Somalia's Mystery Terrorists

The second half of today's WaPo coverage of the Somalia-Ethiopia war does a good job of calling into question the premises of US policy in the Horn of Africa. We note that Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia "along with the United States, has accused the [Islamic Courts] movement of harboring terrorists" but this is "an allegation it has denied." Neither Ethiopia nor the United States is prepared to provide names of any terrorists who are being harbored. Meanwhile, "Opposition groups inside Ethiopia say that Meles, an increasingly authoritarian leader, has shrewdly played up the terrorism charges to win U.S. support." We're going along with this because "based in part on intelligence out of Ethiopia, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi E. Frazer has asserted that the Islamic movement is now under the control of an al-Qaeda cell, a claim that regional analysts believe is exaggerated."

Emphasis added. In other words, we're backing Ethiopia's war against Somalia because intelligence provided by the Ethiopian government suggests we should back Ethiopia. But what else would the intelligence say? The US government's conflict with the Islamic Courts began because "the United States financed warlords in Somalia who described themselves as an 'anti-terrorism coalition' but who mostly terrorized local Somalis, who came to despise them." This "anti-terrorism coalition" was nothing other than the exact same warlords who ruined the country in the 1990s renaming themselves for the post-9/11 era.

I'd really like to see the DC-based media get on top of these questions. Can someone ask Tony Snow or George W. Bush or Condoleezza Rice or Steven Hadley to name the terrorists the Islamic Courts are harboring? To explain what we've tried to do to secure their custody short of backing a full-scale Ethiopian invasion of Somalia?

UPDATE: Okay. Below the fold you'll find the State Department's counterterrorism country report on Somalia. I think you'll find the lack of menace here striking:

Somalia’s lack of a functioning central government, protracted state of violent instability, long unguarded coastline, porous borders, and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula made it a potential location for international terrorists seeking a transit or launching point to conduct operations elsewhere.
Regional efforts to bring about national reconciliation and establish peace and stability in Somalia are ongoing. Although the ability of Somali local and regional authorities to carry out counterterrorism activities is constrained, some have taken limited actions in this direction.

While numerous Islamist groups engaged in a broad range of activities operate inside Somalia, few of these organizations have any known links to terrorist activities. Movements such as Harakat al-Islah (al-Islah), Ahlu Sunna wal Jamaa (ASWJ), and Majma Ulimadda Islaamka ee Soomaaliya (Majma') sought power by political rather than violent means and pursued political action via missionary or charity work. Missionary Islamists, such as followers of the Tablighi sect and the "New Salafis" generally renounce explicit political activism. Other Islamist organizations became providers of basic health, education, and commercial services, and were perceived by some as pursuing a strategy to take political power.

In the 1990s, members of the Somalia-based al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI) periodically committed terrorist acts, primarily in Ethiopia. AIAI rose to prominence following the collapse of Somalia’s central government in 1991, with the goal of creating a pan-Somali Islamic state in the Horn of Africa. In recent years the existence of a coherent entity operating as AIAI has become difficult to prove. At most, AIAI was highly factionalized and diffuse, and its membership difficult to define. Some elements associated with the former AIAI are sympathetic to al-Qaida and maintained ties with it, and may continue to pose a threat to U.S. and Western interests in the region.

Other shadowy groups that have appeared in Somalia are suspected of having committed terrorist acts against Western interests in the region, or considered capable of doing so. Very little is known about movements such as al-Takfir wal-Hijra (al-Takfir), but the extremist ideology and violent character of takfiri groups elsewhere suggest that the movement merits close monitoring.

So to be clear, unless I'm reading this wrong the number of individuals who've organized, planned, or committed terrorist attacks against the United States of America now being sheltered in Somalia is . . . zero.

There are Somali groups who've carried out attacks against Ethiopia. And (emphasis added) "some elements associated with the former AIAI are sympathetic to al-Qaida and maintained ties with it, and may continue to pose a threat to U.S. and Western interests in the region."

Now ask yourself how many Somali Islamists are going to sympathize with al-Qaeda once US-backed Ethiopian forces have shattered the closest thing to an effective government that country has had since 1991.

12/26/06 10:04AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Cause America does if America says it's so!

Thanks to my Rhapsody subscription I understand everything now.

Posted by: Jim Henley on December 26, 2006 10:14 AM

Considering how skilled the Bush administration is at spin, I'm somewhat suprised that they are unable to recognize other people's spin. God they're stupid.

Posted by: daveNYC on December 26, 2006 10:17 AM

All other things being equal, I'd rather not see any new Islamist regimes come to power in the world.

All other things aren't equal, of course, and no one has asked for my opinion, or for America's opinion. Where Africa is involved, this is an all-too-typical case of the good guys being hard to distinguish from the bad guys.

I think Matt's questions are highly relevant. If, in fact, this Islamist militia is directly involved with terrorists, such that we can expect Somalia to become the new safe harbor for al-Qaeda and friends, it would definitely be worth making a serious effort to keep them from coming to power. On the other hand, if there's no evidence of a relationship with terrorists - merely the fact that, obviously, an Islamist regime is more likely to get along with al-Qaeda than a secular government - I don't know that it pays to get involved.

Posted by: Steve on December 26, 2006 10:38 AM

nor the United States is prepared to provide names of any terrorists who are being harbored

What I love about Matthew's positions is that is the complete equivalent of the hawks "add a lot more troops" position re Iraq. That is, pick a position that you know the administration would agree to, just as a means of avoiding the issue. It's quite an artful dodge. Meanwhile, Matthew never tells us what difference it makes to him if he knew the names - I mean, I hear the names of the Somali terrorists are Joe Blow and Jane Blow. Now Matthew knows the names, so maybe Matthew can take a position!

Meranwhile, Matthew also lacks reading comprehension skills. The article says "We're going along with this because 'based in part on intelligence out of Ethiopia'." Gee, does Matthew understand what "in part" means? It doesn't seem that way.

Hmmm, I think Matthew is reading this wrong. At least, you know, the sentence that reads "Other shadowy groups that have appeared in Somalia are suspected of having committed terrorist acts against Western interests in the region". Nonetheless, I'd love for the Democrats to take Matthew's apparent position: as long as these particular Islamist terrorists haven't yet attacked us, we should not be doing anything about them! Can we get Harry Reid to articulate that, maybe?

Posted by: Al on December 26, 2006 11:09 AM

It's mirroring Iraq already:

Islamist Forces in Somalia Are on the Retreat

Superior conventional military forces succeed during invasion.

Hussein Saylan is apparently the Somali Rumsfeld/Cheney:

“We feel great,” said Hussein Saylan, chief of the transitional cabinet, on Tuesday. He spoke by telephone from a command center where radios crackled in the background. “We’re moving swiftly toward Mogadishu, and the Islamists are panicking. We’re finishing them off as we go.”

And then there's a dose of reality:

Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a top Islamist leader and one who used to be considered a moderate, vowed at a press conference that the Islamists would never buckle.

“The war is entering a new phase,” he said. “We will fight Ethiopia for a long, long time, and we expect the war to go everywhere.”

And about Somalia harboring Islamist terrorists, these conflicts are self-fulfilling, as the call for the next global jihad goes out once the conflict begins - and its already occurred here:

On Saturday, the Islamists announced that Somalia was now open to Muslim fighters across the world who wanted to wage a jihad against Ethiopia, which has a long Christian history though it is actually about half Muslim.

More "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" - which makes this an "easy" decision for the Bush administration - they don't feel the need to "name names," the ICU has done their work for them by making it an official jihad zone....

Posted by: SoCalJustice on December 26, 2006 11:12 AM

Meanwhile, Matthew never tells us what difference it makes to him if he knew the names

It's not that I, personally, am dying to know the names. But if Somalia is harboring terrorists, surely the people accusing Somalia of harboring terrorists should be able to name some terrorists who are being harbored.

If, say, the local police department wants a warrant to enter a house said to be harboring fugitives the judge is going to want to know which fugitives are being harbored. That's just basic common sense.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on December 26, 2006 11:23 AM

No one even seems to know this is happening. I haven't spoken with a single real-life person who was aware of this conflict. I also suspect this story will never get very big in the political media (barring serious change). America seems to have trouble really focusing on these types of "proxy" contests.

There is something liberating about reading a comment for about 1-2 sentences, thinking to yourself - "man, this person doesn't seem to understand Matt's point at all" - skipping to the end, seeing "Al" posted it, and realizing that there is no point to responding.

Posted by: MDtoMN on December 26, 2006 11:27 AM

realizing that there is no point to responding

There's certainly never any point in responding to Al. However, I do think it's worth discussing what motivates him and people like him. As I've often said, if he'd been born in the Soviet Union in 1920 he would have been a devoted Stalinist hack, endlessly denouncing the counterrevolutionaries, etc., etc.

These people exist in every country and every era, and they're a real problem for humanity. We're very fortunate to live in a time and place where Al-type personalities have less power than they did in Moscow circa 1948. But they do, sadly, have some power, whereas they should be the subject of universal pity and scorn.

Posted by: grh on December 26, 2006 11:48 AM

We all want to reduce the chances of attacks on us and our interests being launched from Somalia.

Al's and the administration's method is to align us with the forces there that are associated with a neighboring foreign power armed by another non-neighboring power, both seen as unduly intrusive--and both seen as Christian, readily translated to "crusader," too. And best of all, to make every Somali love them truly, these forces are prolonging or renewing the war!

What more could we do to boost those elements in the Courts movement that are most hostile to America?

Posted by: Fearful on December 26, 2006 11:59 AM

Why don't you just say "I don't believe the Administration's claim that there are terrorists in Somali. I'm not willing to trust their say-so any more. And they haven't given me any evidence (such as the names of the terrorists) that would cause me to believe them."

I know it's a lot more straightforward and less bloggy than demanding a name, but the demand for a name before taking a position just seems to me to be so silly. And, BTW, is it actually true that they would know the names of the particular terrorists there? Can't intelligence give you information that there are unnamed terrorists at a particular camp? You're not willing to take any action unless you know the names of the people there?

Posted by: Al on December 26, 2006 12:03 PM

I loathe the smell of insignificant tangents in the morning. It smells like ... Al!

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on December 26, 2006 12:07 PM

You think Matthew's call for the names is "insignificant"? It two posts in two days on that subject! (I could understand, though, if you said the comment would have been more appropriate on yesterday's post which was thoroughly about the names.)

Posted by: Al on December 26, 2006 12:27 PM

Of course, backing Ethiopia against the Islamists here is tricky not only because the Islamists likely have little connection (yet) to terrorist groups but also because it seems unjust to destabilize the one group that has finally brought a modicum of stability to the wartorn country. But it really seems a non-question that we would work to prevent Somalia from becoming a full blown Islamist stronghold if this didn't require our own troops on the ground doing so. Of course this will turn into a guerilla war (I'm betting by New Years, as Ethiopia is almost already at Mogadishu as we write), and it will be tragic, bloody affair, but should we remain neutral and allow for the possibility of Somalia becoming the next falied Islamist state?

Posted by: James on December 26, 2006 01:17 PM

Looking at this morning's Post story, then looking at a map makes me all the more chary about wanting to Save Darfur.

Posted by: brendan on December 26, 2006 01:36 PM

It seems that Somalia is a lesser Iraq (circa 1991), one which we 'departed' after an ambiguous, and not macho, 'resolution.'
In such instances it is then deserving of being deemed a central front on the war with terror, and heaped with as much chaos as we or our proxies can muster.

Posted by: The Other Alan on December 26, 2006 01:44 PM

This is just a proxy war fought between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Eritrea fought a decades long revolution against Ethiopia and won independence in the 1990s, cutting off Ethiopias access to seaports (Eritrea runs along the Red Sea). Their leaders talked a good game of democracy and how they would move beyond Marxist ideology, but, like so many post-colonial African societies, a "state of emergency" was declared and things are generally pretty repressive. Ethiopia and Eritrea recently fought a large war over border demarcations as well.
Eritrea has been supporting the Islamic Courts, and goading them into making threats against Ethiopia. The Ethiopian supported government has been holed up in a town by the Ethiopia/Somali border trying to get peace talks going to share power. The Islamic Courts rejected that and wanted to take full control of southern Somalia.
Ethiopia doesn't want an Eritrian ally controlling its southern border, especially one wedded to Islamic militancy, and so has stepped up its involvement in the proxy war.
Not so much GWOT as traditional conflict in the Horn of Africa.
The US also has marines stationed in Dijibouti, which is between Eritria, Ethiopia, and northern Somalia.

Posted by: agorabum on December 26, 2006 02:07 PM

Isn't there a certain amount of arrogance in reading the Ethiopia/Somalia conflict as being All About Us, when those two countries have their own very long, very complicated histories and list of grievances against each other? While the US does seem to be involved in a minor way, Ethiopia seems quite happy to go to war against Somalia for reasons of its own, even while dressing it up in a language calculated to appeal to the US and the West.

Posted by: Hank Scorpio on December 26, 2006 02:10 PM

Some of what's going on is that the Horn of Africa countries have lately been using war as a nation-building exercise. Eritrea, for example, is, roughly, half Muslim, half Christian, but it has attained a suprising degree of internal cohesion via constant war fever against Ethiopia. As the War Nerd has pointed out, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war of the late 1990s was an impressively fought combination of WWI (trench) and WWII (tank) tactics, far superior in military terms to the usual African "war-without-battles" of civilian massacres. Strategically, it was largely pointless since the two countries were fighting over some of the worst desert in the world, but politically, it made a lot of sense in the same way that Bismarck's wars helped unify Germany.

Ethiopia, a true empire, is even more diverse and ramshackle. So, a war against Somalia might help bring Ethiopia together.

What exactly the American national interest is in getting involved, if there is one, remains mysterious.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on December 26, 2006 02:52 PM

While the US does seem to be involved in a minor way, Ethiopia seems quite happy to go to war against Somalia for reasons of its own, even while dressing it up in a language calculated to appeal to the US and the West.

This wouldn't have happened without U.S. approval.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on December 26, 2006 03:52 PM

What exactly the American national interest is in getting involved, if there is one, remains mysterious.

Revenge.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on December 26, 2006 03:55 PM

What exactly the American national interest is in getting involved, if there is one, remains mysterious.

Not really. It's 'because they're there already'.

As for the parallels, one might note with caution the Taliban's resurgence in the mid-1990s, where austere Islamic law was considered better than a splintered state with rival warlords committing atrocities when they weren't firing mortars.

So there might conceivably be a pre-emption argument, except that Afghanistan had previously been host to a large number of freelance Islamists with the backing of the US government, and Somalia hasn't.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on December 26, 2006 11:36 PM

Steve Sailer's analysis is cogent. America's interest lies in preventing more Afghani lawless enclaves from developing. And remember that Ethiopia might be better as a US friend that is unified and strong in a region with whack-job Sudan restarting their war in the South while committing genocide in Darfur.

I'd like to know why the Egyptians are having a problem with US friendliness with Ethiopia.

Posted by: daveinboca on December 27, 2006 12:53 AM

My guess on the Egyptian issue is that they are a major ally of the Sudanese government in Khartoum and are wary of a greater American presence along its southern border. Just a guess.

Posted by: Reality Man on December 27, 2006 04:00 AM

Shorter Al:

The food in this place is terrible. And in such small portions.

Posted by: Reality Man on December 27, 2006 04:11 AM

The Ethiopian government has regularly massacred citizens protesting electoral fraud. They are hardly the sort of people to get in bed with just because of their Christianity.

Posted by: bob h on December 27, 2006 08:44 AM

Egypt does not want friendly US Ethiopia relationsbecause of the Nile. Egypt is dedicatedto an unstable Ethiopia via constant Ethio-Somali conflict. Peace in Ethiopia means Ethiopians will be building dams and irrigation..not what Egyptians want to see or hear.

Posted by: alemayehu on February 11, 2007 03:46 PM

sohbet, chat, arkadaş

Posted by: sohbet on August 29, 2007 07:20 AM

thanks four you links flowers

Posted by: Çiçekçiler on September 9, 2007 08:02 AM

thanks four in flowers blog ı have you go

Posted by: Çiçekçi on September 9, 2007 08:03 AM

hello

Posted by: chat on October 8, 2007 02:05 AM

selamss

Posted by: sohbet on October 9, 2007 05:00 PM

merhaba