Ethan Zuckerman’s online home, since 2003

Increased US engagement in Somalia – it’s a trap!

This week featured ferocious clashes in Mogadishu between Somalia’s fledgling federal government and Al Shabab, an Islamist militia with ties to Al Qaeda. Al Shabab has declared a “massive, final” war on the fragile government and struck Tuesday with a deadly suicide bombing on a Mogadishu hotel used by the government to house ministers. Xan Rice, writing in the Guardian, reports that security experts expect more attacks during Ramadan, possibly coinciding with important dates on the religious calendar.

The attacks help underscore two uncomfortable truths about the situation in Somalia. One is that the Somali government is incapable of protecting itself and would fall, perhaps within hours, without support from 6,000 AU troops. Despite massive support from governments around the world, including the US, the Transitional Federal Government is so disorganized that it’s often unable to pay its troops. As a result, they are often defecting to Al Shabab, for economic reasons, not ideological ones. The second is that Al Shabab scares the crap out of nearby east African countries, especially Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.

Uganda has a right to be scared. Last month, a set of coordinated bombings in Kampala killed more than 70 people who’d assembled to watch the final match of the World Cup. Al Shabab has claimed credit for the attacks, which it says were intended to punish Uganda for supplying troops to the AU force. The militia has also threatened Burundi, which supplies troops to the AU mission, and carries out occasional raids into bordering Kenya. Their real animus is reserved for Ethiopia, which occupied Somalia – with US support – from 2006-2009. (The countries have been in conflict on and off since 1948… and depending on who you ask, back to the 16th century.)

Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia are all important US allies, and it’s likely that there’s increasing pressure on the Obama administration to “do something” about Somalia. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni – in an NPR op-ed - makes clear what he’d like the US to do in Somalia: support more peacekeeping troops, and give the Somali government more money. While that sounds rational on the surface, it might not be a very good idea. Understanding why requires looking at the history of Al Shabab and the US’s tragic role in helping bring a violent and extreme movement to prominence.

The one period of peace Mogadishu has enjoyed since Barre’s ouster in 1991 was a six month period in late 2006 where the comparatively moderate Union of Islamic Courts controlled Somalia. Markets, stores, the Mogadishu airport and port reopened and many civilian and business leaders cheered the new stability.

This period of relative calm ended when Ethiopia invaded Somalia in December 2006 to re-install the government the UIC had chased out a few months before. Ethiopia had good strategic reasons for moving against the UIC. Ethiopia saw the UIC as an ally of Eritrea, with whom it has a stalled border conflict and long rivalry. And Somalia, under Barre, invaded the majority Islamic/majority Somali Ogaden region of Ethiopia in 1977. (BBC’s timeline of events in Somalia may be useful.) Ethiopia continues to fight rebels in the Ogaden, some of whom seek a “Greater Somalia” that encompasses western Ethiopia and Somalia. So the notion of an Islamic Union with popular support, which might seek a Greater Somalia strategy was understandably intolerable.

The US didn’t much care for the UIC either. The Bush Administration state department believed that some of the UIC warlords had provided support for Al Qaeda… a claim UIC leaders denied. And, as Nir Rosen observes in this excellent TIME op-ed, some in the state department found UIC’s explicit Islamist alignment intolerable. So the US supported the Ethiopian invasion with intelligence, military advisors and, incredibly, turned a blind eye to a North Korean arms shipment that allowed Ethiopia to repair its tanks. The Ethiopian army rapidly chased the UIC out of Mogadishu, reinstalled the federal government (TFG = “transitional federal government”) and, left in 2009 to be replaced by AU forces.

What Ethiopia and the US didn’t anticipate (though they should have) was that the occupation of Somalia radicalized the population and led to the rise of Al Shabab, a group that’s proven to be much more extreme than the UIC. Al Shabab now controls most of southern Somalia and all but a few blocks of Mogadishu, where the nominal government of Somalia is protected from ouster by 6,000 AU troops. Those troops, in turn, are increasingly resented by Somali civilians, as their shells kill civilians in trying to strike Al Shabab forces.

The case against doubling down on peacekeeping and supporting the TFG, as Museveni suggests, starts with the observation that there’s no peace to keep in Somalia, an argument Jeffrey Gettleman makes in the NYTimes. Peacekeeping has never had meaningful dividends in Somalia, and outside occupation seems to be a powerful catalyst for the creation of new military forces. The federal government is a bad joke, not only ineffectual but fraught with internal divisions that are likely to break it apart if it ever achieved any power. If the government were ever to be able to operate beyond a AU-maintained perimeter, it would face a reconstruction challenge much worse than the situation faced in Afghanistan.

Counterintuitively, the best thing the US might do to prevent Somalia from becoming an operating base for Al Qaeda is to disengage, limit involvement to targeted strikes on international terrorist leaders and to providing humanitarian aid. That’s the case governance expert Bronwyn Bruton makes in this interview with the Council on Foreign Relations. She notes that a divided, clan-ruled Somalia was an environment Al Qaeda previously found impossible to operate in – the level of inhospitality of the clan system appeared to “inoculate” Somalia from foreign engagement. She suggests that allowing the TFG to fall and Al Shabab to rise will lead towards Al Shabab fracturing as a coalition, and eventually a return to clan politics and conflict, which is ultimately the only stable basis for a future functional Somali state.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi makes a similar case in an article in the American Thinker titled “What To Do About Somalia“. He urges a containment strategy – ensure that Al Shabab doesn’t act outside of Somalia, and cut off external supports. He also suggests the US and the international community recognize Somaliland, the comparatively stable north of the country, as an independent nation, creating another potential ally in stabilizing southern Somalia.

(Side note – while looking for Al-Tamimi’s article, I searched for “what to do about Somalia”. Google returned a wonderful result from Trip Advisor, titled “Things to Do in Mogadishu“. I love that Trip Advisor wants to find me a cheap flight to Mogadishu and to help me find a cheap Somali passport.)

What I find most interesting about Bruton’s arguments is her argument that the US is incorrectly framing the situation in Somalia as a conflict between religious ideologies. She argues that the TFG and Al Shabab are both ad-hoc, opportunistic groups looking for power, not advocating for a particular religious ideology. Because TFG is seeking funding from western governments, it argues that it’s a bulwark against terrorism. Al Shabab looks for support from Al Qaeda in the hopes of support from extremists in the Middle East. But the ideology is secondary to the search for power. (Some groups in Somalia have expressed concerns that the TFG includes a large number of Wahabbists, which seems incompatible with a pro-US orientation… and supports Bruton’s case that ideology is trumped by opportunity.)

If we take the conflict in Somalia out of the “extremist Islam versus the world” frame that the US often falls into, Bruton argues, we might be able to see that increased outside intervention will likely worsen the conflict. Perhaps then would make the decision to disengage. This doesn’t mean ignoring Somalia – it means watching borders closely, and being willing to strike against foreign fighters should they take shelter under Al Shabab. But it means giving up a failed strategy of nation building on the cheap and by proxy.

It’s a tough time in terms of US politics to make this case. The US’s ongoing costly and bloody involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq sends a daily message to the American people that the Muslim world is a dangerous place. That sense is being exploited for political gain by the far right in the US, who see islamophobia as winning political strategy, as seen in the absurd debate about the Park51 Center in New York City. President Obama has been admirably clear about his willingness to build bridges with the Muslim world and in supporting Park51 in the current controversy. President Bush was also admirably clear about rejecting a “clash of civilizations” frame in his public statements, but it’s less clear that his state and defense departments rejected this frame.

Nir Rosen is right – the US helped bring Al Shabab to power by backing an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. What President Museveni is saying isn’t as extreme as the rhetoric Meles Zenawi used prior to the Ethiopian invasion, but the course of action he urges may lead to a similarly undesirable outcome. Or, to quote noted Somali analyst Admiral Ackbar, “It’s a trap.” Let’s hope President Obama is wise enough to avoid it.

5 Responses to “Increased US engagement in Somalia – it’s a trap!”

  1. BRE says:

    Sehr gut Ethan, thanks for writing about Somalia and the AMISOM mission.

    Bronwyn Bruton was on a world tour recently (USA, UK, and Europe) to promote her point-of-view, including a visit to General William ‘Kip’ Ward’s HQ (AFRICOM) down in Stuttgart. As attractive as it might sound to be able to back away from the conflict in Somalia and let al-Shaabab have the run of the land I don’t think it is an option that the African Union and Western powers (US, EU) are willing to risk.

    Museveni (Uganda’s president) has a piece up at Foreign Policy magazine this week where he lays down his reasoning (and that of the AU) on the troop surge and increased international support ($$$) for the AMISOM mission in Somalia.

    I’m still wondering about the safety and continued involvement with the TFG of people like Bill Ainashe who returned to Somalia to support the interim government and work toward peace and rebuilding the country. My guess is that many of the ‘Somali Diaspora’ who returned may be heading for the exits.

  2. Ethan says:

    BRE, thanks as always for the comment – here’s the Museveni essay you referenced: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/25/somalias_hour_of_need

    I am a huge admirer of people like Ainashe who were willing to take such a risk and come back to make their country a better place. Unfortunately, I don’t think the idea of (re)installing the government by the Ethiopian army was ever a viable path forward and fear that it makes the efforts of a man like Ainashe doomed to failure.

  3. Andy Knight says:

    Another shallow article by an instant pundit on Somalia.
    The TFG and the African Union forces have failed to defeat Al Shabab because they hardly received any international assistance, not to mention the the African Union Forces cannot even actively participate in combat beacuse they were not given the mandate to do. This is in glaring contrast to the Al Shabab has unlimted access to finance and arms from the global jihadist network and Middle Eastern countries that funnel theire support through Eritrea. The western world lost a historic opportunity to crush them for good.

    Al Shabab was not radicalized by Ethiopian invasion or by the American support for it. The faction that is now Alshabab was committed to the establishment of a jihadist Caliphate in all of East Africa. Had they not been thwarted by the Ethiopians and were allowed to consolidate in Mogadadishou, they would have been by now active attacking urban centres in Ethiopia and Kenya.

    I found shocking the degree of naivete of some of these academics and how the cite each other to validate their positions.

    Some have become the unwitting apologists of Al Shabab and the jihadist movement by uncritically repeating the false claims of their propogandists.

  4. BRE says:

    I have had concern for Bill ever since I learned he returned to the country (via that interview piece in Der Spiegel magazine). It is true that one should admire the courage of people like him that return to a war-ravaged country like Somalia in order to stop the fighting and rebuild, but it is sometimes better to wait until the smoke clears and have a cease fire or peace treaty in place. That’s not the case for Somalia despite the efforts of the new interim president (Sheik Sharif Ahmed) and his government and their international partners. Somalia continues to tear itself apart as the al-Shabaab, Hizbul Islam, and other warring factions fight for control___ over what is anybody’s guess.

    Uganda’s (read President Museveni) support for the AMISOM mission is suspect at best considering the miserable record of his government over the past 20+ years re: regional conflicts (Joseph Kony and the LRA, the Congo Wars) and the same goes for the government of Burundi. Rwanda has better trained and equipped troops for a combat mission in Somalia but the onion has finally been peeled back on Paul Kagame to reveal one of the worst ‘war criminals’ in living memory (see the latest Guardian and NY Times reports).

    This does not leave much of a choice for the big decision makers of the international community (UNSC, US, and EU) to counter the growing threat that an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization is a ‘gnat’s ass’ away from taking over another country___ that sits on top of one of the most important sea lanes on the planet. Think about what such a scenario would do to the Democrats chances in the US midterm elections. Either the AU throws some serious weight and effort at this crisis (don’t hold your breadth) or its time to send in those shadowy folks next door in Djibouti (JTFHOA).

    Something is going to change (POP!) on the ground in Mogadishu before long (read November), I guarantee it.

  5. Neither Bruton nor Al-Tamimi (and possibly many of the so-called pundits) have grasped the reality of the situation here in Somalia.

    I have been here in Mogadishu for quite some time and one thing I am almost certain of is that a direct US involvement in Somalia would galvanaize majority of the public into action. This is a country that doesn’t welcome invaders with wreaths of flowers. It is a stalemate here in the city with both sides claiming victories on their part, though the Islamists seem to be redefining the already narrow borders of the government-held territory.

    Andy is right, Al-Shabab was not radicalized by the American or Ethiopian invasion but they acted as a catayst and provided new opportunities to spread their message ad rally the public.

    Whatever is on the way – Mogadishu will possibly witness some catastrophic changes.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Scarlett Lion | Around the Web, Around Africa - [...] Zuckerman has a great post up about American involvement in Somalia: Counterintuitively, the best thing the US might do …
  2. Will Freedom for Libya Mean Peace for Somalia? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine - [...] When fellow Arab states began to shy away from Gaddafi after the Lockerbie bombing, he turned his eye …
  3. Will Freedom for Libya Mean Peace for Somalia? | SOMALIVOICE.NET - [...] When fellow Arab states began to shy away from Gaddafi after the Lockerbie bombing, he turned his eye to Africa. (In …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Powered by WordPress | Designed by Elegant Themes