Somalia, the Gap's battlefields and why we can't withdraw from Iraq

Black Hawk Ground No Government, No Jobs, No Hope, But Plenty of Garbage. For Two Disabled Somali War Veterans, a Garbage Dump Isn't Just a Place to Find Food -- It's Home African al-Qaida? What Will Grow from Somalia's Anarchy? Have America's Tactics Boosted the Chance for an Islamic State, a Base for al-Qaida or Both? Somalia's Garbage Scavengers No Government, No Jobs, No Hope, But Plenty of Garbage. For Two Disabled Somali War Veterans, a Garbage Dump Isn't Just a Place to Find Food -- It's Home.

I've just finished reading Yahoo's experiment with news reporting. The project is called In the Hot Zone. In this news blog journalist Kevin Sites travels to various Hot Spots in the world where war and insecurity prevail. His first three posts have been on Somalia, a country largely forgotten from America's collective psyche, except for the Black Hawk Down incident. Sites first travels to Mogadishu to the exact place where Black Hawk Super Six One crashed after being hit by an RPG. The story is interesting because it provides a lot of context for how our humanitarian mission "Operation Restore Hope" went awry. As Sites explains it, our mission began to go wrong when American forces led an "attack on what was believed to be a safe house in Mogadishu where members of Aidid's Habr Gedir clan were supposedly meeting to plan more violence against U.S. and U.N. forces" when in reality the clain elders were meeting to "discuss ways to peacefully resolve the conflict between Aidid and the multinational task force in Somalia, and perhaps even to remove Aidid as leader of the clan."

Many may frown upon this characterization of events having watched Black Hawk Down, the movie, but according to Sites this was verified by an independent investigation carried out by the UN. Whether this is true or not, however, is irrelevant, as the perception in Somalia is that we attacked the most respected elders of the clan who were trying to find a way out of the morass Aidid had gotten them into. In turn, this action turned the local population against us, aided no doubt by propaganda from Aidid's group.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that Somalis in the region have not forgotten, nor forgiven the US for the violence that followed. As Sites describes it, they even erected a field of cacti to prevent anyone in Somalia from removing the remains of Super Six One from the site where it fell. They also blame us for the violence and the scars left on the community and people. As Sites puts it "[t]heir anger now seems as sharp and unforgiving as the cactus needles that protect the memory and remains of Black Hawk Super Six One."

The next article focuses on the question of whether our intervention and subsequent withdrawal actually created the conditions necessary for the rise of an Islamic state in Somalia because, as one of Sites interviewees puts it, "if the lawlessness continues, yes, people will turn to religion."

Sites also sheds light on the fact that many African Muslims, including Somalis, have gone to Iraq to fight against American forces because they see it as yet another attempt by the U.S. to conquer Muslim land and kill Muslims, in its Crusade against Islam, eerily echoing al Qaeda's ideology.

These are important questions we as Americans must address, whenever we are involved in failed states or the developing world. Will our actions have the expected outcome we believe? Will we make more enemies than friends, even when we go with all the best intentions? How can we address the mistakes we have made before, if any, to ensure that we don't end up leaving more enmity toward America and Americans wherever we go? This is not to say that the Somali account is completely true, it cannot be, neither side's can, we made mistakes in Somalia both during Operation Restore Hope and after, including our decision to leave in the face of the Black Hawk Down incident. Now we have a Somalia that is more lawless than it has ever been, where enmity toward America runs high, as a result of our past actions and our withdrawal which left the people without hope or security, and worse off than before we went in to try and help them. This last fact is borne out by Sites third post in his Hot Zone series, where he describes the conditions under which many Somalis are forced to leave in. The reason; No security, no governing authority, no economic prospects and plenty of garbage and violence to go around. We would all do well to read up on Somalia and places just like it where the life that we enjoy is but a pipe dream, if that. Where violence and death, poverty and suffering are the way of life, where as Hobbes once said life is "nasty, brutish and short." In some places we will be able to help people with foreign aid, and development projects, but this will not always be the case. Sometimes force will be necessary, not to cow the people or make them suffer, but to remove those warlords or "so called" leaders who, like Kim Jong Il, willfully deprive their people of food, freedom, or any ability to improve their lot. It is these "leaders" that we must remove for they are an obstacle to the spread of globalization and its rule sets, one particularly worrying case is that of the leader of Turkmenistan who has developed a personality cult around his figure and has adopted the title of Turkmenbashi or "Leader of all Ethnic Turkmen."

The Leadership of the US and other developed nations need to come up with a plan to spread our security rule-sets to those places where there are none, the world is full of failed states and as long as they exist, al Qaeda and other organizations like it will be able to exist and thrive and become a danger to the world and its citizens. Knowing this, we must understand that we have a responsibility to the world to ensure that those empty pockets that globalization, security rules-sets, and peace have missed have a chance at a better life. That is why we cannot withdraw from Iraq, no matter how bad it seems for our troops. We are there now, and yes many mistakes have been made, but are we willing as a society to leave Iraqis to their fate? We did this to Somalis and look what it has gotten both them and us. For them a life where living in garbage is almost a luxury, where hatred and violence are the way things are, for us the insecurity of knowing that not only do Somalis hate us, and refuse to forgive us, but also that al Qaeda (who loves lawless environments where it can hide and plan) may be near, where the only hope people have is an intolerant brand of religion that is appealing because in its rigidity provides them with rules and certainty, a certainty that has been so absent from their daily lives.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Indonesia- A second look

Indonesia's moderate Islamic image under threat 21/09/2005 JAKARTA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Joining a group of young Indonesian intellectuals who hold liberal Islamic views was once just a ticket to controversy. Now, it could be life-threatening. Since Indonesia's top Muslim council issued religious edicts in late July that banned liberal interpretations of the faith, death threats against members of the 4-year-old Islamic Liberal Network, known as JIL, have poured in. The fatwas that JIL says triggered the hate campaign coincide with the closure of numerous unauthorized Christian churches by hardline Muslim groups and the jailing this month of three Christian women for inviting Muslim children to church events... Despite what appears to be a series of blows to Indonesia's Muslim liberals and the country's image in general, analysts like Fealy and Merle Ricklefs, another prominent Australian expert on Islam in Indonesia, remain generally optimistic. "This is a story without an ending, but there are grounds for thinking that the progressive liberalism of Indonesia has withstood the attack," Ricklefs wrote in the Australian Financial Review on September 2. "With its reactionary fatwas, MUI may indeed have sidelined itself within a rapidly changing society."

This is disturbing news from Indonesia, a country that has long been known as a moderate Muslim country. According to the story above Indonesia's top Muslim council issued a fatwa banning liberal interpretations of the faith. Upon the issuance of this fatwa the Islamic Liberal Network received numerous threats and is now being guarded by Indonesian secuirty forces due to the severity of the threats it has received. As if this wasn't particularly problematic, Asharq Alawsat also reports that this fatwa coincided with the closure of unauthorized Chrisitan churches by hardline Muslim groups, which the government cannot prevent because the churches were formed illegally. This Christians say, is the result of the difficulty in getting permits to build these churches as to do so you need permission from the community were invariably Christians are a minority. I've said before in this blog that Indonesia is one of the main keys in this war on terror. At the time I stated that the war we are fighting is not one where our actions will matter much unless Muslims fought against radical Islamism. This remains the case today and it seems as if we are losing. There are some positive views however. In the same piece in Asharq Alawsat two Australian Islamic scholars argued that the moderate Muslim movement survived and would eventually thrive against the Islamist intolerance. In fact they argue that the fatwa was "a push by Muslim conservatives to reassert themselves after the failure of political Islam to gain traction during last year's elections." The fact that Rohan Gunaratna, the Sri Lankan terrorism scholar was allegedly expelled from Indonesia does not fill me with confidence in the optimistic assesment above. Not to be too pessimist either, this news comes from the state department which asserts that "The most important and encouraging trend in recent years has been the strengthening of democracy. In the last few years, elections have taken place not only in established democracies -- the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand -- but also in newly democratized Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, and in East Timor, a new nation and new democracy. As democracy has taken on deeper roots, it has brought with it an enhanced respect for civil society and the rule of law." This however is deceptively positive because it fails to acknowledge that many Muslims feel that the Christian West committed an act of aggression against Islam when it separated East Timor from Indonesia. The reason for this is that East Timor is primarily Christian, while Indonesia is Muslim and as such it was seen as an act of the Crusaders securing Christian outposts in the Muslim world. In fact, according to Michael Scheuer part of the reason for the attack on the UN offices in Iraq in 2003 was that Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN representative, had also been one of the people responsible for the partition of East Timor from Indonesia. All this said, there is some positive news coming from the Asia Times online who reports that the US military has been establishing closer ties with the Indonesian military following their cooperation during the Tsunami last year. While there are still issues with regard to the Indonesian military's human rights record, the US government is placing alot of confidence in the new Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It remains to be seen what the repercussions of our involvement with the Indonesian military will be.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Afghanistan revisited

Karzai Urges Shift in Strategy Afghan Doubts Military Focus By N.C. Aizenman Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A14 KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 20 -- President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday questioned the need for further international military operations within Afghanistan, while the top U.S. military commander here predicted more fighting in the weeks ahead as Taliban guerrillas continue to mount attacks and U.S.-led forces respond. Karzai, speaking at a news conference two days after landmark parliamentary elections were held with minimal disruption, called instead for a "stronger political approach," focused on shutting down guerrilla training camps and financial support outside the country.

This is exactly what I am arguing for with respect to Afghanistan. While the Bush administration is throwing out feelers on having our troops withdraw from Afghanistan, it forgets that military operations against insurgents and terrorists are just the initial phase of rebuilding a country. Karzai in the piece above spells this out clearly. It is true that we have defeated the Taliban guerrilla, not completely but it has been weakened substantially. Now, we must move to consolidate the gains we have made in the country. Now is the time for us to provide better security for the Afghan people, to allow the government to develop the country's economy. At the same time, we can't lower our guard but remember that as long as the Taliban survives it poses a threat to Afghanistan. This fact is irrefutable given the fact that in recent months violence has been increasing in the country and that the U.S. has suffered more deaths than in any other month since we invaded the country to remove the Taliban from power and to capture Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization (this last thing we have yet to do even though our president told us that "whether we brought our enemies to justice or justice to our enemies, justice would be done!). Col Pat Lang has an interesting take on Karzai's comments, though I disagree with his conclusion that we need to withdraw from Afghanistan. He basically argues that Karzai is telling us in no uncertain terms that Afghanistan is as it is and that we should abandon our dreams of a democratic progressive Afghanistan in a dust bin to be forgotten. There is some merit to what Col. Lang says. He is correct for example in saying that democracy cannot be imposed on anyone. I agree with him that that is one of the most troubling aspects of our current campaign to turn despotic regimes into democratic ones. All we can do, especially in those countries we have invaded and occupied, is to provide the country with enough security to allow its economy to grow and a politica process to develop. We can counsel the leadership and ensure that the process is transparent but ultimately the people of the country must decide their fate. We have given Afghanistan and Iraq that chance, but have failed to provide them with the security necessary to jumpstart their economies or allow the political process to move forward. Karzai himself makes this clear when he states in the story above "'Our country needs stability,' Karzai said, adding that 'a system of participation' is important to improve national life. 'Certain aspirations for us at this moment may sound like too much of a luxury. So I'm very happy with what we have.'" Let's hope someone in the administration is listening.

Read More...

Snippet only...

We can't impose democracy, but where it is slowly being born...

Israel to Disrupt Palestinian Vote if Hamas Runs By JOEL BRINKLEY Published: September 17, 2005 UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 16 - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon vowed Friday to withhold Israeli cooperation from Palestinian legislative elections in January if candidates from the militant group Hamas take part. Mr. Sharon said Israel could choose not to remove roadblocks and checkpoints that would block Palestinians from the polls and make it hard for Palestinians in Jerusalem to vote, among other steps, if Hamas, which calls for Israel's destruction, takes part... Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, complained: "If the Israelis start interfering now with our elections, this will sabotage the democratic process in Palestine. I really urge the Israelis to keep their noses out of our elections. We've been conducting local elections, including Hamas, and this is our choice, and I hope Israel will respect our democracy..." But Mr. Abbas has signed a peace deal with Hamas and a similar group, Islamic Jihad, and says the best way to ease them away from violence is to urge them into the political mainstream. Israeli and American officials say that until the groups give up their arms and renounce terrorism, they have no place in the democratic process. Mr. Sharon's remarks came as a political struggle continued at home over his withdrawal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, who has taken a political position to the right of Mr. Sharon, is challenging him for the leadership of the Likud Party.

This is exactly the wrong move for the Israelis to make to disarm Hamas. Hamas is strong because it has been an opposition group that has fought against the "Israeli occupation" without needing to prove its mettle to meet the needs of the Palestinian people. Since they have not held any office in Palestine, they are seen as clean, as opposed to the corrupt Palestinian Authority which they oppose. The best way to reduce Hamas' power is to let them deal with day to day issues in Palestine. If they choose to continue the intifadah in Gaza instead of focusing on developing its economy, they are likely to find that the Palestinian people will vote them out of office in the next election. Further, they will have to mantain a clean image, any suspicion of corruption on the part of their officials will do a lot to diminish their power. If Israel blocks or undermines the Palestinian elections Hamas becomes stronger because it can argue that although Israel has withdrawn it is still deciding the future of Gaza and hence Gaza is still under occupation. In short, preventing Hamas from running will only strengthen Hamas by keeping it as an opposition party without any responsibility for the betterment of its population. They get a good deal, they can criticize the status quo but never have to prove that they can do better. Israel's reluctance to allow Hamas to participate in elections also reflects yet another problem with promoting democracy in the Middle East. We can't impose it, but when and if it is born, those elections are likely to bring to power the most organized and respected organizations within a Muslim country, these invariably happen to be Islamist organizations such as Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, SCIRI and Dawa in Iraq. Prevent them from running and you undermine the democratic process you have installed because you are preventing people from running in what is supposed to be a free poll. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group with a vicious track record, however their fight against Israel and their opposition to the corrupt Palestinian Authority have made them popular with the population. The only way to counter that popularity, is to show their deficiencies. For example, once elected they will have to prove that they can rule, and that they can do it better than the PA, remedy unemployment, housing, education and all the things for which Palestinians depend on the government. If they fail, their popularity falls and they are removed from power, that is how democracy works. Additionally, Israel must remember that its one time Prime Minister Begin was also the leader of terrorist cells that sought the withdrawal of British troops from Palestine in the early half of the last century. Moreover, Iran also provides a lesson in how a democracy, now matter how imperfect, can still moderate a movement. When the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, he wanted to establish a full religious Islamist state. However, as he and his followers had to contend with all the needs of the Iranian people they also had to weigh religious zealousness with economic development. Yes, Iran still continues to be ruled by the mullahs, but if you look closely you'll notice that the women of Iran are by far the most liberated in the Muslim world and also the most pro-American. The Mullah-run government has had to allow its people liberties that a decade ago it would never have allowed, why? To make up for their economic mismanagement. Although the conservative Ahmadinejad won the election, it is unlikely that Iran will revert back to its old Islamist mold. Now, as Tom Barnett says, the new bargain in Iran is for the people to pretend they are being ruled, while the mullahs pretend they are ruling them. Returning to the challenge before us. As stated above, Islamists will win in any election held in the Muslim world. Democracy will usher in governments that will be more anti-American in the short term but as their democracies develop they will moderate or at least be too busy with meeting the needs of their populations to have time to devote to their ideologies. If we subvert the same democratic process that we are promoting, we'll loose our credibility and stain the credibility of the process itself. Many might think that this is wishful thinking and it may be. But it sure beats the status quo we have lived with for the past 50 years. We have supported dictators who promised and failed to keep stability in the region, theocracies who althought they have maintained a steady supply of oil flowing to the world have also financed their own extremist ideology throughout the Muslim world. An ideology which awoke us to a new world on September 11, 2001. The status quo is no longer a responsible way to safeguard our future or manage the world, the road ahead is going to be rocky, and things will get worse before they get better. The task before us is going to be difficult but then again those things worth doing usually are.

Read More...

Snippet only...

9/11: four years after

U.S. Considering Troop Reduction In Afghanistan Move Next Year Would Hinge on NATO By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A26

I apologize for not having written anything during the past two weeks, but with the semester beginning once again, I have not had much time for anything.

This past Sunday marked the fourth year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Four years ago, the fighting 69th was charged with guarding the smoldering remains of one of the greatest symbols of our power. This past week, right before the fourth year anniversary of those attacks, the fighting 69th returned from their one year tour of duty in Iraq. On September 11, 2001 we were attack by the al Qaeda organization, based out of Afghanistan, in October of that year we sent our men and women into combat to remove the Taliban from power and to kill or capture the leaders of the plot that had killed over 2500 Americans. Four years since, we have yet to fulfill many of the promises we made to the Afghan people, we have yet to destroy the Taliban guerrilla, and have yet to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or Ayman Az Zawahiri. In fact, even as we remembered those who fell on that sunny september morning, ABC released a video from Adam Gadahn (an American al Qaeda member) threatening attacks on Los Angeles and Melbourne, Australia. In that video, Gadahn also extolls al Qaeda's exploits in Europe, and celebrates those who carried out the metro attacks in both Madrid and London. Furthermore, al Qaeda cells have spread all throughout the Muslim world and Europe, and one must assume America as well, and yet, rather than press on with the offensive to kill or capture the remnants of the al Qaeda leadership, currently thought to be hiding in the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, we announce that we are considering troop reductions in Afghanistan? Does it make sense to withdraw from the one country that borders the Pakistani NWFP, where we think al Qaeda is hiding and planning for future attacks against us? This even as "intensified fighting in Afghanistan this year has killed more than 50 Americans, the highest death toll in any year since the troops arrived." Obviously, the threat is still present in the country and yet, while NATO discusses plans to increase its troop levels in Afghanistan we discuss plans to withdraw 4,000 of our 20,000 troops from the country.

In the story we are also told that "U.S. troops have so far borne the brunt of the fight with Taliban insurgents, whose strongholds are in remote parts of the south and the rugged hills of eastern provinces bordering Pakistan," and that this has been partly a result of NATO "member countries that have been reluctant to put their troops into combat as opposed to the less risky job of peacekeeping in relatively secure areas." While this might be seen as an attempt by the administration to widen the role of NATO outside of Europe, it is troubling that we would devolve our duty to bring "our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies" as the President so famously put it, to someone else.

According to the story our Ambassador to Afghanistan has said that U.S. forces will continue to provide airlift, intelligence and other logistical assistance to NATO allies and that "NATO is not a question of providing some excuse for us to quit the mission early." Still, reducing our presence in Afghanistan feels exactly like that, like we are more interested or preoccupied with other matters, to devote much time to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

The ambassador also states that "under a longer-term alliance plan that envisions NATO taking command of Afghanistan's eastern sector, U.S. ground forces would continue to play the lead role there," however that role is not specified. In light of the many things coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, including stories of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by al Qaeda to track Pakistani troop movements, you would think we would be worried enough that we would want to engage the enemy more fully. Afghanistan, even more than Iraq, is where our focus should be. While I do not believe we should leave Iraq until we have accomplished our mission, I also believe that part of our greater mission lies in ensuring the future of the Afghan state. Unless we do so, we will have failed the memory of those we pledged to avenge. Our vengeance against al Qaeda is not only ensuring that they are brought to justice, one way or another, but also ensuring that the future of Islam and the Arab world is different than the one they sought to bring about through thier mass casualty attacks. A muslim world that is more tolerant, peaceful and open to globalization and its benefits would hurt bin Laden more than his own death. While we still have much work to do in Iraq, we must always remember that al Qaeda is not based there. It is, and has been based in Afghanistan and Pakistan since before the 9/11 attacks. We cannot forget that, we have to keep our focus on the goal we set ourselves four years ago. Iraq, is important, but Afghanistan is doubly so.

UPDATE

Allies rule out bigger Afghan role Richard Norton-Taylor and agencies Thursday September 15, 2005 The Guardian

Apparently the Europeans got cold feet at the last minute on expanding their mission in Afghanistan. Nothing like hearing from US government officials that if NATO expands its mission, the US will reduce its own troop levels to make a new committment appealing. As stated above, this undermines what we are trying to do in Afghanistan (i.e. create secure conditions so that Afghans can establish a more representative government than what they had under the Taliban). It also smacks of abandoning our mission before that mission is done (think President Bush in an aircraft carrier with a banner in the background reading "Mission Accomplished," at this pace and with the strategies pursued by this administration, not likely.

Read More...

Snippet only...

A country must stand together in a time of need

As Necromage reminded us, our soldier's in Iraq are also suffering as a result of Hurricane Katrina, the 256 Tiger Brigade out of Louisiana served in Iraq with a unit of the New York National Guard and they are scheduled to come back home next week. As necromage points out, many will no longer have a home to come back to. They served our country, fulfilled their duty and now it is our turn to show our appreciation for all they have done to protect our freedom and our way of life. Please click on the link below to be directed to the American Red Cros