored us as we descended into further anarchy.

Let’s me tell you guys what’s going on in somalia in plain terms. Firstly the pirate problem has taken off from the fishermen versus foreign trawler battles in the 90s. Somalia has no navy to protect it’s waters so we got europeans and asians fishing in somalian waters stealing fish and dumping toxic waste. Naturally the locals and the fishermen complained to the un but to no avail. So the fishermen started to fight back against these ships and now since most of the fish are declining the fishermen cant feed their family and have resorted to piracy.

Secondly the internal wars of somalia is caused by clan politics. Right now somalia is divided into 3. Somaliland, puntland and southern somalia each controlled by opposing clans distrusful of each other. Each clan has it’s own warlords busy killing innocents and looting everything. Remember black hawk down and that nasty warlord mohammed farah aidid? Yep we have got loads of them in somalia.

Now coming to the islamists. The islamists want one thing. A united somalia. They absolutely abhor clan politics and warlords are fearful of them. In 06 they destroyed all warlords in southern somalia, stopped all the killings and lootings. They had their eyes on somaliland and puntland the land of the pirates as well. But because they were an islamic government in nature the united states was frightened. In their infinite wisdom they decided that a chaotic secular warlord infested somalia was better than a united peaceful islamic somalia. So they asked eithopia who ofcourse wants nothing more than a broken somalia so that it can access somalian ports to invade somalia and they will provide money and arms.

What we got was the worst humanitarian situation in southern somalia as many people were killed in the invasion and many displaced. As a result we now have piracy and warlordism back. Clan politics in somalia has has never been greater and security situation worse than before.

2 years from that invasion, the islamists who were the moderates of the ICU have been driven away and a new hardline unyielding faction have been formed. They control most of central and southern somalia and their rallying cry is the liberation of somalia from the eithopian invaders. I know few of my relatives who have joined the ranks of al shabab. They will not stop until every single eithopian has left somalia. As a result of thousands of somalis from as far as northern somalia have joined the jihad to oust the eithopians. After that they will turn their attention to the warlords and the pirates. The governments of puntland and somaliland are worried already because they don’t want a single centralised government and united country. Their primary interest is continue the bloodshed and warefare in southern somalia by warring fractions. But al shabab are adamant that unification of somalia into one country is their final goal and they will not let somalia disintegrate into seperate entities

Anyways that was pretty long from me whew!

[OCSteve]

Thank God these people weren't running the country during the formative Cold War years.

Jeeze. You're just begging for a Reagan thread... So question - was RR a "neocon"?

[russell]

I don't think that their central insight - that our long-term interests are best served by spreading freedom and democracy - is incorrect.

This is like describing the central insight of the mafia as "let's start a family business!".

Thanks -

[Phil]

You cannot "spread" freedom and democracy. You can encourage it, but people have to choose it, and take it.

[avedis]

Thanks Yusuf. That was a great comment. By the way, I think that most americans do not understand the background behind the pirate situation. In fact, most americans have a secret romantic affinity for pirates; which might explain our recent problems on wall street ;-)

What I see in your comment that is important re; neocons, is that in somalia - as elsewhere - there is a total disregard on the neocons' part for cultural history and integrity. The neocons see everything through the lense of an idealized america and the universal desire and ability to accept and implement that ideal..... and this is their fatal error.

[von]

So if Somalia is a cautionary tale, it ought to be about the limits of the use of proxy forces, the danger of relying on air strikes instead of boots on the ground, and the fundamental mistake in expecting that any externally imposed regime can ever obtain legitimacy, or that consensus can be forced at gunpoint.

Somalia is not a cautionary tale, nor, even, a neoconservative one. Somalia was an exercise in foreign policy realism. The regional power (Ethiopia) was going to invade Somalia and depose the IC (who, contra NYT, were not moderates by any stretch of the term) for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with US interest or the so-called war on terror. The question was whether the US was going to join its European and African allies in supporting the TFG. The US chose to do so -- and wisely. Indeed, the only people who have backed the IC are a handful of liberal bloggers, led by Matt Yglesias (who at times got basic facts wrong) and our own Eric Martin (who was better on the facts).

True, the US also provided overt political and limited military support for the Ethiopian government's invasion, which no European power did. But it was hardly a US adventure, much less a neoconservative one. And the current state of Somilia -- which is the absense of one [i.e., a state] -- was going to come to pass unless the US bucked its European and African allies and supported the IC.

It may have been a mistake to offer even limited support for Ethiopia. I continue to think that it made the best of a series of bad options because, if nothing else, it strengthen strategic ties between the US and Ethiopia. (Important for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the matter of hand.) But I've always seen the other side, ably represented by Martin's views. Still, neither side of the argument is based on a recognizable neoconservative viewpoint.

[avedis]

Von "The US chose to do so -- and wisely."

The you go on to sort of contradict yourself. Which is it?

"Still, neither side of the argument is based on a recognizable neoconservative viewpoint."

The neocons - or at least well recognized self professed neocon voices - loudely championed the ethiopian invasion. Ergo, it must have been a neocon viewpoint.

[matttbastard]

I (still) disagree with von on the merits of the West's support of Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia, but agree completely that it was an example of realpolitik at play, rather than neoconservative ideology.

[von]

So they asked eithopia who ofcourse wants nothing more than a broken somalia so that it can access somalian ports to invade somalia and they will provide money and arms.

Yusef, the historical disputes between Ethopia and Somalia played a much greater role than you're letting on. And you're unintentionally misleading an audience that doesn't know that history.

Now coming to the islamists. The islamists want one thing. A united somalia.

You're right that the IC wanted a united Somalia -- a united Greater Somalia.

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- The leader of the Islamic group that controls much of southern Somalia has revived the idea of a "Greater Somalia" that would incorporate regions of Kenya and Ethiopia -- a move that could further stoke tensions with the neighboring countries.

Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, chairman of the Council of Islamic Courts, told Shabelle Radio in an interview late Friday that his group would work to unite ethnic Somali peoples, but he did not say how it proposed to achieve a "Greater Somalia."

(http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1414433.html)

Moreover, all this talk of some mythical period of peace or moderation under the IC is ridiculous. Rather than working with the TFG, the IC was almost continually at war with the TFG. Sharif Sheikh Ahmed may have been the (relatively) moderate public face of the IC, but, as seen above, he was not the sole or most powerful voice in the IC. He was a 30-something year old lawyer .... you're telling me he held even one of the reigns of power in the IC? The Hizbul Shabaab have always been a part of the IC, and they have always been particularly dangerous.

[matttbastard]

The neocons - or at least well recognized self professed neocon voices - loudely championed the ethiopian invasion. Ergo, it must have been a neocon viewpoint.

David Duke loudly protested the war in Iraq. Ergo, it must have been a racist viewpoint.

[von]

Von "The US chose to do so -- and wisely."

To clarify, there were two decisions that the US made that I support: one not so noncontroversial and one very controversial.

1. The not-so-controversial decision was to formally (and publicly) back the TFD over the Islamic Courts. This is the decision that I meant to indicate was "wise". The Europeans, the African Union, the UN, and Ethiopia all supported the TFG and opposed the IC.

2. The very controversial decision was to provide material support for Ethiopia's invasion. (The Europeans provided tacit support, the AU hypothetical support). I still think that this was, on balance, an OK approach. But it was a close call.

I also think that I'm wrong in suggesting that Eric Martin supported the IC on question 1; I think he took the view that we should adopt the EU's position. IIRC, however, Yglesias took the view that we should support the IC against the TFG. I could never see the sense in that.

[yusuf]

Van. There is a difference between coveting something and committing something. Eithopia and somalia have been tradional enemies because somalia sees eithopia occupying regions somalia believe belong to somalis because they are inhabited by somalis. There are groups actually fighting the eithopian military called ogaden liberation army in ogaden who want ogaden to join somalia.

The point is at this point in time, people are looking for stability and ICU provided that. Eithopia does not want to see a united stable somalia. It's in their interest to see the fighting continue.

I remember as a kid when during the fight between the somalian army and rebels in 91 the eithopians suppllied all the weapons. That inspite of agreements made by both governments not to destablise each other.

What the eithopians failed to realise that although somalis will always keep fighting each other, nothing unites them quicker than a foreign invader and eithopia is paying the price for that.

[Slartibartfast]

You cannot "spread" freedom and democracy. You can encourage it, but people have to choose it, and take it.

Another rare instance of complete agreement between Phil and I. I think I'd have said that you can't give away freedom, but I think the general idea is the same.

[yusuf]

thanks avedis,

did you know that somalia loses £300 million as a result of illegal fishing and poaching by foreigners in somali waters. The united nations has done nothing to help somalis protect their coast.

[John Spragge]

As a citizen of the first country the fledgling United States targeted for "democratization", I would like to propose a really radical idea: most people have their own ideas about how to run their own lives and their own countries, and don't like having other people dictate political choices to them. My ancestors had the strongest maritime power in the world then protecting them, so after two invasions and half a dozen or so bloody battles, their American neighbours got the idea, but it seems clear to me that some (regrettably influential) Americans have never generalized the lesson. You can't make other people adopt your form, or any other form of democracy. The very idea contradicts itself on a fundamental level.

[von]

Yusuf -

The point is at this point in time, people are looking for stability and ICU provided that. Eithopia does not want to see a united stable somalia. It's in their interest to see the fighting continue.

I absolutely agree with that -- but that is part of my point regarding why it's wrong to assert that the US is responsible for Ethiopia's decision to invade. Ethiopia was going to intervene in Somalia regardless of what the US did. They prefer either the TFG (which is relatively pro-Ethiopian) or, failing that, chaos.

It wasn't a question of whether Ethiopia was going to destabilize the Islamic Courts. They were going to do it. The question was whether, and to what extent, the US was going to support them.

[Josh]

Yglesias took the view that we should support the IC against the TFG

You keep saying that. It doesn't get any more true with repetition, von.

[Oyster Tea]

OK John Spragge, I'll bite. What country are you from? South Carolina?

[John Spragge]

Read the Articles of Confederation. We rate a mention (I guess they figured after invading us, they might as well issue an invitation).

[liberal japonicus]

John is from Canuckistan, I believe. Of course, the reason we didn't win was cause there was nothing worth getting up there. If there had been something that we really wanted, we would have won (smileys all around)

[Oyster Tea]

John,

You may appreciate that I always have to say that I'm from the OTHER Vancouver. (U.S.A.)

[Gary Farber]

"Indeed, the only people who have backed the IC are a handful of liberal bloggers, led by Matt Yglesias (who at times got basic facts wrong) and our own Eric Martin (who was better on the facts)."

I'm willing to believe you've convinced yourself that this vile lie is true, despite the plain facts, given your prejudices.

"It may have been a mistake to offer even limited support for Ethiopia."

This is as close as you ever say you've been wrong. It doesn't reflect well on you that this is as close as you get, but it's something, however trivial and morally irresponsible.

[Scott de B.]

It wasn't a question of whether Ethiopia was going to destabilize the Islamic Courts. They were going to do it. The question was whether, and to what extent, the US was going to support them.

Okay, but by supporting them we thereby took on some of the responsibility for the outcome.

[Robert Matthew Van Winkle]

"This is why we should stop debating neoconnery in abstract theoretical terms."

Yes. Please define what you mean by a neoconservative. It's the most overused term on the blogosphere.