Ethiopia declares war against the Islamic Courts Union

December 25, 2006 7:14 AM

Ethiopia Hits Somali Targets, Declaring War (The New York Times). the Ethiopian government has declared war on Somalia's ruling Islamic Courts Union. The Islamic Courts Union, which had gained control over much of Somalia, had been engaged in a civil war against the Ethiopian backed Transitional Federal Government. Back in October of 2006 the BBC reported that the Islamic Courts Union had declared a 'holy war' against Ethiopia due to their support of the Transitional Federal Government. What many may not be aware of is that Ethiopia is a recipient of American economic and military aid. More links from The New York Times on the lead up of events: 12/22, 12/23, 12/24.
posted by j-urb (42 comments total)

More from the BBC:
Somali town on the brink of war
Ethiopia attacks Somalia airports
Somalia: Who supports who?
Timeline: Ethiopia vs Somalia
posted by j-urb at 7:20 AM on December 25, 2006

a violent religious conflict that engulfs the entire Horn of Africa.

The 21st century--the century of religious wars--will make the political wars of the 20th seem quaint.
posted by stbalbach at 7:21 AM on December 25, 2006

Also from Foreign Policy, Seven Questions: War in Somalia.
posted by j-urb at 7:24 AM on December 25, 2006

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
posted by p3on at 7:30 AM on December 25, 2006

From the Seven Questions link:

"More immediately, the Courts have made claims to Somali-inhabited territory in eastern Ethiopia and northern Kenya. This is unacceptable to Ethiopia. As long as the Courts are making these claims, Ethiopia will view their ascendance to power as a security threat."

In other words, the Islamic Courts have already declared themselves to be Ethiopia's enemy. They've shown that they're willing to attempt unification of Somalia by force... which, by their claim, includes territory in Ethiopia.

So of course Ethiopia is attacking them. Were I Ethiopia, I'd probably do the exact same thing. War looks inevitable in any case, so why delay and let the enemy get a strong base from which to attack?

Unfortunately, as I think j-urb is hinting in his writeup, Ethiopia getting aid from us makes it look like we're attacking Islam yet again. I think that perception is likely to limit what we can do here. It seems we have only bad choices. If we don't intervene, the war will likely be protracted and messy. If we do intervene, we could make the whole thing worse. And we don't have much available except airpower anyway, which is fine for attacking things like tanks. As we've seen, though, it's very poor in a guerrilla conflict.

Ultimately, I think the war will hinge on which side the Somalis want to be on; a guerrilla force is tremendously more effective with the support of the local populace. If the Somalis want to be Islamic, I think ultimately the ICU will prevail, although it may not be able to take the Ethiopian territory.

A lot of the current conflicts are story-driven... the story of Islam versus the story of "modernity". Religions are good stories, even though they cause so much pain in the world, and I tend to think that the ICU will ultimately win in Somalia. Essentially: they want it more.
posted by Malor at 8:03 AM on December 25, 2006

In a hint of a possible direction to come, Ethiopia’s prime minister recently told American officials that he could wipe out the Islamists “ in one to two weeks.”

Is that what those "American officials" wanted to hear? /cynic

btw...Here is a link to the NYT story from Google News. (Curiously, with slightly different wording and no picture of dead people)
posted by jaronson at 8:38 AM on December 25, 2006

more background
posted by gimonca at 8:45 AM on December 25, 2006

In a hint of a possible direction to come, Ethiopia’s prime minister recently told American officials that he could wipe out the Islamists “ in one to two weeks.”

Did he ask if he could borrow a flight suit and a banner?
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on December 25, 2006

Maybe the U.S.A. should conquer the entire Muslim world thereby showing them Jesus' love and teaching them Democracy.
posted by davy at 10:06 AM on December 25, 2006

It's a bit of a stretch to call the Islamic Courts movement "ruling" Somali still has a functioning government (I think in the north) but the Islamic Courts have been gaining ground until now. Still it's not correct to say that either side is really "ruling"
posted by delmoi at 10:46 AM on December 25, 2006

In a hint of a possible direction to come, Ethiopia’s prime minister recently told American officials that he could wipe out the Islamists “ in one to two weeks.”

Did he ask if he could borrow a flight suit and a banner?

He said "wipe them out" not "liberate them" or "win their hearts and minds". Obviously it would be possible for America to "whipe out" the Iraqis if that's what we wanted to do...
posted by delmoi at 10:49 AM on December 25, 2006

It's a bit of a stretch to call the Islamic Courts movement "ruling" Somali still has a functioning government (I think in the north) but the Islamic Courts have been gaining ground until now. Still it's not correct to say that either side is really "ruling"

Somalia actually has at least four "functioning" governments right now. The UN-backed transitional government, though backed by Ethiopia, has been roundly all but defeated till now. But neither the transitional government nor the Islamic Courts Union have been able to make headway against the northeast government of Puntland, or get anywhere near the northwest Somalia government of Somaliland.

Here's a recent map -- some dude on Wikipedia is doing a fantastic job with almost daily updates.

As for interpreting this as the US attacking Islam, keep in mind that the Ethiopians are 1/3 Muslim and the factions in Somalia that they're supporting are also Muslim.

On Thursday, the Islamist clerics who rule Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, ordered schools closed so more children could be sent to the front lines.

I'm rather shocked at this, not just because it's disgusting, but because Mogadishu and surrounds could have been said to have tens of thousands of experienced gunmen on technicals. Where did they go? Obviously they weren't all recruited into the ICU army. The ICU may be reaching the limits of the manpower that it has absorbed to date by attacking on all fronts.
posted by dhartung at 12:04 PM on December 25, 2006

One more instance of America appearing to attack Islam really doesn't matter so long as we have troops in Iraq. Heck, so long as we have troops stationed in bases in Saudi Arabia, there's going to be someone out there with a grudge and a bomb.
posted by Atreides at 1:25 PM on December 25, 2006

Back home we say :

"Hey, naked man, what do you need?"
"I need a ring mister!"
posted by zouhair at 1:45 PM on December 25, 2006

I never want to imply that the United States was attacking Islam and was well aware that Ethiopia was a country with a Muslim majority. I just find it interesting why the media has tended to label Ethiopia as a Christian state. Of course, 35-40% Christian (which the CIA estimates) is still a sizable group when compared with the 80-90% Sunni Muslim population in Somalia. What I meant to question was why the United States has supplied so much economic and tactical military aid to Ethiopia. What significance is Ethiopia to the United States? I think it is pretty obvious that the Ethiopian military will rock the Islamic Courts Union, if the Courts don't come to some peace agreement. I'm not defending the Courts in any way, it would seem that they were asking for it. As we see rhetoric from the Courts on 'jihad' and as the foreign fighters begin pouring in, this is what has really caught my attention. If Ethiopia is successful in defeating the Courts, then the question seems to turn to how they will deal in the aftermath. And how much of this conflict is an indication of a wider war between Islam and everyone else (Clash of Civilizations anyone?) I'm not a big fan of Clash of Civilizations, but Huntington did hit the nail on the head when he wrote about Islam.
posted by j-urb at 2:11 PM on December 25, 2006

It is hard to say who will win this conflict, I think the winner will be whoever is hungriest.
posted by I Foody at 2:22 PM on December 25, 2006

dhartung writes "On Thursday, the Islamist clerics who rule Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, ordered schools closed so more children could be sent to the front lines."

It's good that, right off the bat, they're answering the question "Do they deserve sovereign nation status?" with an emphatic "NO!"

Atreides writes "Heck, so long as we have troops stationed in bases in Saudi Arabia, there's going to be someone out there with a grudge and a bomb."

We pulled them out, per bin Laden's request. This actually happened the same day Dubya showed off the big "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier. It seems pretty clear who's mission was accomplished there, and I'm appalled that there was so little media coverage of this gem.

j-urb writes "What significance is Ethiopia to the United States?"

Dude, that Ethiopian coffee you had at Starbucks yesterday didn't come from New Jersey.
posted by mullingitover at 2:50 PM on December 25, 2006

j-urb: because, not long ago, they were starving to death? I think we're helping them because it was politically required by the citizenry, rather than for any geopolitical advantage.
posted by Malor at 2:52 PM on December 25, 2006

An anarchist perspective on the 'anarchy' in Somalia:

Somalia is another case where it would appear that the people are suffering from the lack of a strong state. Yet I believe that the opposite is again the case. The chaos and armed conflict of Somalia in the 1990's is a direct consequence of the totalitarian state power wielded by the late dictator Siad Barre. His demise saw a violent conflict between a multitude of warlords all vying for the golden chalice of state power. Somalia is very unusual in Africa for being a linguistically and ethnically homogenous state, a real 'nation', if the nation state paradigm is to work anywhere in Africa it should be here. Somalian society was traditionally organised into clans who came together in big gatherings called 'shirs' to resolve problems and allow the various elements of society to have their say. These 'shirs' were required before clan chiefs could take any important decisions and provided a means by which their power was controlled by the people. Colonial administration subjugated these shirs to the power of the unitary state which allowed the emergence of despotic, totalitarian rulers like Barre who could never have existed before. The recent chaotic violence can better be understood as a battle between ambitious individuals for absolute state power using their clans as recruiting bases, rather than the continuation of perrenial clan warfare, as it is presented in the Western media.

It is interesting to note that all of the foreign peace deals have focused on coming to an arrangement for power sharing between the various warlords. They have all failed miserably since these warlords are in no way representative of their clans or Somali society. In 1991, the Somali National movement of Northern Somalia who had fought for years against the Barre regime, decided that they couldn't wait for a resolution of the chaos in Moqadisu and decided to go it alone. They called a shir and effectively ditched the concept of the nation state and reverted to a traditional form of administration. This was the creation of what is known in the media as 'the self-declared republic of Somaliland'. In 1998 the neighbouring Majertine clans followed suit and set up an independant administration of 'Puntland'. These 'self declared' entities have been consistently opposed by all the foreign powers, despite the fact that Somaliland has been at peace since 1995 and has had a functionning administration since 1997. So why are these entities opposed, because they contradict the imperial powers' need for states in Africa, centralised institutions which locally police the imperialist capitalism.

posted by Abiezer at 4:36 PM on December 25, 2006

The recent chaotic violence can better be understood as a battle between ambitious individuals for absolute state power using their clans as recruiting bases, rather than the continuation of perrenial clan warfare, as it is presented in the Western media.

The question, of course, is how could an anarchy prevent "ambitious individuals" from imposing themselves...
posted by delmoi at 5:14 PM on December 25, 2006

I wouldn't claim to know, delmoi, just something relevant I read, but that's what I took the author's point about the shir to be addressing.
posted by Abiezer at 5:18 PM on December 25, 2006

I don't drink Starbucks or coffee, but I do think something might be going on here which needs to be further investigated. . .

"j-urb: because, not long ago, they were starving to death?"

Okay, so where did they get the money to buy the military hardware? For example, Ethiopian military was rocking Mogadishu with migs. Those plans cost money on upkeep. Why should it be that a country can't afford food, but can afford guns?
posted by j-urb at 5:19 PM on December 25, 2006

Well, on second thought, Malor's reply in a way answers that.
posted by j-urb at 5:23 PM on December 25, 2006

China is a major supplier of arms across the Horn of Africa.
posted by Abiezer at 5:28 PM on December 25, 2006

j-urb> Money and food is sent to Ethiopia by Western countries, including the US to assist with droughts and the like. The Ethiopian army seizes the food and the money, and uses it to fund themselves and feed their troops. That's how they get things like MiGs and the like.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 7:01 PM on December 25, 2006

Well, according to the linked website on military and economic aid:

"During the severe drought year of FY 2003, the U.S. provided a record $553.1 million in assistance, of which $471.7 million was food aid. U.S. development assistance to Ethiopia is focused on reducing famine vulnerability, hunger, and poverty and emphasizes economic, governance, and social sector policy reforms. Some military training funds, including training in such issues as the laws of war and observance of human rights, also are provided."

This does not strike me as a huge amount of aid money.

But, in regards to what are our "interests."

1: A lot of economic aid is based on the premise that the country is, or soon could be a viable market.

2: Many of the current foreign policy leaders are advocates of the cold war "domino-effect" doctrine. This doctrine has translated into fears of expanding Islamic fundamentalism. So while the U.S. may not have a huge stake in Ethiopia, it doesn't want anyone else to have a huge stake in it either.

3: Somalia and Eritrea are strategically positioned on the Red Sea. Ethiopia also borders Kenya which is a major trading hub in the region.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:19 PM on December 25, 2006

I Foody writes "It is hard to say who will win this conflict, I think the winner will be whoever is hungriest."

Eponysterical.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:01 PM on December 25, 2006

It's good that, right off the bat, they're answering the question "Do they deserve sovereign nation status?" with an emphatic "NO!"

Sovereignty isn't generally something you apply for. "Please be sure to check the applicable box if you have a genocidal record, and sign here to allow us to contact human rights agencies regarding your application."

was well aware that Ethiopia was a country with a Muslim majority. I just find it interesting why the media has tended to label Ethiopia as a Christian state. Of course, 35-40% Christian (which the CIA estimates) is still a sizable group

Actually, it's the other way around -- about 35% Muslim. Ethiopia is a "Christian state" going back to before the establishment of Islam itself in the 7th century, and before the adoption of Christianity in Europe and Byzantium. Ethiopia's official religion was Ethiopian (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity (although some leaders had flirted with Roman Catholicism in centuries past) until the monarchy was overthrown by a Marxist junta in 1974.

Contextually, basically they have a 1400-year history of fighting off Muslims, who succeeded in converting and colonizing the coast of the Horn of Africa, but not the mountains which are the core of Ethiopia. The latter is clearly alarmed by the rise of a militant Islamist [i.e. fundamentalist, favoring a religious state] government on the Horn and would prefer to keep it weak (arguably they would prefer to keep the entire state of Somalia weak, but they would at least like it stable).

Any US angle is probably irrelevant in the jihad scheme of things. Your average jihadi jonesing for a fight would rather go to Iraq, say, where he can fight real Americans. Somalia, though Islamic culturally and historically, is not as emotionally central as places like Mecca or even Baghdad. Also, if they were really attracting foreign fighters (and money), they wouldn't be recruiting child soldiers and getting torn up in their first major battle against a real army.
posted by dhartung at 10:38 PM on December 25, 2006

j-urb: Okay, so where did they get the money to buy the military hardware? For example, Ethiopian military was rocking Mogadishu with migs. Those plans cost money on upkeep. Why should it be that a country can't afford food, but can afford guns?

Look, they are next door to Somalia. There are a few things worse than having hungry people in your country, like brutal conquest.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:42 PM on December 25, 2006

Okay, so where did they get the money to buy the military hardware? For example, Ethiopian military was rocking Mogadishu with migs. Those plans cost money on upkeep. Why should it be that a country can't afford food, but can afford guns?

Military of Ethiopia

Most of the stuff they're flying is old. Some of it's completely obsolete, like the MiG-21, first produced in 1956 and long since retired in Russia.

Thus, most of this was equipment purchased before the famine -- probably mainly between '78 and '91. Besides, famine relief doesn't mean that previously contracted military assistance just vanishes. In fact, famine relief in many cases means we'll spend money on this so you don't have to skimp on other stuff, like military aircraft maintenance. National security is -- just like in the US, and pretty much everywhere else -- pretty much a no-skimping zone.

Also, you're misunderstanding the dynamics of famine. It didn't happen because the country suddenly went broke and couldn't buy food, it happened because the agricultural resources inside the country broke and they suddenly had to import food to feed everyone.

Interestingly, the only reports of foreign fighters I've seen are Eritreans -- because they've fought a couple of wars with Ethiopia since independence and hate their guts.
posted by dhartung at 12:41 AM on December 26, 2006

This conflict has a lot more to do with Eritrea, Ethiopia and export of religious fanaticism from the Middle East than it does with the US. Even if Ethiopa has "tacit approval" from the US, it has explicit approval from the African Union.

As for aid to the Islamic Courts... Don't bother clicking through, it's the usual suspects - Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, just being neighbourly. Frankly, I don't blame them, it's been obvious for some time that the UN, the US and the rest of the world doesn't give a crap about Somalia, why would they think anybody would care now? Which makes accusations of US interference here laughable. I don't even think US government officials are allowed to say Somalia, let alone dream of getting involved in anything in the horn of Africa.
posted by loquax at 1:05 AM on December 26, 2006

Turns out War Nerd saw this coming.
posted by Abiezer at 1:30 AM on December 26, 2006

one would like to think that muslim nations are not blind to escalating events.

religious wars do not end. thank you gwb for bringing us to the biblical end of times. we needed that. the prophesies have been fulfilled.

oh. not gwb's fault? have you been living in a hole in the ground? well perhaps not, but you can expect to be soon enough.

so the alternatives to darfur were aid or war. as an american president i choose.... WAR!
posted by altman at 2:01 AM on December 26, 2006

It's not really a 'religious' war as far as I can tell. For one thing, the ICU is fighting a civil war, against other Muslims. They happen to be winning, but they are hostile to Ethiopia, for a variety of reasons most of them internal. They don't have anything close to the ability now, or in the forseable future to mount any challenge to Ethiopia. What they could do is distract them from their war against Christians and Muslims in Eritrea, which would hurt them.
posted by cell divide at 9:55 AM on December 26, 2006

Cell_divide, I'm confused about who you're referring to in your last sentence.
posted by lodurr at 4:49 PM on December 26, 2006

... the century of religious wars ...

This made me think a bit.

The 21st century, if you believe a lot of people who think about things like oil reserves and water and global climate change, will be filled with "resource wars." That's been the prediction for a long time. And I've always thought about that in terms of having wars that were literally and obviously and directly about water or oil or crops.

Yet here we are, and we have all these religious wars.

Maybe they're all really "resource wars." Sometimes religion is a front, sometimes it's a motivator. Sometimes the "resource" is power.
posted by lodurr at 5:01 PM on December 26, 2006

Every war is political, religious, and over resources. You can never separate the political and the religious easily enough to say, "this war was fought over politics, but this one was fought over religion." And, of course, one side's always trying to get more resources for themselves, whether its arable land in the American Civil War or more peasants believing your theology during the European religious wars that followed the Reformation.

It's been this way since the dawn of time, and it will be so until 2012. Then, of course, we either get the FTL drives or we bomb ourselves into prehistory.
posted by thecaddy at 6:07 PM on December 26, 2006

... and it will be so until 2012. Then, of course, we either get the FTL drives or we bomb ourselves into prehistory.

Wow, I didn't realize how neatly "2012" could tie up so many various threads of post-"millenial" apocalypticism.

Every war is political, religious, and over resources.

Sure; what I'm really thinking about, I suppose, it the way you can reconceptualize everything as being "about resources", if you of a mind to do that. In much the same way, many economists reconceptualize everything as being about economic activity, and some people reconceptualize evertying as being about information transfer. Or Nietzsche reconceptualizing everything as being about the "will to power" of one thing over another. Or (and I probably don't need to mention this one) religious fundamentalists reconceptualizing everything as being about God's Will. (amen.)

Just another "deja vu all over again" moment, in other words, I guess. I have this revelation every few weeks and it hasn't yet failed to set me back on my heels for a moment.
posted by lodurr at 6:57 AM on December 27, 2006

Developments...

Islamist forces withdraw from Mogadishu
posted by jaronson at 1:54 AM on December 28, 2006

Wow, I didn't realize how neatly "2012" could tie up so many various threads of post-"millenial" apocalypticism.

Yep. It's even better than 2000, 'cause it's based on a calendar that's spooky and old, though it doesn't have the natural advantage of a human-created computer bug threatening to blow up our ATM machines. Not sure where all the angst is going to go after 24 December, though--2029, maybe? When does the Unix second-counter run out of memory space?

RE: The developments--

What worries me is that the ICU hasn't been beaten at all, but rather that they're planning to wage a guerrilla campaign. The NY Times reports (1, 2) that most of the forces have simply vanished, with the teenagers who have been roaming the streets armed having blended back into the situation. And, of course, there's now tons of violence within Mogadishu, which'll probably get worse than before the ICU took over before too long.
posted by thecaddy at 10:25 AM on December 28, 2006

Probably too late, Lodurr, but what I meant to say is that problems in Somalia are a problem for Ethopia as a function of their problems with Eritrea more then anything else. Eritrea is 50/50 Muslim and Christian, so I threw that part in to underscore the complexity and relative unimportance of religion vis-a-vis Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia.
posted by cell divide at 4:35 PM on January 2, 2007

I was having trouble with the subject-object references. Seemed to me that you were saying 'the Ethiopians war against Christians and Moslems in Eritrea.' I guess that is what you meant -- i.e., that the Ethiopian war was (also) not primarily religious, because it targeted Eritreans, not just Muslim Eritreans. Just wanted to be clear.
posted by lodurr at 5:33 AM on January 3, 2007