Somalia is the third example of the United States creating a potentially anti–U.S. Islamist threat where none previously existed.
The media often report overseas developments, but don’t always explore their underlying causes, which, in many cases, conveniently lets the U.S. government off the hook. The recent internecine violence in Somalia provides a classic example.
The U.S. media have focused to date almost exclusively on the rising Islamist movement in Somalia and U.S. “covert” assistance to the Ethiopian invasion that supported Somalia’s transitional government against the stronger Islamists. The media should be focusing on one of the major causes of the Somali mess: U.S. government meddling.
After 9/11, the Bush administration feared that the absence of a strong government in the “failed state” of Somalia could turn the small east–African country — slightly smaller than Texas — into a haven for terrorists. The administration ignored the fact that other states with weak governments have not become sanctuaries for terrorists. Even if Somalia had become a terrorist enclave, the terrorists, absent some U.S. provocation, probably would not have attacked the faraway United States.
As a result of the administration’s unfounded fear, the United States began supporting unpopular warlords in the strife-torn nation. That’s when the real trouble began.
The radical Islamists in Somalia never had much following until the Somali people became aware that an outside power was supporting the corrupt and thuggish military chieftains. The popularity of the Islamist movement then surged, allowing the Islamists to take over much of the country. In sum, where no problem with radical Islamists previously existed, the U.S. government helped create one.
In many respects, the Somali episode is a replay of other horribly counterproductive past U.S. interventions. In the 1980s, for example, the U.S. government supported the radical Islamist Mujahadeen — then fighting the non–Muslim Soviet occupiers in Muslim Afghanistan — that metamorphosed into al Qaeda, which is now attacking the United States for its non–Muslim military presence in the Persian Gulf.
History followed a similar pattern in Iraq. The Bush administration justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in part by al Qaeda’s alleged link to Saddam Hussein — a thug, to be sure, but one who had been wise enough, in reality, to support groups who didn’t focus their attacks on the United States. Now, in Iraq, where there were no anti–U.S. Islamic terrorists before, we have plenty to fight.
Somalia is the third example of the United States creating a potentially anti–U.S. Islamist threat where none previously existed. The U.S.–supported Ethiopian invasion weakened the Somali Islamists, but they are still fighting fiercely for control of Mogadishu, the capital. Like those in Iraq, all the Somali Islamists have to do is hang on until the foreign occupier gets exhausted and leaves. When that happens, the Islamists could very well become the dominant political force in the country, capitalizing on their “patriotic” resistance to the hated Ethiopian occupiers and their U.S. benefactors.
The U.S.–backed Ethiopians, already unpopular, have become even more despised as a result of their alleged indiscriminate shelling of Mogadishu’s civilian areas, which human rights groups are calling a war crime. Unlike the period when the Islamists controlled Mogadishu, the transitional government has been unable to keep order, undermining both its credibility and public support. As a result, many in Somalia see the period of Islamic rule as good days, and now long for its return.
And that’s probably what will happen. Like the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, whose recent good fortunes were brought about by continued foreign occupation of that country, we will likely see the Somali Islamists make a comeback.
U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia should teach foreign policy experts and the American public that U.S. meddling abroad is often counterproductive and dangerous. Yet the U.S. media help the U.S. government disguise these policy failures by failing to expose the underlying causes of violence, enabling the U.S. government to make the same mistakes over and over again.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
"Now, in Iraq, where there were no anti–U.S. Islamic terrorists before, we have plenty to fight."
Yeah, Iraq was always US-friendly until we stormed in there for no good reason whatsoever. Saddam Hussein loved us! We really should have been buying his oil on the global black market along with Russia in a show of solidarity for the free market.
I have a question for you: Do you honestly believe any of the ridiculous crap you endlessly regurgitate? I have a terribly difficult time believe you could possibly be that ignorant or ill-informed.
Regarding Afghanistan: at that point in time, do you think it would have any more prudent to leave Afghanistan to the Soviets? You endlessly spout that Iraq, Somalia, and the entire middle east, for all practical purposes, poses no risk to the U.S. because of the distance between us. So how could we have reasonably assumed that Afghanistan ever would? In the context of the Cold War, using your logic, it seems that agitating against the Russians in an area that posed no threat, and wouldn't pose any foreseeable threat to the U.S. would have been a pretty slick political move. Oh, and since the U.S. supported the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan, pray tell how did we incite the Islamists in that area? I mean, according to all of your reports, the U.S. has provoked all of the hate against it from Islamic militants, so I was just wondering how that worked? If you could somehow make it George W.'s fault too, that'd be great.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 11, 2007
Ivan, is there any problem in the world that you do not believe that the US is directly responsible for? While it is certainly not good to always defer to authority and blindly believe we never do anything wrong, it's just as silly to believe we do nothing but wrong.
Taking the position that "the Taliban's good fortune's were brought about by a continued occupation of their country" is neither conservative or intelligent. They were ousted from power, have to fight to try and reclaim their country from a new government that has replaced them, are hunted across the Middle East, and sramble desperately, hoping to regain even an ounce of what they lost. Good fortunes? That's like remarking that someone who's been made homeless (when their house is repossessed) has good fortunes because they shot someone from the new family. Still doesn't look good for the previous tenet now does it?
And how does one justify that there was no Islamic problem in Somalia, when the Author clearly states that Bush sent aid to the Ethiopians fighting al Quida forces there? (They clearly proceeded us there, and as we know from Mogadishu, our intervention there is nothing new.)
And finally, Saddam had no problem housing the al Quida terrorist who masterminded the original failed WTC attack, all the way up until our invasion.
In all of these instances, Evan claims we brought the terrorists to these countries, but in all 3 cases, we were there simply as a response to their presence. The mindset that no matter what happens in the world, that it is the US's fault is absurd, and the proponents have no problem ignoring the facts they don't like or inventing the truth to make thier case.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 11, 2007