Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/14/06

This page was last updated on December 17, 2006.

Crisis in Somalia: The U.S. should make the most of a bad situation; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 14, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The nation of Somalia on the Horn of Africa is once more in a double political-humanitarian mess, brought about by internal conflict, external interference and, this time, intense flooding.

“On the humanitarian side, thousands of people in the valleys and flood plains of the country’s two rivers, the Juba and the Shabelle, which produce its grain and other foods, have been forced to abandon their homes and fields in the wake of intense, continuing flooding. Although not as widespread as the drought and other problems that afflicted Somalia in the early 1990s, the crisis is easily as intense for the thousands of people affected.

“The other problem now is the 15-year-old problem of governance in the nation of 8 million. Organized government in Somalia collapsed in January 1991 with the flight from Mogadishu, the capital, of President Mohammed Siad Barre, a dictator, in the face of pursuing armies of Somalis.

“A few years ago, the international community began stitching together in Kenya a government of sorts, unelected, but with some representation from Somalia’s different clans. That government installed itself in Baidoa, 150 miles from Mogadishu, but its officials have never been able to go to Mogadishu, fearful for their lives.

“In Baidoa they are protected by Ethiopian troops. Ethiopia has a stake in that government, in preference to the Islamic Courts government, which controls Mogadishu and nearly all the rest of the country.

“Earlier this year, the Islamic Courts group emerged from Somalia’s political chaos, took Mogadishu and declared itself the government of Somalia, as opposed to the Baidoa group. In effect, except for Baidoa, it is the organized government that the world has sought for Somalia since the Siad Barre government collapsed nearly 16 years ago.”

[RWC] Before I proceed, I need to note I know nothing about the various factions discussed in this editorial. Given the history of Africa, however, I suspect this whole thing boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. This is always a dicey proposition. FDR taking on the Soviet Union as an “ally” during World War II is an example.

“The problem now is that the United Nations, spearheaded by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton in his final days, has passed a resolution supporting the Baidoa government. This move is consistent with the Bush administration’s monolithic obsession with Islamic governments and, in this case, its corresponding love for the ostensibly Christian government of Ethiopia, which, in effect, has invaded Somalia once again.”

[RWC] “[S]pearheaded by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton?” How can this be? Didn’t the PG eight days ago tell us Mr. Bolton was ineffective?

I suspect the PG has no better knowledge of the situation than I. Further, I suspect the PG position was chosen according to the liberal rule of thumb, “if President Bush is for it, we’re against it.”

“The U.N. resolution calls for a peacekeeping force for Somalia, but not to include troops from the country’s neighboring states, Djibouti, Kenya, Eritrea and Ethiopia -- in effect, the only countries that care a fig what happens there. The Islamic Courts government has said that it will resist with force any effort on the part of a U.N. peacekeeping force to enter Somalia. It has also given the Ethiopians a short deadline to get out or be attacked in force.

“An alternate approach would be for the United States to take the position that, although it may not be delighted that an Islamic government has taken power in Somalia, it is, at least, a coherent government that apparently has control of most of the country, the objective of most of the world there since 1991. Somalia is nearly 100 percent Muslim in any case. The United States could then establish the kind of relations with the Islamic Courts government that could rein it in, help it and perhaps eventually make it the kind of Islamic government the United States can work with. The Somalis are Sunni, like Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.”

[RWC] Is the PG really trying to tell us Sunni governments are OK?

First, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are not exactly my idea of model governments.

Second, the editorial fails to note the Taliban government of Afghanistan was Sunni as was Saddam Hussein and everyone who ran the Iraq government.

Third, al-Qaida is Sunni, the 9/11 terrorists were Sunni, the terrorists who killed the 18 U.S. peacekeepers in Somalia were Sunni, the terrorists who bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed 19 U.S. soldiers were Sunni, and on and on. Shiites have no better record.

“The humanitarian disaster, to which American and other aid organizations are almost obliged to respond, may provide the sort of opening that would make such a relationship possible. The alternative is for the United States to back Ethiopia in a war against the government that basically controls Somalia now.

“The humanitarian crisis, sad though it is, may provide the United States a way out of the dilemma if it is smart enough to take it.”

[RWC] Is the PG serious?

Here’s a quick history lesson. In 1992/1993, the U.S. and UN sent humanitarian aid to Somalia. Because local warlords hijacked the food and kidnapped/killer aid workers, troops were brought in to defend the aid workers and the relief material.

To make a long story short, 18 U.S. peacekeepers were murdered trying yet again to help the citizens of a Muslim country. Perhaps this doesn’t speak well of me, but I wouldn’t send U.S. aid to Somalia. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf States are swimming in money. Let them handle the problem.