Eithopian/Somali govt. forces gain upper hand

[Guerrilla22]

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Thousands of Somali and Ethiopian troops closed in Saturday on the last remaining stronghold of a militant Islamic movement in southern Somalia, as the prime minister called for talks to avoid further bloodshed.

Some 3,000 Muslim militiamen have taken a stand in the port city of Kismayo, wedged between the Kenyan border and the Indian Ocean, and the U.S. government believes they may include four suspects in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Islamic movement's leader, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, pledged to continue its fight despite losing capital and other key towns in recent days. "I want to tell you that the Islamic courts are still alive and ready to fight against the enemy of Allah," he told residents in Kismayo.

The military advance on Kismayo marks the latest move in a stunning turnaround for Somalia's government, which just weeks ago could barely control one town, its base of Baidoa in the west. Since Ethiopia's dramatic entry into the war last week, however, government troops have retaken the capital, Mogadishu, and pushed the Islamists from much of the territory they held for six months.

The Somali and Ethiopian troops, riding in 16 Ethiopian tanks and armored vehicles, were positioned about 75 miles north of Kismayo on Saturday. A trickle of Somalis began to leave the city in anticipation of an attack.

"We are going to advance from different directions to try and encircle the city and force the Islamic group to retreat and so minimize the loss of civilians," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told The Associated Press.

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi called for talks with the Islamic courts movement, but said the government was ready to fight if necessary.

"We are calling on the Somali representatives of the Islamic courts for dialogue and to join us," Gedi said on the outskirts of the capital, where he was meeting with local clan elders to smooth the handover of the city. But he added: "If the remnants of the terrorists try to attack, yes of course bloodshed will take place."

On Friday, Gedi had ruled out immediate talks, even after key Islamic officials traveled to Kenya for possible peace negotiations.

"We cannot talk peace after all this bloodshed," he told The Associated Press at the time.

The conflict in Somalia has drawn the attention of the United States, which is eager to capture suspected al-Qaida terrorists in the Horn of Africa.

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet has a maritime task force patrolling international waters off the Somali coast. Gedi said his government was in daily contact with the Americans.

The U.S. government — which says four suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have become leaders in the Islamic movement — has a counterterrorism task force based in neighboring Djibouti and has been training Kenyan and Ethiopian forces to protect their borders.

Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf said Saturday, meanwhile, that the government was continuing its plans to move to the Somali capital. He also pledged to bring more troops to help secure the region, while Gedi also said he expects to disarm militias in the city within three weeks.

Many in overwhelmingly Muslim Somalia are skeptical of the government's reliance on neighboring Ethiopia, a traditional rival with a large Christian population and one of Africa's largest armies. Ethiopia and Somalia fought a bloody war in 1977.

In Mogadishu, protesters in some neighborhoods denounced the government on Saturday, while about 300 people held a rally in another area in support of the troops. Many were holding signs and chanting, "We support the government."

Before the Islamists established control, Mogadishu had been ruled by competing clans who came together to support the Islamic fighters. Now, some fear the clans could return to fighting one another and may reject the government's authority. Somalia's complex clan politics have been the undoing of at least 14 attempts to install a government in this violent nation.

[Dimentio]

Interesting considering that Somalia is the only nation-state in Africa.

[Janus]

Interesting considering that Somalia is the only nation-state in Africa.
How so? Somalia has no national government and large portions of it have already seceded. It's a very loose state with little nationalist fervor.

[Severian]

Probably he means nation-state in the sense of nationally homogenous state; e.g. France is associated with the French language, culture, etc. Most borders in Africa were drawn without regard to the nationality/language/ethnicity of the people living in them.

It's true that Somalia is an exception - and that hasn't saved it from disintegration. 'Course, unlike France it wasn't formed through a bourgeois revolution, so is it really accurate to say it's a modern nation-state?

[Guerrilla22]

They have a national government, it was put together in Kenya and apparently they even have soldiers, who are of course being backed by Eithoipia and no doubt the CIA and US special forces.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 02:17 pm
Probably he means nation-state in the sense of nationally homogenous state; e.g. France is associated with the French language, culture, etc. Most borders in Africa were drawn without regard to the nationality/language/ethnicity of the people living in them.

It's true that Somalia is an exception - and that hasn't saved it from disintegration. 'Course, unlike France it wasn't formed through a bourgeois revolution, so is it really accurate to say it's a modern nation-state?
Somalia is split up between a very weak nominal government consisting of various outside national forces, various warlords, the Islamic Courts and then Somaliland in the north. I probally missed out various other parties. Somaliland even has it's own government and laws.

I don't understand what Serpent meant, surely he knows the condition of Somalia.

[Guerrilla22]

I don;t know what Somalia being a nation stae has to do with the current situation.

[Janus]

Most borders in Africa were drawn without regard to the nationality/language/ethnicity of the people living in them.
But then there are the North African nations as well so I don't see how Somalia is the only exception.

[MiniOswald]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 03:46 am
They have a national government, it was put together in Kenya and apparently they even have soldiers, who are of course being backed by Eithoipia and no doubt the CIA and US special forces.
I think the US backed off a bit after it got burnt by backing the warlords, who lost to the UIC, some of whom I think it protected, they'll most likely ship them back in at some point.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Hiero+December 31, 2006 06:31 am--> (Hiero @ December 31, 2006 06:31 am)
[email protected] 31, 2006 02:17 pm
Probably he means nation-state in the sense of nationally homogenous state; e.g. France is associated with the French language, culture, etc. Most borders in Africa were drawn without regard to the nationality/language/ethnicity of the people living in them.

It's true that Somalia is an exception - and that hasn't saved it from disintegration. 'Course, unlike France it wasn't formed through a bourgeois revolution, so is it really accurate to say it's a modern nation-state?
Somalia is split up between a very weak nominal government consisting of various outside national forces, various warlords, the Islamic Courts and then Somaliland in the north. I probally missed out various other parties. Somaliland even has it's own government and laws.

I don't understand what Serpent meant, surely he knows the condition of Somalia. [/b]
Somalia is the most ethnically homogenous country in Africa south of Sahara, i.e. "Black Africa". Yet it is the country which have collapsed the most.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by MiniOswald+December 31, 2006 12:30 pm--> (MiniOswald @ December 31, 2006 12:30 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 03:46 am
They have a national government, it was put together in Kenya and apparently they even have soldiers, who are of course being backed by Eithoipia and no doubt the CIA and US special forces.
I think the US backed off a bit after it got burnt by backing the warlords, who lost to the UIC, some of whom I think it protected, they'll most likely ship them back in at some point. [/b]
You can bet they're still heavily involved. There's at least one US Naval ship sitting off the coast of Somalia that reportedly has been in contact with government forces on a daily basis, they're most likely serving as a type of command center.

[Phalanx]

I've heard of CIA plans of sending tomahawk missles in the way of the UIC, but that was before Ethiopia got heavily involved. Now the entire situation is up in the air, because even with the UIC defeated in conventional warfare, it's quite likely they'll launch a guerrilla war.

[Jacob Peters]

This campaign amounts to American aggression by proxy. What Ethiopia has committed is an outright violation of international law and is unprovoked aggression. Forces aligned with the Islamic Courts did not set foot in Ethiopian soil. What Ethiopia has committed here is the same sort of vicious aggression committed by Somalia by that Sadatist traitor Siad Barre. Ethiopia's behavior will result in a humanitarian catastrophe and will undermine international peace. It is all well elaborated here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/opinion/edlone.php

[phoenixoftime]

Although I don't really like the UIC, it has to be said they have achieved a lot for Somalia. They managed to restore order to large parts of a country in complete chaos. Had they been victorious, perhaps the country might've been in some sort of state to begin rebuilding, but now it appears there will be bloodshed for a fair while yet.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 11:59 pm
Before the Islamists established control, Mogadishu had been ruled by competing clans who came together to support the Islamic fighters. Now, some fear the clans could return to fighting one another and may reject the government's authority. Somalia's complex clan politics have been the undoing of at least 14 attempts to install a government in this violent nation.
That is the great paradox of politics. Since people will not cooperate as small units, the solution is often seen as creating a system of cooperation by creating a federal government, a big unit. It seems to ignore the obvious fact: If people will not cooperate to begin with as equals, then putting one person in charge will make the problem worse, not better.

Like the American Revolution, if people were unwilling to respect the laws of a constitutional monarch, then why would they respect the laws of a constitutional presidency? Going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a counter-revolution, but the original revolution already reflected an inability cooperate.

Of course, trade is the primary problem that leads to conflict. Trade is an equal exchange, whereas profit is an unequal exchange. Creating a government requires overhead, so the government must "profit" through taxes. The bigger the government becomes in an attempt to resolve problems, the more problems it creates by its bloated existence. The government then encourages profit, so it can tax the profit, which feeds the problem.

As another nation gets involved in trading with a nation, the more stress the nation endures. New money in the economy creates the existence of more profits, which eventually divides the society between the haves and have-nots. Whereas trade is good, because we are all interdependent, profit is bad. Profit was not invented by the Western Imperialists, it has existed for thousands of years, and the same conflicts simply replay themselves with new faces and new technology.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by stevec+January 01, 2007 02:01 pm--> (stevec @ January 01, 2007 02:01 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 11:59 pm
Before the Islamists established control, Mogadishu had been ruled by competing clans who came together to support the Islamic fighters. Now, some fear the clans could return to fighting one another and may reject the government's authority. Somalia's complex clan politics have been the undoing of at least 14 attempts to install a government in this violent nation.
That is the great paradox of politics. Since people will not cooperate as small units, the solution is often seen as creating a system of cooperation by creating a federal government, a big unit. It seems to ignore the obvious fact: If people will not cooperate to begin with as equals, then putting one person in charge will make the problem worse, not better.

Like the American Revolution, if people were unwilling to respect the laws of a constitutional monarch, then why would they respect the laws of a constitutional presidency? Going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a counter-revolution, but the original revolution already reflected an inability cooperate.

Of course, trade is the primary problem that leads to conflict. Trade is an equal exchange, whereas profit is an unequal exchange. Creating a government requires overhead, so the government must "profit" through taxes. The bigger the government becomes in an attempt to resolve problems, the more problems it creates by its bloated existence. The government then encourages profit, so it can tax the profit, which feeds the problem.

As another nation gets involved in trading with a nation, the more stress the nation endures. New money in the economy creates the existence of more profits, which eventually divides the society between the haves and have-nots. Whereas trade is good, because we are all interdependent, profit is bad. Profit was not invented by the Western Imperialists, it has existed for thousands of years, and the same conflicts simply replay themselves with new faces and new technology. [/b]
We are not all necessarily inter-dependent. Theoretically, we could think of units so big that they do not need to trade with the outer world, and could distribute things with a low cost, i.e. technates.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course the US government is behind this. The hands of the new Dijbouti-based "Unified Africa Command" are all over this. In the climate created by the U.S.'s inability to accomplish all of their goals in Iraq and Afghanistan with outright and frontal attack by their official military, they are now testing strategies of war by proxy and the use of special forces and mercenaries.

The U.S. has already called on Uganda and Kenya to send troops. The Ugandan government has refused due to popular opposition (even among the local bourgeoisie and compradors) in their country.

The funniest part is that the U.S. was behind the Somalian invasion of Ethiopia, and now they're behind the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:23 pm
We are not all necessarily inter-dependent. Theoretically, we could think of units so big that they do not need to trade with the outer world, and could distribute things with a low cost, i.e. technates.
Changing the size of the unit does not change the nature of inter-dependency or "trade." Even in a family there is a division of labor, and so therefore there is trade by the roles we play.

It is also the nature of trade in society that only 1/3 are doing the most productivity. There is perpetually a group that is unable to contribute because they are either too young or too old. This exists regardless of the technological or political habits of the society.

Once you introduce the concept of "cost" it is no longer trade, but an accounting system. Wars are primarily a result of the accounting systems, not because of trade. If a mother charged a child to wipe its bottom, then the family would implode the same as general society implodes.

What is a technate?

[Janus]

They managed to restore order to large parts of a country in complete chaos. Had they been victorious, perhaps the country might've been in some sort of state to begin rebuilding, but now it appears there will be bloodshed for a fair while yet.
Yes, with the IUC gone, there is now a power vacuum that the warlords are now rushing in to fill in Mogadishu and the surrounding souther regions. And it's doubtful that the government can exercise much control of them unless the Ethiopian army remains (something that most Somalians deeply resent).

[Severian]

Originally posted by phoenixoftime+January 01, 2007 12:33 am--> (phoenixoftime @ January 01, 2007 12:33 am) Although I don't really like the UIC, it has to be said they have achieved a lot for Somalia. They managed to restore order to large parts of a country in complete chaos. [/b]
One could say the same for the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's understandable why people in the midst of chaos might support anyone who brings law and order.

But to choose law and order at all costs is massively problematic. Consider what that means in the context of your own country's politics - I'll bet it's not exactly the banner of the more progressive forces.

It's been said that those who choose security over freedom will get neither. Certainly that's how things have worked out in Somalia.

"Had they been victorious" - what's the point in that what-if? They weren't, predictably, and can't represent any kind of realistic road forward in the world of the 21st century.

The UIC gave Ethiopia a deadline to withdraw its forces or face holy war. Even some of the UIC leaders seem to have known what the result would be, judging by the fact they soon left the country.


CdeL
In the climate created by the U.S.'s inability to accomplish all of their goals in Iraq and Afghanistan with outright and frontal attack by their official military, they are now testing strategies of war by proxy and the use of special forces and mercenaries.

"Now testing"? I think that's backward. It'd be better to say, in the situation where they couldn't find proxy forces to do the job, they directly invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Even there, they used proxy forces to do most of the ground combat in the Afghanistan invasion.

Ever since Vietnam, at least, Washington has consistently preferred proxy warfare whenever it's an option. It's a success of their foreign policy that they found a proxy to do this job for them. Even with all the uncertainty about the stability of the new regime.

Nobody's mentioned Eritrea, but it's been a major factor and probably will continue to be. It's likely it will continue to look for ways to cause trouble for Ethiopia in Somalia, for as long as the Eritrean-Ethiopian disputes remain unresolved.

[Guerrilla22]

Somalia is another sad example of 200 years of colonialism can do to a country as well as outside forces (in this case the US) propping up a totilitarian leader for their own interest, which leads to more instability, untill the country is reduced to a free for all with numerous militas all vying for power.

Now the US, through Eithopia is attempting to prop up a supposedly legitimite government, that it and its allies created, by using military force. What makes the Somali government legit, because the individuals who make it up were deemed "acceptable" by the US and the West? Western style democracy at the point of gun, great.