Naxar So far you have nothing to celebrate about, other then your own defeat which you haven’t yet realized. Ethiopia is part of the problem, without the Ethiopians, the TFG would be nonexistent. You should know how crucial the Ethiopian support is to our puppet government. It plays an important role in shaping the future of Somalia. Such a satisfaction shouldn’t have been given to them. Ethiopia was the only one which was doing all the wok, the TFG slightly just nodded their head in uncertainty.

MMA, you could say I am democratically leaning. The voice of the majority will eventually influence my decisions in their direction. I guess italics and bold is bad combination. I don’t want your glass to crack because of my posting style Castro, if only words could kill. Half of the TFG supporters would have being buried six feet deep by now. As for the italics and bold, I don’t intend to lose MMA or you, two brilliant individuals who i have a lot to learn from. I will make it simply regular, rather old skool for me, but this is after all SOL

Bump….

Bump….

Bump….

^^^ Odd, bold and italics are easy for my eyes. But if more of you insist, I will only make it regular, neither bold or italics, or just maybe italics I will post more articles of such nature. They will help discredit the TFG threadbare threads that have the same old propaganda to spread.

Excellent article maakhir. America and Ethiopia have a lot in common. Their abhorrence for the Somali Muslims is indisputable by those who aren’t influenced by clannish ideology. Somalis can only unite under the banner of Islam, to fully acknowledge the Shariah law and follow it by assimilating it into our society and guiding principles will help us to some degree diminish the clan loathing which is widespread among the Somalis in Somalia and around the globe.

Taako The TFG is staining its own vision (well at least the vision that was expected of them). It doesn’t require the media’s help.

^^^^ We can’t do that while the TFG is ordering to get more foreign troops into Somalia.

In Part II of this series, I raised questions about Ethiopia’s regional ambitions vis-a-vis Somalia and Eritrea, and how those aspirations might create a conflict of interest whereby Ethiopia would be tempted to exaggerate the threat of the Somali Islamist government (ICU) in order to garner US assistance. Such ulterior interests also create the possibility for the emergence of some tension down the road between Ethiopia’s long term designs and those of the United States. Whereas, ideally, it would be in the interest of the US to help create a peaceful, stable Somalia whose population would not be drawn to radicalism like that preached by al-Qaeda, Ethiopia might be better served by a weak, divided, chaotic Somalia that would remain unable to effectively challenge Ethiopia in the arena of the two nations’ border disputes and other competing territorial claims (regardless of al-Qaeda’s good fortunes as a result). In this addendum to Part II, I wanted to further shine a spotlight on the party that’s riding shotgun with us in this dubious military endeavor. Matt Yglesias provides a useful segue: [O]ne of the costs of these kind of proxy wars is that Bush has married us not just to Ethiopia, but to a particular Ethiopian faction and thereby gotten us involved in all manner of issues and controversies your average American — even your average American foreign policy professional — doesn’t really understand or care about. This point should not be underestimated. Ethiopia itself is a nation of diverse ethnic, religious and political affiliations. The government and policies of the current leader, Meles Zenawi, do not represent a strong consensus of Ethiopians - despite the way the Ethiopian/Somali conflict is framed in the Western media. From Mik Awake: Although every story about this East African Fiasco ends by punctuating the “historically Christian” Ethiopia, they fail to mention that Ethiopia is as historically Muslim as it is historically Jewish as it is historically Christian. They fail to cite the facts: that Ethiopia is more than 50% Muslim. That certain tribes on the border share a Somalian and an Ethiopian identity, passports, family members, etc. Consistent with this myopic view of Ethiopian society, Mik Awake takes note of a recent World Bank decision that seems to take the lesson learned from generous US aid delivered to tsunami victims in Muslim Indonesia (hint: our approval ratings increased dramatically), and turn it on its head: This all leads up to what I just read in today’s headlines. In a shocking move, the World Bank has approved of $175 million in aid to be given to the Ethiopian government. Though aid has its problems, that’s not the disgusting part. This is: “The program is focused on the very poorest of the poor in Ethiopia and on its own merits it needs to continue,” [Trina Hague of the World Bank] said, “It doesn’t cover the Somali region of Ethiopia and we will under the program be starting some piloting under the safety net. It won’t be financed by the World Bank, but will have some bilateral food aid contributions,” she added. In essence, the World Bank has promised this money to Ethiopia, with the express stipulation that the Somali region of Ethiopia (which is a legitimate part of the country and has been for centuries, and which is also one of the neediest) not see any of it. Perhaps there are legitimate safety concerns that are driving the regional application of the aid, but this seems like a tremendous opportunity to squander. $175 million could buy a lot of hearts and minds. Or at least rent them for a while. More than the Vulcan Cannons firing out of AC-130 gun ships. Unfortunately, all indications are that the Ethiopian government will use the recent US/World Bank generosity to further its own anti-democratic faction at the expense of its Ethiopian rivals. At least if the pattern holds. This Washington Post article provides a glimpse into the political life in Ethiopia. It also raises additional questions about the motivations driving our putative ally: Last year’s [Ethopian] elections began with high hopes and degenerated into a bloodbath. Opposition groups, who made significant gains but did not win a majority according to the national election board, accused the government of rigging the tally and flooded the streets to challenge the results. During the rallies in May and November last year, unarmed protesters were sprayed with bullets while others were hunted down, killed inside their homes and in their gardens, in front of children and neighbors. Though the official government report released in October listed 197 demonstrators killed, some members of the government’s own commission and human rights groups have estimated that the number could be as high as 600. Seven police officers were killed. While most of the 30,000 prisoners taken after the election have been released, several hundred opposition leaders remain in jail, including the elected mayor of Addis Ababa, Birhanu Nega, who was a professor in the United States, and Haile Miriam Yacob, who served on the U.N. commission settling a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. […] As Ethiopia and Somalia’s Islamic Courts movement inch closer each day to all-out conflict, a widespread view among people here in the capital is that Meles is using the conflict to distract people from a vast array of internal problems and to justify further repression of opposition groups, including ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia. In particular, opponents of war say he is playing up the claim that there are al-Qaeda operatives within the Islamic Courts in order to maintain the support of the U.S. government, which relies on a steady flow of Ethiopian intelligence that some regional analysts say is of dubious value. […] …”This regime is democratic only in words. They kill people without any law, and they arrest people without a reason. This government is trying to stay in power by using different mechanisms, like claiming the Somalis are invading. But this is not the case. Meles is trying to externalize his problems.” And those problems are vast. After 12 years in power, Meles presides over a nation that still does not produce enough food to feed its own people, relying on the U.N. World Food Program to supplement struggling farmers. The number of people infected with HIV is rising every year: At least 500,000 Ethiopians are living with the virus now, according to government figures. At least half of the population lives on less than $1 a day, which is not enough to buy a single meal. […] …Meles said the Islamic Courts have already attacked Ethiopia by arming secessionist Ethiopian Somali groups in the ****** region along the Somali border, a claim opposition leaders believe is both exaggerated and hardly a justification for war. “Our argument is that all the governments we’ve known since 1960 say they want the ******,” said Beyene Petros, leader of the main opposition group, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, referring to Somalia. In an effort to rehabiliate the Ethiopian regime’s image (or provide a preemptive whitewash, depending on the audience), many cite the fact that the Meles government is backing the UN-recognized Somali government in its battle with the ICU. Given Ethiopia’s track record in terms of human rights abuses internally, as well as its lack of regard for the UN generally speaking, this reeks more of opportunism than an enlightened approach to issues of sovereignty. As a commenter over at the Armchair Generalist’s solo digs observed: Ethiopia is in violation of a UN-brokered peace treaty with Eritrea, which is something else that isn’t often reported. A UN commission drew a new border after hearing both sides of the dispute, which Ethipoia promptly disregarded, touching off the last couple of rounds of fighting between the two countries. No worries. There’s an explanation for that as well. You see, Eritrea is now a state sponsor of terrorism, so Ethiopia is just doing us all a little favor. This new designation comes regardless of the fact that that same Eritrean government happened to be a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” during the Iraq invasion. Yeah, but what have you done for me lately Eritrea? Source

Mission Accomplished? Reuters is reporting that Ethiopian troops will begin withdrawing from the Somali capital of Mogadishu today. While the current Somali government has maintained, repeatedly, that the Ethiopian soldiers will be replaced with a contingent of peacekeepers from the African Union (made up of troops from several African nations), the willingness and ability of the African Union to muster and deploy such a force remains in doubt given its current commitments in Darfur and general logistical difficulties. Further complicating the matter, playing referee to warring factions in Mogadishu is not exactly a plum assignment conducive to peacekeeping success, or light-footprinted deployments. Somalia’s notorious clan-based conflicts are not only limited to the current Somali government’s (TFG) battles with factions loyal to the ousted Islamic Courts Union (ICU). Even the TFG coalition has begun to splinter and fall prey to infighting. Tim Lister explains the scope of the challenge: Occupying Mogadishu, as U.S. and other forces found in the 1990s, is a perilous undertaking. A city of narrow streets and alleys and hundreds of wrecked buildings, it is perfect territory for snipers and suicide bombers. The Ethiopians say they want to withdraw from Somalia within weeks, aware of the potential quagmire it might otherwise become. Even on the day they entered Mogadishu, some Ethiopian convoys were attacked by crowds throwing stones. Two weeks later, an ambush of a Somali/Ethiopian convoy in the south of the city, where the Islamic Courts were strongest, left two people dead. The transitional government has declared martial law to try to bring order to the city. Besides the Islamist threat, there is the task of subduing various clans that use checkpoints as a license for extortion and harass businesses. There is no police presence in Mogadishu, so that task will fall to soldiers of the transitional government and the Ethiopians….Within two weeks of the Islamists’ expulsion, there were signs of a resurgence in clan warfare. Several were killed in a firefight between TFG troops and militia of clan leader Mohamed Qanyare Afrah outside the Villa Somalia, the presidential residence. “Another Iraq is not going to happen in Somalia,” declared Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, but the Ethiopians are facing overlapping conflicts and rivalries that would be familiar to U.S. commanders in Baghdad. Well, Prime Minister Meles may be able to make good on the vow that Somalia will not turn into another Iraq - for Ethiopian forces at least. Rather than opting to stick around, attending to the difficult task of establishing security and stability, the Ethiopians have one foot out the door. In that same article from just a few days ago, Tim Lister asked: Will the Ethiopians now stay in Somalia to provide order or withdraw quickly and hope that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) can establish its authority? The answer to the first part of the question seems to be coming together already. As to Ethiopia’s intentions to support the long term success of the TFG, as I suggested earlier, for Ethiopia: “[d]estabilizing Somalia, and leaving it wracked with violence and disorder, is a feature not a bug.” At the very least, it isn’t worth the trouble to try to prevent (albeit, a cynical perspective). Somalia is a regional rival with a long history of conflict with Ethiopia. The two nations have been feuding over contested borders, and the inclination of separatist ethnic/religious movements residing across those disputed borders, for decades. The notion that Ethiopia’s recent intervention in Somalia was born out of altruistic concern for the well being of the Somalis is beyond naive. While the Ethiopian government had some legitimate gripes with the ICU, it is difficult to see any of these as a legitimate cassus belli. Instead, the invasion looks more and more like a regional powerplay designed to knock its rival off balance - while creating a domestic political windfall for the unpopular Ethiopian regime (and giving it license to further repress internal political rivals). With that in mind, it becomes easier to appreciate the fact that for Ethiopia, the current state of play in Somalia - despite the likelihood of a descent into lawless violence - looks like Mission Accomplished. Kind of makes all those conservative pundits who were breathlessly heaping praise on the prowess of Ethiopia’s military look a little silly. For these pundits, Ethiopia had unlocked the secret to military success that had thus far eluded us in Iraq: a combination of extreme indifference to civilian life, and relative non-attention from the meddlesome media. Cliff May, in a pique of infatuation, asked: Maybe we can learn something from the Ethiopians in Somalia? John Miller followed this up with even more over the top adulation: …I can’t read the news today and keep from wondering whether we should airlift a few Ethiopian battalions into Baghdad. Come to think of it, Miller and May might just have a point - even if not the one intended. If we could airlift a few Ethiopian battalions into Baghdad, maybe they could show us how to head for the exits.

^^They are putting more lies out there. Those 25,000 aren't all Christians.

Eric Martin Via Blake Hounshell comes news that US forces launched another AC-130 air strike in Somalia today. As with the previous effort launched earlier this month, this strike was ostensibly aimed at suspected al-Qaeda operatives. Despite claims made in the aftermath by Somali government spokesmen to the contrary, that earlier attack did not result in the death of any of the al-Qaeda targets. It is not known whether we hit any of the desired targets this time either. The article also reports on the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Mogadishu, and eventually all of Somalia, as mentioned on this site yesterday. There was one additional bit from the article that stood out to me because of its significance in terms of appreciating Ethiopia’s motives for invading neighboring Somalia. Keep in mind that most observers expect Mogadishu - and Somalia generally speaking - to fall prey to anarchy and widespread clan violence when Ethiopian complete their withdrawal, now that the stabilizing ICU government has been toppled. That is, unless those departing Ethiopian troops are replaced by sufficient numbers of international peacekeepers. The deployment of such peacekeeping forces remains dubious at best, and even if they are provided as planned, they are no guarantee against a return to chaos. So the prospects for Somalia going forward are not bright. If Mogadishu descends into another period of clan warfare, some regional analysts say, that is precisely what Ethiopian Prime Minister Zenawi Meles wanted all along. As evidence, they point to an Ethiopian government foreign policy report submitted to that country’s Parliament two years ago. According to an English translation, Ethiopian security officials wrote that Somalia was so divided that it “no longer posed a threat” to Ethiopia. [emphasis added] As I’ve been suggesting all along, this eventualilty is a feature, not a bug. Although the cited report is not exactly smoking gun evidence of such motives, common sense dictates that longtime, bitter rivals generally don’t expend blood and treasure to better the cause of their adversaries. The fact that such concepts appear in official Ethiopian strategy papers should come as no surprise. When the facts on the ground and previous policy match up with common sense, let Occam’s razor cut to the chase. Source =========================================== Ooh, how i love the way Eric Martin clarifies what has been so obvious to most of the TFG opposing Somalis and other individuals. The Ethiopians were never interested in helping Somalia become a nation that could challenge them in the future. The lion doesn’t tell his weakness to his prey. And Ethiopia has brought more deaths and destruction to the Somalia nation, that is a fact.

In Part I of this series, I took note of the premature, exaggerated and morally suspect praise for the Ethiopian military’s early successes in its Somalia campaign. Ethiopia’s martial prowess exhibited during the invasion was touted by conservative pundits as the product of Ethiopia’s excessively brutal tactics and lack of regard for innocent civilian life and the associated moral condemnation from the international community. The next step for these pundits was to argue that if we would only imitate this savagery and callousness in our Iraqi counterinsurgency operations, we too could enjoy sweeping victory. This skewed analysis ignores the basic fact that in such confrontations, an army with air power, armor and artillery (Ethiopia’s) can almost always initially beat disorganized bands of untrained fighters with small arms and the occasional “technical” (a term that refers to a flatbed truck with a .50 caliber machine gun affixed to the bed). On top of Ethiopia’s already superior military capacity, it now appears that its forces were bolstered by US air support, as well as support from units on the ground. Worse still, those that seek to draw lessons from Ethiopia’s recent experience simply glide passed the all important fact that American forces, like Ethiopia’s, achieved most of their goals in the invasion stage of the conflict, but the next phase - involving insurgencies and guerilla raids - is what has bogged us down. The insurgency/guerilla phase will likely prove problematic for Ethiopia regardless of their level of brutality or willingness to slaughter civilians en masse. Ralph Peters, who has for some time been urging our military leaders to adopt policies designed to maximize enemy casualties regardless of the collateral effects on civilian populations, has been, predictably, endorsing the Ethiopian approach. Nevertheless, Peters acknowledges that an insurgency could be brewing, even if he does so with an analogy to our Iraq experience that doesn’t quite deliver what he intends: Now the media line is that it was all a plan, that the Islamists intended all along to fight a guerrilla war. Sure, right. We’ve heard this one before, folks: The same pundits argued that Saddam never intended to fight a conventional war, but had always planned to hide in a hole in the ground while his sons were killed so he could eventually be dragged out by our troops and hanged by his own people. To which I would reply: huh? Whether or not Saddam planned to conduct an insurgency operation (there is evidence pointing both ways), an effective insurgency arose regardless. In one sense, the potential for lasting counterinsurgency success in Somalia would appear stronger if Saddam had in fact done the extensive insurgency planning that Peters dismisses: after all, if an effective insurgency can emerge ex nihilo, without preparation as in Peters’ version of Iraq, then it likely could do so in Somalia as well. I’d rather think that it was Saddam’s brainchild, and thus can’t be repeated so easily. But here’s the upshot: it is unclear the extent to which Ethiopia would be bothered by the prospect of a roiling insurgency/civil war in neighboring Somalia either way. Sure, Ethiopia would likely continue to take shots at the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) faction from a safe redoubt in those portions of Somalia controlled by the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) - or Ethiopian territory itself - but they’re not going to pour blood and treasure into Somalia in order to better the political situation in a nation that has been their frequent rival. Destabilizing Somalia, and leaving it wracked with violence and disorder, is a feature not a bug - at least for the Ethiopians. Gary Brecher captures the sentiment with his usual irreverant style: If the only force holding the [TFG] “government” up was its own fighters, Baidoa would have fallen to the Islamists long ago…. Luckily, Ethiopia is standing behind the [TFG] government because the last thing the Ethiopians want is a strong, Islamic Somalia. In fact, Ethiopia doesn’t really want there to be a Somalia at all. They say that Somalia’s occupying what ought to be Ethiopian land, the ******. The two countries already went to war over it in 1977 — usual African result, no winners and lots of dead bodies. The Ethiopian leaders know Somalia very well, because most of them lived in Somalia before they overthrew Mengistu. Ethiopia already lost its other potential coastline to Eritrea, the Prussia of Africa, and they’re damned if they’re going to watch the last bit of ocean-view property fall into the hands of some sleazy worry-bead fingering Mullah-slash-condo developer. So they’re propping up this useless excuse for a government, and we’re helping them… This is not to say that the Ethiopians have no legitimate gripes with the ICU. The potential for the ICU to stoke Muslim unrest in Ethiopia is real, and the ICU has threatened Ethiopia with jihad and other territorial expansions - even if Ethiopia’s protests about the seriousness of Somalia’s military threat have been shown to be considerably overblown by the ease of Ethiopia’s recent military defeat of the supposed forces of aggression. Further, the fact remains that Ethiopia’s interests in invading Somalia might have more to do with regional politics and long-standing border disputes than any perceived threat from the ICU. In addition to the relative weakness of Somalia’s military threat, it becomes harder to argue that Ethiopia moved against the ICU in order to quiet Muslim unrest in Ethiopia when such aggression could likely result in exactly the opposite. Further, we should acknowledge that the Islamist specter is a convenient one for Ethiopia. It can be wielded as a means to elicit our highly-coveted support, regardless of Ethiopia’s ultimate ambitions vis-a-vis Somalia. This does not necessarily mean that there is no real threat of al-Qaeda infiltration in Somalia. It’s just that while we are much more focused on disrupting potential al-Qaeda movements in the region, and the possible collaboration between al-Qaeda and ICU leadership, Ethiopia might not have such noble intentions. This could lead to a serious divergence in preferred tactics and strategies at some point down the line. The always informative Jonathan Edelstein also has a nice summary of the dynamic at play. After offering a possible best-case-scenario outcome, Edelstein shares his pessimism: Finally, neither Ethiopia nor the Islamists have an interest in allowing regional peacekeeping to take hold. Ethiopia has its own security interests in Somalia, including its allegations that the Islamists are supporting the generation-old Oromo rebellion and its fear that a resurgence of pan-Somali nationalism might reopen the ****** conflict, and it’s unlikely to take a chance on free elections or a TFG collapse bringing the judiciary back to power. In the meantime, the remaining Islamist militias have no obvious interest in allowing the TFG to consolidate its authority, and although they have been driven out of their strongholds, an unknown number managed to cross the Kenyan border or go underground within Somalia. Given all this, it’s hardly surprising that TFG prime minister Ali Mohammed Gedi is rejecting amnesty for SICC leaders and suggesting that Ethiopian troops might stay for months, or that Islamist gunmen have already carried out guerrilla attacks against Ethiopian forces. So on balance, I’d still rate the most likely outcome as a sham Ethiopian withdrawal followed by an extended counterinsurgent conflict, with the TFG remaining ineffectual and internally divided while the Islamist militias wage a guerrilla struggle with substantial public support. This, in turn, will ensure that Eritrea continues to support local proxies against the Ethiopians, and that fighters from the greater Middle East will continue to be attracted by the widely reported (albeit erroneous) portrayal of the conflict as one pitting Somali Muslims against Ethiopian Christians. And needless to say, a prolonged counterinsurgency is the type of conflict that nobody wins, with major impact on regional food security as well as widespread death and displacement. Somalia deserves better, but there are too many forces converging toward the opposite to provide much room for optimism. Eric Margolis sees a similar outcome: …a prolonged conflict would seriously undermine [Ethiopia’s] fragile economy. Accordingly, Ethiopia’s likely strategy is to protect the western-imposed rump regime in Baidoa and launch attacks to prevent the UIC from consolidating power. But involvement by traditional enemy Ethiopia will undoubtedly further inflame Somali passions and strengthen the Islamic Courts. The latest war in the Horn of Africa could easily widen into a wider conflict that involves Eritrea, strife-torn regions of southern Sudan and Uganda, and northern Kenya, which has many ethnic Somalis. Equally important, prolonged war with Somalia could open fissures in unstable, multiethnic, multi-religious Ethiopia. Though usually depicted as a Christian nation, at least 50 percent of Ethiopians are Muslim, and 35-40 percent Christians. Ethnic Amhara and Tigrayans comprise 32 percent of the population, while long-oppressed, rebellious Muslim Oromo in the south account for over 40 percent. […] Ethiopia’s war against Somalia presents a more dangerous regional threat than an Islamic-run Somalia. The Bush/Cheney Administration is again showing its reckless ignorance and arrogance by charging into a tribal conflict, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, about which it knows nothing. Once again, Washington’s “cure” will be shown to be far worse than the disease it claims to address. What Washington should be doing is talking to leaders of the Islamic Courts to ensure Somalia is not used as a new base for al-Qaeda operations. This is a fair request that can be sweetened by offers of financial support and assurances the Ethiopians will be leashed. But this appears too subtle for the administration’s ham-handed crusaders who have already blundered into two lost wars and are now courting a third. The advisability of our involvement in this conflict hinges on the plausibility of the suggestions in that final paragraph, their ability to accomplish the desired outcomes, as well as the credibility of the evidence of al-Qaeda’s presence in Somalia pre-Ethiopian incursion. In Part III, I’ll attempt to take a closer look at those issues. Regardless, though, we should be mindful of the partner we have chosen to ride shotgun in this affair: Ethiopia is headed by a repressive regime that is no paragon of democracy, freedom or enlightened altruism. It has regional ambitions that should not be overlooked. Ethiopia doesn’t fit well within the tidy good vs. evil narrative so preferred by certain pundits. Portraying Ethiopia as a well-intentioned and concerned onlooker interested in the betterment of Somalia’s fragile political condition would be willful ignorance. Ignoring the conflict of interest inherent in Ethiopia’s intervention would be foolhardy. Source

The reaction in conservative pundit circles to the apparent success of Ethiopia’s initial incursion into Somalia was curious to say the least. The Cornerites, being the conservative id and all, are a good source for the typical fare: Maybe we can learn something from the Ethiopians in Somalia? …I can’t read the news today and keep from wondering whether we should airlift a few Ethiopian battalions into Baghdad. [John Miller] Aside from the implausibility of the suggestion that Ethiopian units might be able to fight better than our own soldiers in Iraq, or that Ethiopian military advisors could provide guidance to CENTCOM in such matters (interesting version of support the troops?), I was scratching my head trying to ponder the premise underlying this follow up question posed by Cliff May: Why are [the Ethiopian forces] achieving what American forces…in Iraq today apparently are not? Yeah, if only American forces in Iraq could have streaked through the country during the initial invasion, dispersing their adversary’s cadres ahead of their advance, en route to hastily toppling the previous ruling elements and seizing putative control of the country. Oh wait. That’s exactly what we did in Iraq. Then, what lesson would that be exactly? The rhetorical sleight of hand practiced by these pundits is designed to deliberately blur the line between the ease with which a superior military force can invade a nation and take out the ruling regime (routing the opposing armed forces as well), with the far more difficult task of actually occupying that country and battling an indigenous insurgency (a task made more difficult if undertaken pursuant to grandiose notions of liberal, democratic nation building). As Eric Margolis put it [ed note: fixed link and author]: Somalia’s ragtag Islamist militias are helpless against Ethiopian tanks, artillery and attack aircraft. Ethiopia’s army could quickly occupy all of Somalia, but it would then be very hard-pressed to protect its long, vulnerable supply lines against attack by Somali guerilla forces. So what gives? The overly effusive praise for the effectiveness of the Ethiopian military’s operations in Somalia (as contrasted with our own stymied efforts in Iraq) is largely attributable to the fact that many conservatives are opportunistically using the conflation of invasions and occupations to push one of the trendiest meme’s du jour: that our military operations are not sufficiently brutal and indifferent to the loss of massive amounts of innocent civilian life. In a previous post, I described it this way: …the story that our defeat in Iraq is the result of our excessive kindness - our shock and awe just wasn’t awful enough. In our effort to liberate Iraqis from the tyranny and brutality of Saddam, we failed because our tactics did not sufficiently resemble…the tyrannical brutality of Saddam. Actually, in the spirit of efficiency, most of the conservative commentariat discussing these topics are milking the Ethiopian/Somali conflict for a two-fer: also bashing the dreaded media’s role in restraining our noble savage impulses. If only the media weren’t around to shine a spotlight on abuses, we could, presumably, kill a lot more civilians which would (supposedly) help us to prevail in counterinsurgency operations. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross summarizes the argument nicely: There may be lessons for the United States in Ethiopia’s success. Abdiweli Ali, an assistant professor at Niagara University who is in contact with transitional government military commanders on the ground, says that Ethiopia has less concern than the U.S. about civilian casualties. There is no reliable estimate of civilian deaths, but the number is believed to be in the hundreds. “We’re fighting wars with one hand tied behind our backs,” Professor Ali says. “In Iraq we’re trying to be nice, thinking we’ll give candy to people on the streets and they’ll love us. But people will understand later on if you just win now and provide them with security.” A second lesson relates to the media. The Ethiopian government is generally less sensitive to media criticism than the U.S. government-and is likely to encounter far less criticism in the first place, since the press traditionally gives short shrift to coverage of Africa. Unsurprisingly, Mark Steyn (self-appointed defender of Western civilization and the West’s collective sense of morality) rushes in with his signature self-contradicting praise for the immoral (amoral?): One difference between the Ethiopians in Somalia and the Americans in Iraq is that the former aren’t fighting with one hand behind their back just in case some EU ally or humanitarian lobby group or fictitious Associated Press source leaks some “war crime” or other to the media. In fact, the Ethiopians have the advantage of more or less total lack of interest from the Western media. So they’re just getting on with it. […] I don’t know whether the Ethiopian intervention will work in the long run, but, if it does, the best hope for squashing the jihad might be to outsource the fight to Third World regimes less squeamish about waging it. Aside from the morally dubious praise for disregarding the slaughter of innocent civilians, there is also little actual evidence to support the thesis that counterinsurgency operations in Iraq would be progressing nicely if only we turned the region into a free-fire zone. It didn’t work in Vietnam, and it likely wouldn’t do the trick in Anbar province either. With one caveat. If we went near-genocidal (ala Saddam with his most brutal crackdowns - actions for which he was just hung to the celebratory shouts of the same people pining for a more Saddam-like military approach), it might work for a time (assuming the rest of the Sunni Muslim world wouldn’t replenish the ranks at a quick enough clip). But that would be an interesting way to fight terrorism, and bestow the exalted gifts of freedom and democracy on the benighted masses in the Muslim world. A meat-grinder of innocent civilians and combatants alike, that sucks in bodies from around the region to its rotating jaws, without regard for the complaints of the media or international organizations. Iraq the model? Source

These organizations are deadly to the Muslim culture and the coming Somali generation. Contaminating the minds of the young with Christian beliefs will likely bring some problems to the generations to come.

They are the servants of the Ethiopians, defending their masters is their obligation.

More like America's warning.....

Yes they do, of course they do. You didn’t know? The TFG has a solid vision, one that is not to be reckoning with. A vision that Somalis or the nation of Somalia has never dared to imagine. TFG vision: Assisting to sell Somalia and killing off the Somalis, weakening the country for their enemies, letting foreign countries exploit Somali resources and get rich well doing it.

N-syl true, America wants oil/gas and Ethiopia wants the ports. Both of them are immersed in Somalia. They will, in cooperation work mutually to get what they crave for –that is with the help of some Somali treacherous individuals. Somalis will never stand together and defend themselves from egocentric nations who are willing to kill thousands of Somalis in order for them to seize resources that belong to the Somalis. Red you are welcome sxb…

Thanks for the information mwafrica. I already had knowledge that America’s involvement in Somalia was solely about oil. America was becoming impatient with Somalia. Somalis were incapable of creating a government for 16 years and so. It was time for America to interfere in Somalia affairs and establish a government that will serve American’s interests without the need of retaliating or being disobedient. The TFG is the prefect match, men who don’t know when the country is being bombed will never know if America is drilling oil in any part of the country. America will do anything within its powers to make certain that they will obtain oil from Somalia, insha’allah and to Allah I pray that they may not get any share of the oil that is found in Somalia soil, they have killed too many Somalis and their blood is soaked in the Somalia soil.

MOGADISHU (AFP) - Brief but heavy fighting left at least five people injured after gunmen attacked police stations in the south of the Somali capital, residents said. Residents said the skirmishes started when the gunmen fired a rocket into the station in Mogadishu's southern Wardhigley and Hawlwadag neighbourhoods. "There was a brief exchange of fire from small arms and heavy machine guns," Abdullahi Mohamed, a resident said. "Five people, including policemen, were wounded," said another resident. "People in the area are terrified and the movement of people as well as vehicles was halted." Residents reported "three heavy blasts" in Hawlwadag neighbourhood. Police sealed off both stations. Residents have reported a surge in crime in Mogadishu since the Islamists were ousted after a six-month rule during which they managed to restore a degree of order in a city without an effective central authority for 16 years. An interim government was set up in 2004 but had been forced to operate out of the provincial backwater of Baidoa until December when the Ethiopian government intervened on their behalf and marched on Mogadishu. The Islamists, who fled before their arrival, had restored a degree of order to Mogadishu since last June when they crushed a collection of warlords who had been slugging it out in the capital for the previous 16 years. The government and Ethiopian forces have since been the target of a series of attacks by rebels, including on the president's official residence. At least 30 suspected Islamists who were arrested in the border fleeing Ethiopian troops were deported to Somalia, police officials said. This brings the number of suspected Islamists deported to at least 64 in the past two weeks. Those deported did not include an American, a Frenchman, two Syrians and a Tunisian were are suspected to being Islamists. Source

"Our first goal was to ensure that the threat that was posed to Ethiopia was overcome, and with the defeat of the extremes in the Islamic Courts, we have succeeded in achieving our goal." -Bereket Simon, an advisor to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi

Ethiopia said its phased troop withdrawal from Somalia would not create a security vacuum as has been suggested by some. Bereket Simon, an advisor to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, said Ethiopia has also achieved almost all of its goals for going into Somalia. “Absolutely! In fact, we (as in, we Ethiopians) have achieved a lot more by sending our troops to Somalia. Our first goal was to ensure that the threat that was posed to Ethiopia (Ha, not the TFG) was overcome, and with the defeat of the extremes in the Islamic Courts, we have succeeded in achieving our goal. In addition to this, we have been able to bring about peace and stability (Are they sure about this?) in most parts of Somalia, including Mogadishu. We ("WE", again? I thought it was the TFG who has disarmed the warlords and forced them to incorporate their militias with the federal army) have been able also to disarm the warlords and incorporate their militias with the federal army,” he said. (Guess the TFG has done nothing on their own so far) Simon dismissed suggestions by some that a quick Ethiopian withdrawal from Somalia may create a security vacuum there. “That is not correct. As the prime minister has said time and again, the responsibility of ensuring a lasting peace is basically that of the Somali people and the transitional federal government. And they have really taken matters into their own hands, and they have shown that they can deliver on their promises. Secondly, we are withdrawing in a phased manner. We have only withdrawn troops that are meant to withdraw in the first phase. So we are doing this withdrawal in a responsible manner. We are not getting out of Somalia in such a situation that will create a vacuum,” Simon said. He said Ethiopia was convinced the African Union would deliver on its current plan to send about eight thousand peacekeepers to Somalia. “So far if we can talk about concrete commitment, there are countries who have committed themselves in a concrete manner, and our belief is that they will deliver on their promises. The summit of the African Union will take place here in Addis in the coming week, and we hope the leaders will deliberate on it and make sure this opportunity is not missed,” he said. Simon hoped the international community would support the transitional government in Somalia without preconditions. He also said Ethiopia is not working with the United States in Somalia. “As we have repeatedly said, Ethiopia went to Somalia based on its own national interest, and in this scheme, we have not consulted anybody, we have not decided with anybody or any country. So that was the basis for our activities in Somalia, and that remains to be,” he said. Simon also dismissed suggestions by some that Ethiopia undertook its military adventure in Somalia to divert attention from its own international political and economic problems. “This is a government which is not shying away from its internal problems. There are problems at the polls in underdeveloped countries, and we are facing them squarely. So there is no reason for us to shy away from our internal problems. There will be problems, but we are determined to control them, and we are determined to tackle them,” Simon said. - VOA News Article =============================================== At the end it’s Ethiopia which has only profited from this. By using the TFG as a justification, Ethiopia has attacked the only sound functioning organization which could control the people and bring peace to Somalia, thus was their main goal. Now they are going to withdrawal their troops because they know precisely well that the TFG won’t stand on its own and it has no public support, leaving Somalia once again in utter chaos. Ethiopia’s vision of Somalia. They never intended to support or protect the TFG, just utilize them in a way which they could reach their ambitions. :rolleyes:

Christian organizations are trying to spread their anti-Muslim views. Ignore them. Somali Christian or not they are still Somalis. As fellow countrymen they need to be respected.