Matt Yglesias

15 Responses to “Failed Meddling in Somalia”

1. El Cid Says:
   May 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm

   Second. Fifty second. I don’t think fifty minutes sounds like a handy summary.

2. Brendan Says:
   May 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm

   Was Ethiopia “sent” to do anything? I thought they wanted to go in themselves anyways?

3. Den Valdron Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 12:19 am

   Reality check, Brendan. Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in Africa, and Africa’s the poorest continent on the planet.

   If Ethiopia was invading Somalia, well, that costs a lot of money they don’t have. Someone had to be writing checks to fund the operation.

   That ’someone’ would probably be the same parties that supplied air support, conducted air strikes, sea operations and anti-terrorist ops.

   The Ethiopian occupation lasted exactly as long as the money did. Once the checks stopped flowing, they pulled up and went home.

   Personally, I count the Ethiopia/Somalia fiasco as Bush’s third or fourth or fifth failed war. Depends on whether you call the ‘War on Terror’ a real failure, and on whether you lay Israel’s War on Lebanon at Bush’s feet.

4. comment Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 2:12 am

   Matt – Going back to Byron York and his racial issues – You may want to re-visit the fact they he basically
   started the right wing anti-Michelle Obama meme of her being an angry black woman.

   He did this by misreporting a happy uplifting speech
   she gave as if she were unhappy and angry – Then
   they (NR) posted a photo of Michelle looking
   angry.

   This is a long time schtick of York’s

5. JonF Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 6:25 am

   Re: If Ethiopia was invading Somalia, well, that costs a lot of money they don’t have. Someone had to be writing checks to fund the operation.

   Ethiopia and Somilia had a dust-up back in the 80s when both were client states of the Soviet Union. Who wrote the checks then? I don’t doubt the US cheered Ethiopia on in this invasion, but I don’t see the invasion as Made in Washington.

6. Den Valdron Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 8:34 am

   JonF, don’t be a retard. Think before you say something especially idiotic.

   Ethiopia and Somilia had a dust-up back in the 80s when both were client states of the Soviet Union. Who wrote the checks then?

   Somalia was originally the Soviet client state as it encroached on Ethiopian territory in the Ogaden region which was populated by ethnic solidarity. With Soviet money and weapons, and a nationalist ‘Unite the Somali’ fervor, dictator Siad Barre first infiltrated Ethiopian territory with militias, and then direct military incursion.

   Then the Ethiopians made their own deal with the Soviets (They’d found the US unreliable, Ronny was too focused on running death squads in Guatemala), and the Somali were left out in the cold. Suddenly, Ethiopia was getting thousands of Cuban troops, durable Russian hardware and lots of money. They threw the Somali forces out.

   For the Soviets, it was a great deal. Ethiopia was a far larger country and had a much greater population than Somalia, and out of desperation it was far more receptive to socialism. This was a time when the Soviets were kicking ass through Africa – at that time, they could count Angola, Mozambique, and Libya as client states of varying degree.

   For the Somali… not such a happy thing. The failure of the campaign disgraced the dictator, Barre, and he soon fell from power, leaving a power vaccuum. That was bad enough. But the real hammer were all the defeated militia and paramilitary forces returning to Mogadishu, which immediately flowed into the vacuum and set Somali’s endless civil war boiling.

   I don’t doubt the US cheered Ethiopia on in this invasion, but I don’t see the invasion as Made in Washington.

   Care to explain where Ethiopia got the money to support a major foreign military excursion and occupation? That’s not cheap and Ethiopia was pretty broke.

   Also, care to explain how it is that the Ethiopians go home practically the minute there’s a change of US government?

   Finally, can you explain, if this invasion had nothing to do with America, the remarkable coincidence of the United States conducting land and sea ops in Somalia at the exact same time as the invasion and occupation commenced?

7. Hector Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 8:55 am

   JonF,

   Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the war between Somalia and Ethiopia was in the 1970s, perhaps 1977? Carter was president then.

8. Den Valdron Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 10:03 am

   The Somali insurgency supported by the Somali government in the Ogaden region begins around 1974-1975. Somalia invaded 1977-78 and was forced to withdraw. The insurgency continued, with support from Somali forces until 1981. After 81, most of the Ogaden insurgency forces had retreated to Somalia proper.

   Resistance to the government of Said Barre arose directly from the failure of the campaign. Somalia by 1978 had lost almost a third of its troops and roughly half its armour and air forces. The first Anti-Barre group showed up in 1979.

   The period of 1981 to 1986 showed increasing resistance to and repression by Barre. One of the significant incidents was turnabout as Ethiopia armed Somali rebels and sent them against Barre’s regime. This second Ethiopia/Somali conflict was not the Soviets playing both sides, by this time Somalia was an American client.

   Matters broke down into a full fledged insurrection against Barre beginning in roughly 1986, which amounted to a running civil war that continued to escalate even after Barre was driven out in 1991.

   The UN intervention comes in 1992.

9. Brendan Says:
   May 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am

   Den,

   “Funded” still isn’t the same as “sent.” But ignoring that, and just to be clear, do we *know* anything about American funding in this case? It sounds like you’re *inferring* that there must have been such funding, right? Obviously Ethiopia doesn’t have a lot of money, but they fought a pretty expensive war with Eritrea regardless. And there’s been trouble in the Ogaden for some time, so I took it Ethiopia thought of an invasion of Somalia as a matter of national security in any case… I wouldn’t think they’d need a ton of encouragement to invade. Maybe just a green light from the states? But if you could point me to something that makes the case in greater detail, I’d be grateful.

10. Den Valdron Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Brendan, Eritrea was a breakaway region of Ethiopia and its sole coastline and sea access, comprising a relatively narrow and long strip of land. Strategically, not all that defensible. The fact that Eritrea was able to have a war with Ethiopia demonstrates Ethiopia’s poverty and military bankruptcy.

    The Ethiopian invasion of Somalia essentially runs from December 2006, after American mid-term elections, to January, 2009, with Ethiopia withdrawing after Bush leaves office. The timing is suspicious, to say the least.

    Moreover, there is a clear running thread of direct US involvement. From Wikipedia article “War on Terrorism”:

    On January 8, 2007, the US launched the Battle of Ras Kamboni by bombing the militants using AC-130 gunships.

    The Battle of Ras Kamboni is described thusly: “The battle began on January 5, 2007, when TFG and Ethiopian forces launched their assault. On January 7, 2007, the United States entered the conflict by launching airstrikes using an AC-130 gunship against suspected Al Qaeda members operating within the ranks of the ICU.[4] International concern and controversy arose over civilian casualties in additional airstrikes around Ras Kamboni and in Afmadow province, and whether these were the result of U.S. actions or Ethiopian aircraft operating in the area. The town finally fell to the TFG and Ethiopian forces on January 12, 2007″

    This was not the only American air forces raid in January, 2007.

    American air forces also acted in 2008: “On March 3, 2008, the United States launched an air strike on Dhoble, a Somali town. US officials claimed the town was held by Islamic extremists, but gave few details to the press.[75] It was reported that Hassan Turki was in the area. The same area was targeted by US bombers one year earlier.[76]

    Now, if we look to Operation Enduring Freedom and its Wikipedia entry, we find: On 27 December 2006, The New York Times reported analysts in Nairobi, Kenya claimed U.S. surveillance aircraft were funneling information to Ethiopian forces. Major Kelley Thibode, a spokeswoman for the task force of American military personnel based in Djibouti, said she was “not at liberty to discuss” the matter.

    And also: “At the time, the United States Fifth Fleet’s maritime task force (Combined Task Force 150[14]) based out of Bahrain, was patrolling off the Somali coast to prevent terrorists launching an “attack or to transport personnel, weapons or other material,” said Commander Kevin Aandahl.[15] The aim of the patrols shifted on 2 January 2007, according to diplomats, to “… stop SICC leaders or foreign militant supporters escaping”.

    You will recall that in the failed Venezualen coup, the US had conveniently had warships stationed off the coast. In a number of cases where this sort of nonsense goes off, the American navy is conveniently off shore.

    On 2 January 2006, U.S. Marines operating out of Lamu, Kenya, were said to be assisting Kenyan forces patrolling the border with Somalia with the interception of Islamists.[18] On 8 January it was reported that an AC-130 gunship belonging to the United States military had attacked suspected al-Qaeda operatives in southern Somalia. It was also reported that the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower had been moved into striking distance.[

    How convenient. It also appears that there were some reports of US combat troops getting involved on the ground:

    Reports in the Yememi Arabic newspaper Al-nedaa stated Sharif Ahmed's release was the first conditional step to arrange the release of varying reports of 11 or 15 United States Marines allegedly captured during fighting in southern Somalia at the Battle of Ras Kamboni. Four Marines were also alleged to have been wounded in the fighting.[31][32] </em

    Now, perhaps these reports can be taken with a grain of salt, and we can overlook the allegations of American ground forces in play. After all (Cambodia), its not as if (Cambodia) US forces ever secretly invaded (Cambodia) a country (Cambodia), or ran a secret army (Nicaragua) for the purpose of (Nicaragua) invading another (Nicaragua) country. So, let’s set that last one aside.

    Here are the facts, Brendan:

    * Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the poorest continent.

    * Ethiopia is so impoverished that it could not keep its seacoast province, Eritrea, from breaking away, and could not win a war with Eritrea.

    * Somalia poses no current or forseeable threat to Ethiopia or Ethiopian territory.

    * Somehow, from somewhere, Ethiopia finds the cash to put together an invasion and occupation of Somalia. Hmmm. Do you think this is the sort of project that the IMF or the World Bank lends money for? Maybe the Ethiopians went to EZ Credit? Whattaya think, they got a subprime loan or something?

    * The invasion takes place *after* US Mid-Term elections.

    * At the same time as the invasion, US military forces participate in guarding Kenya’s border with Somalia.

    * At the same time as the invasion, US warships are stationed off the coast of Somalia.

    * On multiple occasions early in the invasion, the US intervenes with air raids, including an air raid on a key battle between Ethiopians and Somali. Air raids continue into 2008.

    *Then in December 2009/January 2009, coincidental timing with the American change of Administrations, Ethiopia pulls out and goes home.

    Well, come on, let’s not sit there being willfuly stupid about things. Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source, but it will do to establish the prima facie case. Many of the news items about US troops, air raids and ship deployment were reported in contemporary sources. Taken together, the Ethiopian Campaign seems to be a not so thinly veiled proxy war conceived and directed by the Bush administration. Were there local interests involved? Sure there were. But let’s call a spade a spade.

11. Brendan Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    Thanks, Den, interesting stuff. The military support, which I’d forgotten about, certainly makes it seem more likely that there was financial support as well. Maybe it’s a prima facie case. I could certainly believe it. My main worries about the above are:

    - I was thinking of the more recent conflict with Eritrea, which obviously neither of them could well afford, but they fought it anyways.

    - I thought Ethiopa did think Somalia posed a threat given rebellion in the Ogaden (fluid and unstable border, etc.).

    - Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries on the continent but it also has one of the best militaries.

    But whatever, I certainly don’t think what you’re saying seems particularly unlikely.

    Incidentally, I don’t particularly like the snide tone, nor being told I’m being stupid, let alone willfully so. I think it’s unfair (but I would), and it’s at least uncivil. I asked an honest question and I’m happy to hear your take, and I don’t see why you feel the need to accompany it with insults.

12. Den Valdron Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Brendan,

    (1) I could care less. You say stupid things, I’ll call you on stupid things. Somehow you managed to remember an obscure little border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but you conveniently forgot American military involvement in the Ethiopian invasion? Come on.

    (2) The Ethiopian/Eritrean war that you refer to was initiated by Eritrea, not Ethiopia. Given that the majority of Ethiopia’s foreign trade was crossing through Eritrea, it wasn’t something that the Ethiopians really wanted. I don’t really see you having an argument about Ethiopia being prepared to undertake expenses when it did not go looking for that war. A war that it is, even now, still paying for.

    (3) The assertion that Ethiopia has one of Africa’s best armies is all but meaningless. The United States has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, but launching invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq represent additional costs of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and the long term bill will run to the trillions. It’s one thing to maintain an army in its barracks. It’s a major investment to move that army into the field, into a foreign country, and to undertake operations and occupation, where it will be under fire. Fuel, replacement, rotation and attrition costs alone go through the roof. Now, granted that Ethiopian soldiers kill for peanuts, but its still costly, and beyond Ethiopia’s financial resources to fund. So who underwrote the war? Budget Rent-A-Tank?

    (4) Ethiopia has multiple insurgencies, among them the Ogaden and the Oromo. The Ogaden insurgency flairs and subsides. There’s no significant evidence or indication that forces in Somalia were driving or significantly funding or equipping the Ogaden Somali. Indeed, the evidence is that Ethiopia was involved in political manipulation of elements of the ongoing Somali civil war and that its security issues were at least resolved in that respect. So the Ogaden is a red herring.

    Now, really, if you go look at Bush’s budgets and special appropriations, you won’t see a check written to the Dergue to invade Somalia. But then, you won’t see any budget line items for waterboarding either. This stuff just doesn’t show up on regular budgets. But its also acknowledged that there are tens of billions in military and intelligence black budgets that are not publicly accountable.

13. Den Valdron Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    On further reflection, Brendan, please accept my apologies. While I have some concerns that your positions were either not thought out, poorly thought out, or potentially deceptive, it was not necessary or appropriate to use some of the harsher language.

14. JonF Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Re: The Ethiopian invasion of Somalia essentially runs from December 2006, after American mid-term elections, to January, 2009, with Ethiopia withdrawing after Bush leaves office.

    Correlation does not equal causation.
    And the rest of the world is perfectly capable of producing epic fubars without the US (or any other outside power) directing the show. This tinfoil hat idea that the US (being a force for evil) has to be hip-deep in everything going on is just the mirror image of the neocon folly that the US (being a force for good) should be hip deep in everything.
    That said, I don’t doubt the US provided the Ethiopians with some intelligence and satellite data and with Washington’s blessing. But I see no hard evidence of anything more than that. Someone produces real evidence I’ll change my mind.

15. Den Valdron Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    This tinfoil hat idea that the US …

    That said, I don’t doubt the US provided the Ethiopians with some intelligence and satellite data and with Washington’s blessing.

    Mmm hmm. Intelligence, Satellite Data, Washington’s blessing, air strikes at odd intervals, border supervision, naval deployment…. Yep, I’ll just sign you up for a tinfoil hat there, sunny.

    Do you even bother to read before you post, or do you just pick random slurs off a list?