Islamic Militia Defeats US Sponsored Warlords in Somalia

Naive analysis.

Both sides are driven by financial concerns, not ideology. Take the time to study what parts of Mogadishu the Islamists targeted- aiports, key intersections- and the effect the interim government's development was eventually going to have, and you will begin to understand that this was a calculated, preemptive move. The "pious" head of the Islamic Courts has illegaly collected millions over the years, and its initial support was- and still largely is- from the business community.

The US has had a minimal intelligence presence in Somalia for years now, and you're just going to have to trust me on that one. This isn't Afghanistan; Somalia's not strategic, and a proxy war is unneccesary. Chaos is just as preferrable as anything else, unless you're one of those people who believes in humanity.


tigermission1,

I wouldn't put too much faith in the objectivity of the Red Cross and an "International Crisis" Group when it comes to interpreting political developments with a perceived Western influence. Also, former intelligence officials are often bitter people with an agenda. You're going to have to do better than that to establish some kind of direct relationship.

Also, if you're looking for arms import violations, your best bet isn't the US, it's Saudi Arabia.

 

I don't put much faith in the objectivity on any source, be it the IRC or some other source. At worst, it's one point of view.

Now you're over-generalizing and stereotyping, I would give former government officials more credibility than that, although some (not all, as you seem to suggest) do clearly come across as bitter former employees.

I am fully aware of that, the Saudis are very good at funneling a bunch of things, not just weapons; in fact, the US used the Saudis in the past as a proxy to smuggle weapons/cash to third parties. Nothing new there. So the Saudis have done it, the US has done it, what's your point, again?

 

When your article depends on NGO's and former officials, it's more susceptible to criticism; at least to someone who adheres to a realist school of thought.

The point is not that the US has not ever smuggled arms; it's that in this particular case, elements of the Saudi military are far more likely to be the culprits in the recent escalation of violence. It's been a classic tactic of theirs since 9/11- tow the government line on terror, and enforce it within the kingdom, but curry favor with the Islamists in proxy wars such as this.

The point -I would contend- is that significant US involvement is merely a smokescreen for the motivations I have laid out.

 

what does a warlord look like?

 

The U.S. may or may not run/get involved in a war in that part of the area, but one can't hardly ignore the stragegic importance of Somalia when one takes a peek at where the country is located, even if one ignores its natural resources entirely.



American presence in U.S.-friendly Somalia would help keep close tab on Yemen, and control Sudan's vital sea route if necessary. The oil-rich Sudan as we know is on U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism -- aka Axis of Evil, and Yemen isn't particularly a U.S. favorite either.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as saying U.S. prefers the mishap of another country just for the heck of it.

 

US presence in Somalia isn't really that important. The US already maintains a strong presence in Djibouti which basically does whatever the hell the US wants in exchange for money.

Another issue, though, is the makeup of the Islamic Courts Union which captured Mogadishu. It (similar to the warlords) is an alliance of Islamic courts that were the remnants of any sort of justice system after the fall of the Somalian government in 1991. The courts not only administer justice, but have their own militias and do lots of social work in their respective areas as well and fulfill basic governmental duties. Each court varies in its ideology. Almost all of them are fairly moderate and don't really endorse the type of fundamentalism associated with terrorist organizations. However, a few do and it is those few that remain a concern. No one believes Somalian radicals will do anything to threaten US interests but rather that it could become a safeplace for radicals in the same way Libya was before Qadaffi kicked out Bin Laden.

Additionally, resources are actually an issue. In Puntaland (spelling?), which is the northeast part of Somalia, there have been discoveries of oil and other resources which multinational companies have already expressed interest in. I believe some European or Australian companies have already started work there since Puntaland is actually somewhat stable and has a working government. I don't buy that the US engages in war for purely economic reasons like oil but one can't deny that it certainly does influence decisions.

 

I have to admit that I don't know that much about the situation and parties in Somalia but I'm not sure that you can presume that since the Islamists targeted the airports and key intersections they are primarily about money. Those are strategic locations to and if they want to control the city they would need to control those areas.

 

Again, for most of the 15 years they were 'running the country' they got no support from the US at all (and let's keep in mind that even this 1.8 million is alleged, not proven). So you are painting a picture that does not mirror reality.

What does this have to do with the topic? The US didn't install the warlords and dictatorship doesn't even come into the picture.