the U.S. is supporting a coalition of warlords fighting in Mogadishu. There is little doubt that the Islamist militias fighting for control of Somalia are associated with al Qaeda. This would not be the first time
.
Keep your eyes open, this one is getting hot. [Image right: Somalians carry pictures of Osama bin Laden during a 2002 protest against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan]
more...
1
I have an objection, Rusty.
Isn't the "our SOB" syndrome the same thing that has lead to so many headaches during and after the cold war? Ostensibly pro-American power bases are quick to turn on us the moment it becomes convenient for them to do so, even allying with former enemies.
Its also a truth that the fascist or in some cases Islamic regimes that we supported during the cold war all ended up being far more headache than what they prevented. The plain fact of the matter is that the US has nothing to gain from backing tyrants, fascists or Islamists in any corner of the globe. They will all bite us in the ass, one way or the other, in the short or long term.
How about instead of doing the "our SOBs, their SOBs" syndrome, we just kill all the SOBs? At the very least, let Al-Q exaughst themselves on the warlords and then just tangle with whoever comes out on top in that place.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 04:24 PM (B9sDR)
2
It's a good argument you make, actually. But the same could be said about the Soviet Union in WWII, or any other ally of convenience.
The real question is the extent that the immediate threat outweighs the potential for a future threat. In the case of Somalia, letting it fall into the hand of Islamists who support jihad seems like worst case scenario stuff.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:33 PM (JQjhA)
3
I guess my point is that we cannot be so concerned about the potential for those we support to abuse power in the future and therefore create more headaches for us in the future that we are paralyzed to inaction in facing an immediate threat.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:34 PM (JQjhA)
4
Storm last night got my modem on one machine,
Tv, Stove I think is swered too.
Posted by: Howie at May 25, 2006 04:58 PM (D3+20)
5
Rusty, re: The Soviet Union, that is my point exactly. We defeated the Nazis and helped make sure the Soviet Empire survived through WWII with enough military and moral clout to help spread communism throughout the world, kill millions upon millions of people and bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but here is my point: Helping "our SOB" is just going to create another SOB we need to destroy in the first place. In this particular case, if the warlords are powerful enough to be able to drive out the Muslims with only minor US support, we should just wait for both sides to exaughst each other, move in and set up a stable government to run things ourselves. Its win-win when you let two of your enemies kill each other.
I'm also not one to judge that our alliance with the Soviet Union was at all beneficial to the USA in any examination of what we had to gain vs what we had to lose.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:18 PM (B9sDR)
6
"I guess my point is that we cannot be so concerned about the potential for those we support to abuse power in the future and therefore create more headaches for us in the future that we are paralyzed to inaction in facing an immediate threat."
I never suggested we do not take action. There is merely a time and a place to take it. When our enemies - and make no mistake, a tyrant is an enemy of America, as all tyrants must hate and fear any free country - attack each other, why interrupt them or help one side or the other? If they're so evenly matched that a little push from us lets one side or the other win, why don't instead we just wait for them to nearly destroy each other, move in and mop up the depleted winner and thus have two birds killed with one stone?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:23 PM (B9sDR)
7
I think grey skies would be less time consuming, less agonizing and would be over in a flash!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 25, 2006 05:34 PM (FCC6c)
8
But isn't that kind of exactly what we let happen in Afghanistan? If we don't know which side will eventually win, can we risk that the bin Ladenist side will gain the advantage? And then WE have to invade, rather than use proxy armies.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 05:54 PM (JQjhA)
9
We would have to invade anyway, to clean up our own mess. All those big guns and dictators being in power thanks to the good ol' US of A would just engender feelings of resentment towards anyone who is pro-US and foment violent revolution against us, putting into power someone who is decidedly anti-US in their leanings.
I mean, shoot, backing up tyrants in order to prevent crazy ass enemies of America from taking over?
what could possibly go wrong?
The idea that we can use "proxy armies" to win a war is false. All that will happen is either our "allies" turn out not to be (see the Afghan constitution) or a legitimately pro-US (read: Completely dependent on the US) tyrant gets his ass overthrown and replaced by Osama Bin Laden.
There is no avoiding fighting our own battles ourselves, Rusty. The question is merely whether or not the US has the will to do it. Otherwise we'll be running about the world putting out small fires that we started five years previous until we give up and stop bothering with the rest of the world.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:04 PM (B9sDR)
10
Hmm, your HTML isn't working, looks like. The "what could possibly go wrong" linked to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:05 PM (B9sDR)
11
OK so in the picture some people in 2002 are carrying a picture of bin Laden. Now the question is Which side are they now on ? Is there any reason to believe that the warlords that we are supporting now will not be associated with al Queda in the future ? The one thing that Somalians need most is stability, no matter who is in charge.
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:17 PM (TcoRJ)
12
Can I bet on both sides to lose?
Posted by: hondo at May 25, 2006 06:39 PM (DaNq1)
13
DEBKA is not really a source that I would trust without other corroboration. DEBKA makes it seem like Aidid had a well trained group with an up to the minute Command and Control ability to use our secret codes. That is not the impression I got from reading Black-hawk Down. Or my impression of the capabilities of ANY group in Somalia.
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:53 PM (TcoRJ)
14
Hmm, your HTML isn't working, looks like
Um, no. Go back to HTML school.
You can thank me later. Actually, you can thank me now for fixing the link to the anyone can edit what they want accuracy of Wikipedia.
Yeah, john, stability at all costs is what Somalia needs, just like the Taliban's stability, Saddam's stability, the Mullah's stability, Assad's stability, Stalin's stability, Hitler's stability, Mao's stability, Castro's stability.
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 06:54 PM (/qy9A)
15
John,
Bin Laden himself claims to have been behind Mogadishu, that's just a quick link I found with Google.
MIB,
The problem is that you are being picky with your examples. You choose examples where no matter what the U.S. did, we were screwed. Also, you mischaracterize Afghanistan. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets, and then we completely abandoned them. The Taliban was not formed until 1994, and then only becaue the Pakis supported them.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:08 PM (JQjhA)
16
I said "See the Afghan constitution" and was referring to the Northern Alliance. You know, the current mess there. Proxy armies just don't work. If you can cite an example where a proxy wars didn't result in long-term headaches for the US, I'd love to see it.
Vinnie: The point was the actual occurance, not the specific text in wikipedia. I guess that one flew over your head while you were busy fixing my html.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 07:12 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:27 PM (JQjhA)
18
It's spelled "occurrence."
How about El Salvador?
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 07:37 PM (/qy9A)
19
I only hope they all destroy each other. The winners or losers might wish to move here.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 08:10 PM (pzM6K)
20
Jonah Goldberg talks about this every now and then. He uses a device used by IIRC William McKinley. He likened current events and the like to boulders rolling down the road at you. Some boulders will come at you on the right, some down the middle, and some from the left. Some boulders will bound off the road well ahead of you and not be a problem.
Now, what McKinley (and hence Goldberg) said was that your effort to jump out of the way of one boulder could very well put you in the way of another. However, what is the option? Get crushed by the first boulder? No, you jump out of the first boulder's way and then right away you have to deal with another boulder coming at you.
Yeah there is no doubt that supporting bad people to fight badder people now is not an ideal situation but we do not live in an ideal world.
I think many pine for a perfect world. Yes, the Afghani constitution is not a 21st century thing, but it seems many view the fact that the Vagina Monologues is not playing in trendy Kandahar Cafes is a sign of abject failure in Afghanistan. Yes, being in the 12th Century is not ideal but it is progress from their previous 7th Century situation.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at May 25, 2006 08:50 PM (v2l2P)
21
The contras failed, though, Rusty. The Sadinistas lost in elections after the US backed a different political party, iirc, with money to help get their messege out. It doesn't help that the Sadinistas were commies and crashed the country.
So I'm not sure how the "proxy war" succeeded, when the "war" part (the contras) failed and a completely different plan (back the opposition party) succeeded.
Vinnie: El Salvador doesn't seem to be an "our bastards" kind of civil war. They seemd alright, in fact. How were they evil, dictatorial tyrants exactly?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 09:24 PM (B9sDR)
22
I understand MiB's and Rusty's points as well. But it's not only the US that enters into unholy alliances from time to time. Look at history and the alliance between radical Muslims and the Nazis for instance. Should their alliance have been successful, they would have been forced to duke it out among themselves afterwards. Once their common goals were achieved, the focus would change to their differences. It's just a matter of weighing the odds. Sometimes the immediate danger and other 'unholy alliances' are more important. The only other options are to break every international law of combat or complete isolationism.
Posted by: Oyster at May 26, 2006 05:55 AM (YudAC)
23
I'm cool with breaking every "international law of combat," since trying to make war civilized is the most retarded exercise I can possibly think of.
Posted by: MiB at May 26, 2006 06:27 AM (B9sDR)
24
When the starting point is a government by Al Qaeda's hand-picked stooges, then any first step is good as long as it might lead towards the removal of those particular blood-soaked fanatics. That doesn't mean you can take the first step and then stop. An iterative approach is correct.
Posted by: Pangloss at May 26, 2006 07:15 AM (lk+8t)
25
50 bucks says the black guy beats the black guy, then beats the black guy, then beats the black guy .....
Is Somalia going to be available on PPV?
Posted by: hondo at May 26, 2006 03:05 PM (k/PLS)
26
Well a little late to comment on this but today Monday the Voice of America has a headlined story DOUBTS ARISE OVER PRESENCE OF FOREIGN MUSLIM FIGHTERSIN SOMALIA I am unable to hotlink to the story ,the dread questionable content appeared but anyone interested will be able to locate it on the voice of aamerica site
Posted by: john ryan at May 29, 2006 09:56 AM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment