Eric Martin bait

by von

A brief update on Somalia, which is giving Afghanistan a run for its money as the land of perpetual war.  Ethiopian troops have again crossed the border in support of what remains of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG).  This isn't much of a suprise.  Also unsurprising -- to me at least -- is that Ethiopia seems again to be operating with US approval.

And therein lies the Eric Martin bait:  Eric and I have been going back-and-forth for a very long time regarding whether the US government should support Ethiopia's inevitable excursions into Somalia against the al Quada linked al-Shabab group and hardline Hisbul Islam faction.  I'm a reluctant "yes":  in a world of bad options, supporting Ethiopia is the least bad.  He's pretty sure that I'm nuts.  (I'm paraphrasing.)

I'm about to claim Team Obama for the "nuts" side in the debate, Eric.  Only you can save them! 

Comments

[Eric Martin]

He's pretty sure that I'm nuts. (I'm paraphrasing.)

Yeah, you got that one right ;)

[Pithlord]

I think we should try to expand the options. A Tigrayan-dominated Ethiopian state just can't be an acceptable patron for a reasonably legitimate Somali government. I realize that OAU forces have not panned out in the past, but (a) Obama really does have star power in Africa in a way that is exaggerated in other parts of the world and (b) the US dollar can go a long way. Somalia is a bleeding sore and contemporary Africa is in a better position to do something about it.

The biggest problem is that for Obama to put a lot of effort into African issues might expose him to racially-motivated criticism in the US. But that's where the biggest problems are and where the US could actually do something useful.

[bc]

Here's a question: Why not put more effort and $$ into Somaliland and see if that somehow rubs off on the south? I don't see any use of force working out very well no matter who pulls the trigger.

Seems to me that we need a model of what Somalia could be for Somalis to see and in a form that they will be drawn to. Apparently Somaliland's current state it is not enough. But if it were to truly thrive . . . thoughts?

[S.G.E.W.]

I was aghast at the U.S. assisted Ethiopian invasion, and warned of dire consequences - many of which have come to pass (an explosive insurgency, a hardening of fundamentalist views amongst formerly moderate Islamic Courts supporters, an increasingly calamitous refugee crisis, torture, disappearances, etc.) - and I still think that it was a terrible error. More importantly, I still maintain that it was an avoidable error or, at least, one that could and should have been mitigated by American involvement instead of being aggravated by it.

I don't really want to hash over the debate over whether or not "any" U.S. State Department would or could have stopped the Ethiopians from invading, or about the efficacy or ability of the U.N. or the O.A.S., or spend my time bemoaning the fate of the Islamic Courts Union. It's behind us now, looking forward, not backwards, always twirling, etc. (hoping that the water under the bridge will wash the blood off of our hands).

So. What can be done now? The current humanitarian crisis in Somalia beggars the imagination. The situation is worsening. I believe that something should be done. We, as individuals and as a nation and as a global community, must do better. But what? Is supporting the Ethiopian backed, U.N. rubber stamped regime our only option? What sort of pressure can the current State Department, or a special envoy, or Obama himself put on Ethiopia or the transitional government? Does Ethiopia have to be the only military presence in the region that we support?

A few earnest questions, von: do you think that there is any viable, alternative way to substantially improve the situation in Somalia? And do you really believe in a world with nothing but bad options?

I'd like to think that we can do a hell of a lot better than the way it's been handled up till now.

[An admission: I supported the idea of a U.S. led humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan back in 1997 or so. I now have very mixed feelings about how good an idea that was/is (to put it mildly). I also admit that my opinion seems to change when I imagine Barack Obama (or, way back when, Bill Clinton) as the commander-in-chief of such an intervention instead of George W. Bush. For some reason. But I acknowledge that thinking "it'll be better 'cause I like this guy" isn't an argument, and am generally trying to account for my personal bias.]

[Pithlord]

It's not necessarily irrational to think the Obama administration might be better at liberal interventionism than Bush was. From the beginning, the Bush admin generally thought that the hard work of post-conflict rebuilding was for girls. After 9/11, they freebased on militant nationalism. To be fair, by the end of the second term, they seemed to have learned a few things, but in many ways it was too late.

Obama's team has its weaknesses. One is that the easiest critique of the Iraq war came from realism, even though that is inconsistent with Obama's foundational convictions and with general moderate-progressivism. But they certainly have their advantages.

Also, Bush didn't really screw up Africa.

[Ugh]

Also unsurprising -- to me at least -- is that Ethiopia seems again to be operating with US approval....whether the US government should support Ethiopia's inevitable excursions into Somalia ...

I wonder if people sit around in, say, Japan or China and discuss whether other countries should be able to conduct some action with Japanese or Chinese "approval", or whether the Chinese or Japanese gov't should "support" some other country's military actions thousands of miles away.

But here in the U.S., it happens all the time and is unremarkable, apparently.

A brief update on Somalia, which is giving Afghanistan a run for its money as the land of perpetual war.

von - you reside in the land of perpetual war, except that those wars are conducted elsewhere and you're insulated from their effects, with rare exceptions.

[Hartmut]

Well, China has dirty hands too and tries to meddle in resource rich areas of the globe.

[von]

A few earnest questions, von: do you think that there is any viable, alternative way to substantially improve the situation in Somalia? And do you really believe in a world with nothing but bad options?

I continue to think that the TFG represents the only option for a peaceful Somalia. The trouble is that the TFG is woefully weak, and, although it has theoretical backing from the African Union and the European Union, it's only practical backer is Ethiopia. And Ethiopia has its own interests to pursue, which are not always the interests of the Somalis. (Somalis know this, which is why Ethiopia -- and, by extension, the TFG -- is regarded with suspicion).

As for backing Ethiopia: It's the strongest player in the region and is the only regime that can actually make and keep the kinds of promises that the US might desire. It is almost single-handedly keeping the TFG alive. There is no sense in the US opposing Ethiopia's actions in Somalia; what I'd like to see, however, is encouragement that others take a more active role so that Ethiopia's share gets smaller.