May 25, 2006

There is a reason the U.S. is supporting a coalition of warlords fighting in Mogadishu. There is little doubt that the Islamist militias fighting for control of Somalia are associated with al Qaeda. This would not be the first time al Qaeda linked forces battled the U.S. in Mogadishu.
As the U.N. begins to fret over the growing violence in Somalia, do not let their equivocations fool you--while both sides may be filled with people who do bad things, at least one side is filled with our SOBs. The other side is led by bin Laden's SOBs (if not bin Laden himself).
Keep your eyes open, this one is getting hot. [Image right: Somalians carry pictures of Osama bin Laden during a 2002 protest against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan] Relief Web:
Heavily armed gunmen fought pitched battles in the streets of the lawless Somali capital on Thursday, rocking the city with a fresh surge in the deadliest violence it has seen in years despite appeals for peace.WJLA:Islamic militia and fighters loyal to a US-backed warlord alliance pounded southern and northern Mogadishu with heavy machine gun, rocket, artillery and mortar fire, sending the death toll soaring and hundreds fleeing for safety....
Thursday's battles erupted after a tense week-long lull in fighting that began in Sisi on May 7, killing more than 140 people over the eight days before the two sides began observing a tenuous ceasefire.
Those clashes, the third major battle between the Islamists and the warlords since February, brought the death toll to more than 240 in the deadliest violence Mogadishu has seen since Somalia collapsed into anarchy in 1991.
The fighting pits the Islamists against the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT), which was set up in February with US backing to curb the growing influence of Islamic courts and track down extremists, including Al-Qaeda members, they are allegedly harboring.
The courts, which have declared a holy war against the alliance that they say is financed by the "enemy of Islam," deny the accusations.
The fight for control of Mogadishu comes despite a May 14 cease-fire. The alliance claims the self-appointed Islamic court leaders, who have their own militias, have links to al-Qaida, while the Islamic militants accuse the alliance of working for the CIA....The Islamic fundamentalists portray themselves as an alternative force capable of bringing order to Somalia, which has been without a real government since largely clan-based warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991.
A U.N.-backed government based in the central city of Baidoa, 155 miles northwest of Mogadishu, has been unable to assert authority. Islamic leaders reject the government because it is not based on Islam....
The Islamic militia's growth in popularity and strength is reminiscent to some of the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. The secular alliance says it has retrieved the bodies of Arab militiamen and others who resemble Pakistanis, Sudanese and Ethiopians, proving its rivals are bolstered by foreign fighters.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:14 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 4 kb.
Isn't the "our SOB" syndrome the same thing that has lead to so many headaches during and after the cold war? Ostensibly pro-American power bases are quick to turn on us the moment it becomes convenient for them to do so, even allying with former enemies.
Its also a truth that the fascist or in some cases Islamic regimes that we supported during the cold war all ended up being far more headache than what they prevented. The plain fact of the matter is that the US has nothing to gain from backing tyrants, fascists or Islamists in any corner of the globe. They will all bite us in the ass, one way or the other, in the short or long term.
How about instead of doing the "our SOBs, their SOBs" syndrome, we just kill all the SOBs? At the very least, let Al-Q exaughst themselves on the warlords and then just tangle with whoever comes out on top in that place.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 04:24 PM (B9sDR)
The real question is the extent that the immediate threat outweighs the potential for a future threat. In the case of Somalia, letting it fall into the hand of Islamists who support jihad seems like worst case scenario stuff.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:33 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:34 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Howie at May 25, 2006 04:58 PM (D3+20)
Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but here is my point: Helping "our SOB" is just going to create another SOB we need to destroy in the first place. In this particular case, if the warlords are powerful enough to be able to drive out the Muslims with only minor US support, we should just wait for both sides to exaughst each other, move in and set up a stable government to run things ourselves. Its win-win when you let two of your enemies kill each other.
I'm also not one to judge that our alliance with the Soviet Union was at all beneficial to the USA in any examination of what we had to gain vs what we had to lose.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:18 PM (B9sDR)
I never suggested we do not take action. There is merely a time and a place to take it. When our enemies - and make no mistake, a tyrant is an enemy of America, as all tyrants must hate and fear any free country - attack each other, why interrupt them or help one side or the other? If they're so evenly matched that a little push from us lets one side or the other win, why don't instead we just wait for them to nearly destroy each other, move in and mop up the depleted winner and thus have two birds killed with one stone?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:23 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 25, 2006 05:34 PM (FCC6c)
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 05:54 PM (JQjhA)
I mean, shoot, backing up tyrants in order to prevent crazy ass enemies of America from taking over? what could possibly go wrong?
The idea that we can use "proxy armies" to win a war is false. All that will happen is either our "allies" turn out not to be (see the Afghan constitution) or a legitimately pro-US (read: Completely dependent on the US) tyrant gets his ass overthrown and replaced by Osama Bin Laden.
There is no avoiding fighting our own battles ourselves, Rusty. The question is merely whether or not the US has the will to do it. Otherwise we'll be running about the world putting out small fires that we started five years previous until we give up and stop bothering with the rest of the world.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:04 PM (B9sDR)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:05 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:17 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: hondo at May 25, 2006 06:39 PM (DaNq1)
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:53 PM (TcoRJ)
Um, no. Go back to HTML school.
You can thank me later. Actually, you can thank me now for fixing the link to the anyone can edit what they want accuracy of Wikipedia.
Yeah, john, stability at all costs is what Somalia needs, just like the Taliban's stability, Saddam's stability, the Mullah's stability, Assad's stability, Stalin's stability, Hitler's stability, Mao's stability, Castro's stability.
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 06:54 PM (/qy9A)
Bin Laden himself claims to have been behind Mogadishu, that's just a quick link I found with Google.
MIB,
The problem is that you are being picky with your examples. You choose examples where no matter what the U.S. did, we were screwed. Also, you mischaracterize Afghanistan. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets, and then we completely abandoned them. The Taliban was not formed until 1994, and then only becaue the Pakis supported them.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:08 PM (JQjhA)
Vinnie: The point was the actual occurance, not the specific text in wikipedia. I guess that one flew over your head while you were busy fixing my html.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 07:12 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:27 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 07:37 PM (/qy9A)
Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 08:10 PM (pzM6K)
Now, what McKinley (and hence Goldberg) said was that your effort to jump out of the way of one boulder could very well put you in the way of another. However, what is the option? Get crushed by the first boulder? No, you jump out of the first boulder's way and then right away you have to deal with another boulder coming at you.
Yeah there is no doubt that supporting bad people to fight badder people now is not an ideal situation but we do not live in an ideal world.
I think many pine for a perfect world. Yes, the Afghani constitution is not a 21st century thing, but it seems many view the fact that the Vagina Monologues is not playing in trendy Kandahar Cafes is a sign of abject failure in Afghanistan. Yes, being in the 12th Century is not ideal but it is progress from their previous 7th Century situation.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at May 25, 2006 08:50 PM (v2l2P)
So I'm not sure how the "proxy war" succeeded, when the "war" part (the contras) failed and a completely different plan (back the opposition party) succeeded.
Vinnie: El Salvador doesn't seem to be an "our bastards" kind of civil war. They seemd alright, in fact. How were they evil, dictatorial tyrants exactly?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 09:24 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Oyster at May 26, 2006 05:55 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: MiB at May 26, 2006 06:27 AM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Pangloss at May 26, 2006 07:15 AM (lk+8t)
Is Somalia going to be available on PPV?
Posted by: hondo at May 26, 2006 03:05 PM (k/PLS)
Posted by: john ryan at May 29, 2006 09:56 AM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: diethylpropion online at July 06, 2006 01:32 AM (ZunY4)
Posted by: order fioricet at July 06, 2006 01:33 AM (ipObC)
Posted by: flexeril online at July 06, 2006 01:33 AM (dImdR)
Posted by: cheap lorazepam at July 06, 2006 01:35 AM (ZunY4)
Posted by: cheap meridia at July 06, 2006 01:35 AM (p/ruZ)
Posted by: phendimetrazine prescription at July 06, 2006 01:37 AM (ipObC)
Posted by: cheap rivotril at July 06, 2006 01:38 AM (ipObC)
Posted by: generic sildenafil at July 06, 2006 01:38 AM (Y579K)
Posted by: soma prescription at July 06, 2006 01:39 AM (QsAwr)
Posted by: cheap tenuate at July 06, 2006 01:40 AM (Z1l9a)
Posted by: ultram online at July 06, 2006 01:41 AM (SMrs2)
Posted by: cheap rivotril at July 06, 2006 01:41 AM (ipObC)
Posted by: order wellbutrin at July 06, 2006 01:42 AM (BzVwq)
Posted by: xanax online at July 06, 2006 01:43 AM (XgqU5)
Posted by: xenical online at July 06, 2006 01:43 AM (ZunY4)
Posted by: cheap zoloft at July 06, 2006 01:44 AM (XgqU5)
Posted by: order wellbutrin at July 06, 2006 01:45 AM (BzVwq)
Posted by: xenical online at July 06, 2006 01:46 AM (ZunY4)
34 queries taking 0.0462 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.