Somali solutions for Somali problems: Can Somalis handle Al-Shabaab
themselves?
Ken Menkhaus
May 21, 2014
In the Somali media and blogosphere, it is hard to come by anything
approaching a consensus. But on two current issues - the Kenyan government's
crackdown on Somalis in Nairobi, and the desirability of AMISOM peacekeeping
troops in Somalia - there seems to be a coalescing of views.
On the Kenyan security crackdown, Somalis have been virtually unanimous in
their criticism and outrage, and justifiably so.
On AMISOM and the role of armed interventions of neighboring states in
Somalia, views are still somewhat divided, but if I am reading Somali
opinions on the web correctly, I sense that more and more Somali
opinion-shapers openly agree that the presence of troops from regional
neighbors is unwanted and counter-productive. This latter position was most
recently articulated in a widely circulated Al-Jazeera op-ed by Ambassador
Abukar Armen entitled
<
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/somalia-african-solutions-
africa-20145812280255662.html> "Somalia: African Solutions for African
Problems?"At the end of the piece, he argues that Ethiopian and Kenyan
policies are more to blame for "setting the Horn on fire" than is
Al-Shabaab.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Ambassador Armen's sentiments
reflect the views of a sizable majority of Somalis (I haven't seen many
dissenting views on the web, so I think this is a reasonable assumption). If
AMISOM is unwelcome, and is viewed by Somalis as part of the problem rather
than part of the solution, then perhaps we need to consider alternatives.
What would "Somali solutions for Somali problems" look like?
This begs a critical question: can Somalis handle Al-Shabaab themselves? If
the answer is yes, we have options. If the answer is no, or if Somalis
simply deny that Al-Shabaab is a problem (this is a favorite diversionary
tactic for some, but dodging the question clearly won't work anymore), then
I suspect Somalis will be living with AMISOM for years to come. So for
Somalis who are fed up with years and years of foreign military forces in
their country, the answer really needs to be "yes, we can handle Al-Shabaab
ourselves, and here is how."
This essay considers the possibilities if Somalis were left to address
Al-Shabaab themselves in Somalia (the Al-Shabaab problem in Kenya is another
matter, perhaps for another blog entry). It assumes the Somali government
would continue to receive external military and other foreign aid, but that
no foreign forces would be directly involved in fighting Al-Shabaab inside
Somali territory.
It is meant to start a much-needed conversation, not to provide all the
answers. I look forward to reactions and feedback.
Four Options
As best I can tell, if Somalis were left to handle Al-Shabaab themselves,
they would have four options, some of which could be sequential: (1) attempt
to defeat Al-Shabaab; (2) work to achieve a prolonged stalemate with
Al-Shabaab; (3) negotiate power-sharing of some sort with Al-Shabaab; or (4)
capitulate to Al-Shabaab. How likely is each, and what would these scenarios
look like?
Defeat Al-Shabaab
If AMISOM were to pack up and leave Somalia, would the Federal Government of
Somalia (FGS) even survive, or would it be driven out of Mogadishu?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the government would not
collapse and flee within days, as some fear. Al-Shabaab would no doubt take
advantage of the vacuum left by AMISOM forces and recapture much of the
territory it lost since 2012, and begin the bloody work of retaliating
against local authorities who cooperated with AMISOM and the SFG.
Would the government be able to regroup and defeat Al-Shabaab? Nothing we
have seen from the poorly-disciplined Somali National Armed Forces to date
suggests it could, and it is not clear that a significant increase in
external military assistance would make a real difference. The problem has
been one of commitment, discipline, and command and control, not resources.
Al-Shabaab has fought with much greater effectiveness with fewer resources
and fewer fighters.
If the government failed to defeat Al-Shabaab, would Somali communities, fed
up with the horrific violence and pointless extremism, turn against
Al-Shabaab and either identify Amniyat (Al Shabaab's underground network)
members to the police, or take vigilante action against them? This "Sunni
uprising" scenario also seems unlikely at present - the risks would be high,
and such a civic uprising would be difficult to organize. But it's an
intriguing possibility worth discussing, and upon reflection may be the only
way Somalia moves beyond the current violent impasse.
For this scenario to unfold, it would require a level of commitment we have
not yet seen from both the Somali the government and civil society. If
Somalis mobilized in common cause and in full force, they might be able to
neutralize Al-Shabaab, in part by encouraging large-scale defections,
leaving its leadership exposed. Al-Shabaab is a dangerous network, but it is
relatively small in number, and depends on Somali public acquiescence to its
presence. It would struggle to survive in a "non-permissive environment"
that only the Somali public could produce. It could conceivably be
outmatched by a unified, mass mobilization, involving clan leaders, clerics,
the business community, and others. Once the group began to look vulnerable,
it would lose its ability to instill fear in local populations, which at
present is its chief form of defense. The formula would be straightforward -
Amniyat would need to start fearing the Somali people more than the people
currently fear Amniyat. A Somali version of the "Sunni uprising" would
likely be bloody and messy, and it would take a very dedicated effort to
pull it off. But social rebellions against insurgents have occurred
elsewhere, and can be the fate of violent extremist and criminal groups who
push their own societies too far.
Stalemate with Al-Shabaab
Alternatively, the government could work to hold ground against Al-Shabaab
and stop at that. The stalemate scenario would represent a variation on the
status quo that prevailed in Somalia from 2008 to 2012. This outcome would
consign Somalia to perpetual instability and division, and is deeply
undesirable for most Somalis and the international community. Yet it is
entirely possible, and might even be a preferred outcome for leaders in both
the government and Al-Shabaab; each would get to enjoy a profitable fiefdom
again without having to trouble themselves either with governing or winning
a war. They could not only co-exist but could work out a symbiotic
relationship with one another, one as a dysfunctional state, the other as a
hidden criminal syndicate.
Leaders in successive Somali governments have already demonstrated that
presiding over a failed state is a condition they not only can live with but
can profiteer from; cutting a deal with Al-Shabaab to maintain the status
quo would be a small price to pay. As for Al-Shabaab, recent evidence
suggests that its growing practice of extortion is already starting to move
it in the direction of a violent criminal enterprise with increasingly
dubious Islamist credentials. In that case, Al-Shabaab could maintain a
presence as a mafioso protection racket shaking down the government, private
sector, and NGOs for cash with threats of violence. This is a business model
that could work well for colluding elites on both sides, but would be a
disaster for the Somali people and for efforts to revive a functional
government.
Negotiate power-sharing with Al-Shabaab
Would the Somali government instead seek a negotiated settlement with
Al-Shabaab toward a cease-fire and some form of power-sharing? Over the
years, many Somalis have gravitated toward this position, reflecting perhaps
a cultural preference for negotiated settlements, and/or a lingering belief
among some that Al-Shabaab is a legitimate political actor that merits a
place at the table. Setting aside the obvious problem here - that many
powerful foreign governments would not accept any outcome in which
Al-Shabaab leaders are given government positions - would Al-Shabaab want to
negotiate anyway? And if it did, would anyone want to be in that coalition
government? SFG officials are surely aware of how Ahmed Godane handled the
last set of disagreements he had with erstwhile allies - he launched a
bloody purge within Al-Shabaab that killed off most of his internal rivals.
This does not look like a group with which to negotiate a power-sharing deal
if you want to live long.
This option appears to be little more than a stepping stone to an Al-Shabaab
takeover, which is the final scenario to consider.
Capitulate to Al-Shabaab
The final post-AMISOM option would be Somali government capitulation to
Al-Shabaab. Much or most of south-central Somalia would then be controlled
by a well-organized, ultra-violent jihadi group which has declared war on
neighboring states and the West, and which treats any Somali who disagrees
with it as a spy or apostate.
It is worth pondering the scene that would follow. Hundreds of thousands of
Somalis would flee as refugees, only to find doors to asylum largely slammed
shut, and neighboring states intensely hostile to hosting yet another wave
of Somali refugees. Somalia would face complete international isolation and
sanctions. Remittances would be choked off by new counter-terrorism
measures, leading to a collapse of the already fragile local economy.
Businesses would fail, real estate investments would plummet in value. The
diaspora would be put under intense police scrutiny not just in Kenya but
world-wide. And war would ensue, involving neighboring Ethiopia, many other
external players, and local proxies. It would be a catastrophe. Somalia
cannot afford any more catastrophes.
This is not a scenario to flirt with. And that brings us back to the
question of whether AMISOM should stay or go, and whether Somalis can solve
Al-Shabaab themselves. The stakes are way too high for the Somali people to
sidestep this question.
Conclusion: Somali solutions for Somali problems, with backstopping
A push for Somali solutions for Somali problems is long overdue. Foreign
security forces, whether in the form of AMISOM forces or Western covert
operations, can push Al-Shabaab out of cities and towns and harass its
leadership, but they cannot completely defeat the group, especially now that
it has morphed into a terrorist network. Only Somalis can do that. And we've
always known that.
Whether Somalis are ready to take that step is unclear. But if Somalis want
AMISOM to leave sooner rather than later, then the government and the Somali
people are both going to have to take much more ownership of the Al-Shabaab
problem. No more free-riding by leaving most of the fight to African
peacekeepers and American drones; no more denying the scale of the problem
or wishing it away; no more colluding; no more delaying the inevitable. Not
to choose is to choose.
A robust Somali mobilization against Al-Shabaab can be launched while AMISOM
is still in place. Realistically, AMISOM forces are not going to be
redeployed while Al-Shabaab remains a threat, so any Somali solution to the
Al-Shabaab problem is going to have to happen while AMISOM is still on
watch. AMISOM would be able to play an essential back-stopping role, and the
security it provides to key government facilities would be critical. But
once Al-Shabaab is no longer a serious threat to the Somali government, the
Somali people, and the wider region, AMISOM will no longer be needed. No
Al-Shabaab, no AMISOM.
This is not a happy analysis for the Somali people. If correct, it means
there is no pain-free solution to Al-Shabaab, no way to push the costs onto
someone else. Somalis may not want to shoulder the burden of dealing with
Al-Shabaab, and they may feel that it is unfair that they have to bear that
load when they were not entirely responsible for Al-Shabaab's ascent. That
may be. But I cannot see any other way this will end unless the solution
comes from the Somali people themselves. Somalis are already bearing heavy
and rapidly mounting costs thanks to Al-Shabaab, a group which seems
remarkably indifferent to that fact. For Somalis, the costs of inaction are
rising faster than the expected costs of addressing the Al-Shabaab problem.
Ken Menkhaus is a Professor of Political Science at Davidson College.
Specialist on Somalia and the Horn of Africa.
Received on Wed May 21 2014 - 10:57:51 EDT