Somali....where?

June 5, 2006 6:16 AM

Black Hawk Down Revisited : (newsfilter) giving cladstine support to the warlords, The American Operation is in breach of the United Nations’ arms embargo on Somalia and therefore in breach of international law. The islamists are claiming victory in Mogadishu. Meanwhile the Somali "leader" sacks Ministers. While the people .... well what do they matter anyway. There's always more from Somali News.
posted by adamvasco (14 comments total)

Meanwhile, in Hanoi, counter-terror (or is it counter-China?) creates strange bedfellows, too.
posted by notyou at 6:55 AM on June 5, 2006

How many times does the "enemy of my enemy" line have to bite us in the ass before we reject it as a failure in any span of time greater than one decade?
posted by jperkins at 7:01 AM on June 5, 2006

Somalia is still ruled by the brutal warlords who dragged dead US soldiers through the streets in 1993. But times change. Now they are America’s new allies in the war on terror

In the 1980's Afghanistan was ruled by brutal warlords who were America's new allies in the war against communism.

Today Rumsfeld wants closer military ties to communist Vietnam (from notyou's link) and those former allies in Afghanistan are America's enemies in the war on terror.

Times change, but nothing else ever does.
posted by three blind mice at 7:21 AM on June 5, 2006

Saddam use to be our buddy as well. How many years before we are back fighting in Somalia/
posted by edgeways at 7:34 AM on June 5, 2006

Wait, the U.S. is violating international law? Say it ain't so, Geo.!
posted by Zozo at 7:41 AM on June 5, 2006

This is boring. We do we nuke Iran?
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:46 AM on June 5, 2006

Tomorrow.
posted by blucevalo at 8:04 AM on June 5, 2006

This is boring. We do we nuke Iran?
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket

President Bush, so nice to see you here.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:04 AM on June 5, 2006

The first question is should the US be involved in internal affairs of other countries if there is a possibility of them affecting US strategic interests?
Valid arguments could be offered for both cases. However, if one's view is that the US should be involved, then I think it is wrong to equate material support with philosophic support. Furthermore, one must be completely cognizant that any support provided may be turned against the US in the future. I doubt that there is any intent to become "friends" with the warlords.

The argument becomes moot if ones position is that meddling is internal affairs of other countries can lead to little positive and much negative.
posted by forforf at 8:10 AM on June 5, 2006

The first question is should the US be involved in internal affairs of other countries if there is a possibility of them affecting US strategic interests?

Define 'US strategic interest' 1st. Is the interest the citizens, the corporations, keeping a polition in power, keeping the US Dollar as the world reserve currency?

All it takes to 'screw' the US of A is if the other citizens of the world opt to not trade with the US and vote with their wallets.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:25 AM on June 5, 2006

All it takes to 'screw' the US of A is if the other citizens of the world opt to not trade with the US and vote with their wallets.

Fortunately for the US of A, that "wallet vote" is currently too costly for most people who have a choice, as well as too costly for most of the leaders who don't give their people a choice. That won't always be true, especially the way the American ruling class is consuming our economic "seed corn" while generating meaningless statistics showing "the economy is healthy", but it won't happen in time to save those at risk today...
posted by wendell at 10:06 AM on June 5, 2006

Didn't one of the Somali warlords solidify control of Mogadishu a few years back? I really don't expect this new twist in the Saga of Somalia to have much of an impact unless the Islamists turn to controlling the rest of the country.

As for weapons, if giving them American arms today in violation of UN treaty, prevents us from pre-emptively invading in violation of UN treaty tomorrow... then I'm fine with it.


Er. Damn it.
posted by Atreides at 11:06 AM on June 5, 2006

I read about this (as rumours) a few weeks back, with much concern. The US does not want to fuck around in Somalia more than it already has. Today's "war on terror" fought like this is just going to breed the next generation of terrorists (or simply rearm the previous generation of terrorists).

I'd say the US needs a lesson in history, but it's not even history...
posted by slimepuppy at 1:51 PM on June 5, 2006

US calls special meeting on Somalia
Fri Jun 9, 2006 2:38pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has called an international meeting to discuss future strategy on Somalia, the State Department said on Friday, only days after Islamists seized the capital Mogadishu and ousted warlords widely believed to have been supported by Washington.

Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 and an interim government established in 2004 is too weak to enter the capital.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would convene the first meeting of a "Somalia Contact Group" sometime next week in New York.

Officials from the United Nations, European and African countries and other international organizations would take part, McCormack said, but he gave no more details.

"The goal of this group is to promote concerted action and coordination to support the Somalia transitional federal institutions, and so we are going to be working with other interested states and international organizations on this matter," said McCormack.

The interim government has welcomed the defeat of warlords viewed as undermining it, and its ministers have met members of the Islamist side in Mogadishu.

The Islamist militia won control of Mogadishu on Monday and advanced on Friday toward the secular warlords in other areas. Washington has long viewed Somalia as a potential shelter for international terrorists, but it said on Wednesday it might be open to dealing with the militia.

Asked why the New York meeting was taking place now, McCormack said only: "We think it's the right time."

"This is an opportunity for them to talk about what they are doing individually and how we might coordinate," said McCormack. The group would probably meet periodically, he said.

He said Somali groups were unlikely to attend the discussions, but a full invitation list had not been drawn up.

Countries attending the meeting are expected to include Norway, Britain and other European nations.
posted by taosbat at 4:39 PM on June 9, 2006