From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Thu Apr 16 2009 - 05:21:25 EDT
U.S. At a Crossroads in Somalia
by Laura Heaton on
Apr 16, 2009
The Obama administration's stated goal to break with the Bush
administration's approach to counter-terrorism faces an early test in
Somalia, and an intense debate over how to address the threat of terrorism
and piracy emanating from Somalia is playing out in an ongoing policy
review. While Somalia presents its own set of unique challenges, the
discussions over strategy are occurring in the context of a broader foreign
policy conundrum: How will the Obama administration deal with perceived
threats in weak and collapsed states where the United States lacks a capable
partner?
There are a number of global hotspots where the Bush administration's
counterterrorism approach seemed to have made matters worse, not better, and
Somalia is perhaps the poster child of this phenomenon. In Somalia from 2006
to 2008, the Bush administration chose to partner with Ethiopia, a historic
rival of Somalia, in attempts to destroy the
<http://www.enoughproject.org/glossary/term/82?Array> shabaab militia, which
has been affiliated with al-Qaeda. However, the missile strikes employed by
the Bush administration were often a blunt instrument causing collateral
damage and feeding a nationalist backlash. Any kind of hearts and minds
strategy was noticeably absent. As Ken Menkhaus
<http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/somalia-country-peril-policy-nigh
tmare> noted in a strategy paper for Enough:
Thousands of Somalis became radicalized by their treatment at the hands of
the <http://www.enoughproject.org/glossary/term/85?Array> TFG and Ethiopian
forces, and, despite deep misgivings about the insurgents' indiscriminate
use of violence, became either active or passive supporters of the
increasingly violent shabaab and other armed groups.
Two recent stories out of Somalia, namely the recent rash of pirate
hijackings and the reported expansion of terrorist training camps -
unrelated for now - have again brought the discussion of U.S. military
strikes to the forefront of the policy debate.
Of course, the Somali pirate drama that ended on Sunday when U.S. Navy SEAL
snipers fired on the three pirates holding the captain of the Maersk Alabama
hostage has set off a barrage of arguments both for and against targeting
the pirates' inland bases with strikes. Most administration officials
commenting (albeit anonymously) on the prospect of attacks on the pirate
bases seem to be erring on the side of caution and acknowledging that, for
now, the pirates don't seem to have any larger political aims. Planning for
a military response is undoubtedly ongoing, but this is to be expected --
the president will want to consider every option and is under pressure to
act from people justifiably outraged by the piracy epidemic. And so far
President Obama has remained (intentionally?) ambiguous about his preferred
tactics: "To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners
to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and
ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their
crimes," he said in a
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-th
e-Rescue-of-Captain-Phillips/> statement. What's missing from these words is
an acknowledgment of the bigger picture: piracy off Somalia's coast is in
many ways a byproduct of statelessness and lawlessness on land. A military
quick fix is temporary at best, and potentially counter-productive. As U.S.
military officials
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR200904120
0467.html> acknowledge, this week's operation against the pirates is already
viewed as an escalation that may have violent consequences.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold got it about right in his
<http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=311447> statement on the situation
in Somalia:
While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy
ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is
a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater
and more dangerous problem. We must commit to a comprehensive strategy that
helps stabilize the country while also establishing effective governance and
the rule of law.
This
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR200904100
3734.html> piece in the Washington Post on Saturday highlights the ongoing
debate within the administration about the merits of renewed U.S. strikes on
shabaab training camps. This is an evolution of earlier stories that noted a
number of young Somali Americans had returned to Somalia to fight with the
shabaab, raising concerns they might also be engaged in planning for
transnational terror attacks. Some at the Pentagon have complained that the
ongoing policy review has prevented the administration from taking urgent
military action. Others feel there are some intermediary steps to take --
like conditioned support for Somalia's fragile transitional government --
and see the administration's review as a chance to break with the Bush
administration's policies and take a more comprehensive approach to the
challenge of weak states and transnational threats such as terrorism and
piracy.
With these recent developments, the administration's Somalia policy is in
the spotlight with renewed urgency. However, given the complex array of
considerations on the ground -- a new, fragile, transitional government;
widespread poverty; and a long history of failed external intervention, to
name a few -- it seems clear that Somalia demands far more than a purely
military solution.
John Norris and Colin Thomas-Jensen contributed to this post.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----