Why didn't you post the replies to this article where the guy got a shellacking LOL? First reply: Roland Marchal is Research Fellow at SciencesPO Centre for International Studies and Research. He has written extensively on Somalia With all due respect to Richard, this is a collection of all the clichés on Somalia (and Switzerland). That Switzerland reaches its current status is not the outcome of a bottom up approach: there were moments like that, but many others clearly shaped by a quite different logic. One should expect the reference to be more grounded in history. John Lonsdale wrote an essay (published in African Studies) on the creation of pre-colonial State, and one would hardly find any process similar to the one designed by the author. But yes, history is creative. Anthony Giddens, in his book The Nation-State and Violence, also reminds us that States exist only in a system of States. This is also very true when analysing the conditions by which Switzerland was able to survive despite the wars at its borders. It is surprising how the issue of State Building in Somalia is seen as internal, though so many foreign actors are involved and imperative on its shape and orientation. I have no idea whether Somalia is a fit for a strongly centralised State, for a loose federation or for the coexistence of many States: I hope one day its population can have a say on that issue after a proper democratic debate. One should however bear in mind a few points. First, the centralized State was not always a colonial legacy . The Sudan Political Service was not made up of disciples of Napoleon, neither was their practical philosophy inclined to that thinking. Ethiopia was a very centralised State and did not need the Italians to be that. Ioan Lewis reminds us – I think in “Pastoral Democracy”- that Somalis could be fierce Repuplicans but also very obedient. The focus on the current crisis should not pre-empt us to remember other periods of Somali history when centralizing dynamics were very much at play (the Ajuuran empire, or the post 1945 nationalistic period). On should stop identifying State-building process with a UNDP/NGO project and see it as it is: messy, contradictory, often coercive and bloody, and much longer that a diplomatic assignment or a UN contract. That Somali politics could eventually be reduced to clan politics is an opinion that still has some popularity. I would not say this is untrue, but as a sociologist I am amazed that no other identities play a role, neither those created by urbanisation, migrations, social classes, contacts with the State, political Islam and so on. Really, if the author is right, then Somalia is extra-ordinary: the “museum of one people that has not changed” (taking note that the author forgets the strong presence of Bantus and other refugees – such as Oromos – of all kinds). Moreover, I would like to hear what clan politics actually encompasses at a moment when all clans (at least in the South and in large parts of the North) are deeply divided, with the divisions often crossing nuclear families. The proposal Richard makes just ignores history and confuses the social setting of Somaliland and Puntland with most of the South where all clans are represented. What then are the regions he mentions? How to define them? Should we take those of the1960s? or 1990? Or repeat what Puntland and Somaliland did (very different approaches but still a creeping conflict between the two)? Puntland with a very small population and a relative clan homogeneity created more than 30 new districts to appease some of its elites. With little success, as we can witness today. The current problems faced by both entities have different origins but tend to prove that their survival is today increasingly connected or dependent of international support. H is idea is also debatable on another important point: why should Mogadishu port benefit only to Benaadir people? Should Berbera port benefit only to Sahel and not to the whole Somaliland? Ethiopia did promote this idea in the 1990s and got the support of other international players at that time (the EU among them). The achievement is to say the least, unimpressive. To a large extent, the growth of Islamism in the late 1990s and early 2000s was fed by a nationalistic reaction to what many Somalis interpreted as a balkanisation of Somalia. Let us conclude on Somaliland: as someone who grew up in a democratic country, I always question unanimity (seemingly unlike the author) and my fieldwork experience shows that ‘yes ministers’ support their government in Somaliland, but opinions vary in the population at large. Some may die for Somaliland, others feel it is the best they can get for the time being, and few publicly or silently admit (since inside Somaliland they will be arrested or socially coerced) that they are against it.

LOOL

ElPunto;752897 wrote: ^This is mostly a pro forma statement. It doesn't tell us anything new. That there is a risk of conflict and that the conflict could have negative humanitarian consequences is readily conceded. What is the reality on the ground thus far? Are the Kenyans actually fighting? Has the Shabaab ceased to melt away and are they making a stand? Is the farmer or pastoralist in Afmadow(now in Kenyan hands according to reports) going to flee - why? - since some livelihood kept him there in the first place and that isn't threatened by the Kenyans. The reality is people in the south have seen a lot of conflict - they don't flee easily en masse which would cause a humanitarian catastrophe. The only things that have led to that in the recent past is the shelling/massacres in Mogadishu and the unprecedented drought of the last year. BTW - according to their website Oxfam has no operations in southern Somalia apart from Afgoye and Mogadishu. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/countries/somalia.html ^ MSF has also raised similar concerns and has operations throughout Lower Jubba and close to the border regions. We definitely don't know the reality on the ground yet, this is still very early in the game. But the potential for negative effects certainly exceed the potential for positive IMO. Considering this, I cannot support it. I also don't think its much of a stretch to presume this conflict will play very similarly to interventions in the past. For any gains in the region to be established Kenya will have to occupy. They don't seem interested in doing so. Can the TFG allied militias hold on to the towns once they leave? AlShabaab certainly won't be afraid to confront them, their firepower is nothing like AMISOM's. This is without considering the very real possibility these militias(ASWJ and Ras Kamboni facitons) will turn on each other, especially in Kismayo. All in all intensified conflict seems certain and that is not good for civilians in the region at all.

You've already conceded that they won't fight a conventional war. So how exactly will they erase them? Its also worth noting that the Kenyans( if they are to be believed) will not occupy Kismayo once they capture it. Who will they hand over power too and how do you assume they will hold off AlShabaab once the Kenyans are gone? As it has already been noted we went through this process with Ethiopia. The key difference between Mogadishu and Kismayo is AMISOM I dont know how you can leave that factor out. They have the presence to hold any gains made, and they are the bulk of the fighting power.

ElPunto;752836 wrote: ^ 1- I don't understand this argument about an increased humanitarian crisis due to the Kenyan invasion. The most desparate and destitute people have already fled - and they've mostly fled hundreds of kilometers to Dadaab precisely because Al-Shabaab wouldn't allow in sufficient humanitarian access. Whatever minor aid groups exist in the Al-Shabaab areas will remain and provide services if the situation continues as - ie Shabaab simply melting away. A humanitarian crisis may ensue if Kenyan forces invade Kismayo and Shabaab start the kind of hit and run attacks and suicide bombings they've been doing in Mogadishu. Barring that there simply is no evidence currently of civilians fleeing en masse in the wake of this Kenyan invasion. 2- This invasion will not work if as is likely Kenyan forces simply want to make a show of force and are not ready to really crush Shabaab. That is why I don't support this - simply because I don't think it will be effective. However, one never knows what the plans for Somalia by foreign powers may be. If the Kenyans do get to Kismayo and Amisom and TFG forces are ferried in by ship to establish a base in Kismayo and hold it and begin an extermination campaign on Al-Shabaab I would be supportive. If there is a real pospect of a sustained effort at eradicating Shabaab any sane Somali should be supportive. At this point though the situation is unclear. On your first point, while it is true that there has been a mass exodus, it is not true that huge numbers of people do not remain at risk. You just have to google the latest reports on the crisis to know tens of thousands remain in those regions and are the most desperate risk, even worse than those who have fleed. If you don't take Baashi's word for it then here is Oxfam repeating the same points for you. New Somalia fighting risks increasing famine suffering October 20th, 2011 at 10.58 am. The new escalation in fighting and insecurity along the Kenya-Somalia border risks increasing the suffering for civilians already devastated by drought and conflict, international agency Oxfam said today, three months since famine was announced in Somalia. Oxfam said that any increase in fighting is likely to cause further displacement and restrict the aid effort at a time when 750,000 Somalis are at risk of death due to deteriorating conditions. The agency urged all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and make all efforts to minimise civilian casualties, while ensuring that the flow of aid to famine zones is not affected. Oxfam said the fighting, and the tightening of security along the border, could also make it much more difficult for refugees to leave Somalia for Dadaab camp, and that their right to seek refuge in Kenya must be upheld. Several hundred refugees have been crossing the border every day in search of aid and safety. “We are extremely concerned that the current fighting is likely to have a serious impact on communities left struggling to survive by the famine. The top priority at the moment must be making sure that people get aid quickly. But increased conflict will make it even more difficult to provide them with food, water and other life-saving assistance,” said Fran Equiza, Oxfam’s Regional Director. Oxfam also condemned recent insecurity in Kenya, which has hampered the aid effort there and has forced Oxfam to reduce some of its work. Kenyans need security and protection, but Oxfam said the best way to achieve a secure region is through a peaceful and lasting solution in Somalia. The situation in Somalia is increasingly alarming. The famine is expected to spread over the next month, including to some of the regions that are now facing further conflict. More than 1.5 million Somalis - one in six of the population - have been forced from their homes due to conflict and drought, and more could now be made homeless. “People are fleeing the most unimaginable suffering and arrive at camps desperate for food, water and shelter. Kenya has legitimate security concerns, and has already welcomed a huge number of refugees, but it must continue to ensure that people can seek safety and shelter.” said Equiza. Malnutrition rates among children in Somalia are the worst in the world, and the upcoming rainy season brings the threat of outbreaks of disease among communities weakened by malnutrition. A surge in the humanitarian response over the past three months has helped bring aid to many parts of Somalia. Oxfam partners are currently assisting more than 700,000 people in the country with clean water and sanitation services. However, insecurity and other restrictions mean that many people are still not getting the help they need.Oxfam said that in the past military action in Somalia has had a negative impact on civilians and further reduced access for aid agencies. It called for a new approach in dealing with the Somalia crisis, through sustained diplomatic engagement involving all the different parties. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/2011/10/20/new-somalia-fighting-risks-increasing-famine-suffering/?v=media They provide credence to every point Baashi has made. Fighting and tightening security of the border will definitely negatively effect civilians. In fact this shows many do not have a grasp on why a famine has occurred in the first place. Its not simply a matter of a) AS blocking certain aid groups and b) drought but what has been repeated endlessly is that consistent fighting and insecurity in those regions has greatly contributed to the number of people at risk. This action only plays to the very same factors that have created a massive loss of life in the first place.

An eloquent recap of what I've stated in numerous threads. Like I've said, saying you support this escalation out of "humanitarian" pretences is probably the weakest justification possible. Continously repeating that AS has blocked aid doesn't change the fact that this conflict will not only block aid and medical supplies, it will also block the only way out for thousands still stuck in a terrible famine. Not to mention when the conflict intensifies I assure you all the NGO's and doctors will pull out. As for the very likely conclusion of this hapless affair, I think you're on the money again here too.

"Our successful democratic experiment is being ignored in part because of a hoary ruling a half-century ago by the Organization of African Unity, the precursor to today’s African Union. Back then, with the recent demise of the colonial empires stoking fears of tribal rivalries and countless civil wars, the OAU ruled that the frontiers drawn up by the imperial powers should be respected in perpetuity." I dont understand this point. Isn't the SL claim to legitimacy based on a return of colonial frontiers? He should be praising the OAU and the clause instead of arguing against it.

Jacaylbaro;752574 wrote: This is what i expected to happen as soon as the Kenyan troops entered Somalia. One of things those who are applauding the action will not like it. Innocent people will be arrested, others will be harassed and others will be gone missing. The Kenyan police will have all the freedom to abuse anyone they think is Somali and even beat them in the middle of the streets. Mark my words ,,,,,, all these will happen I didnt see this was already posted. But this is not surprising at all, very predictable. If you have been watching/reading Kenyan media they've gone way overboard in their coverage. They're trying to rile up and distract the people as usual. They even posted numbers for people to call if the see any suspicious "terrorist" behaviour lol.

The ongoing operation by the army in Somalia will be followed by a major swoop on estates in Nairobi where the government suspects sympathisers of the al Shabaab and Al Qaeda reside. Internal Security assistant minister Orwa Ojodeh told Parliament Wednesday morning this swoop will be "the mother of all operations in Nairobi". Mr Ojodeh made the statement as MPs from North Eastern Province criticised the security checks on flights to and from the area, which they said amount to harassment and discrimination. "This (the al Shabaab issue) is like a big animal, with the tail in Somalia, and the head of the animal is hidden here in Eastleigh," said the tough-talking assistant minister. "After the Somalia thing is over, I am going to do a mother of all operations here in Nairobi to remove all al Shabaab and Al Qaeda," said Mr Ojodeh as he asked MPs to support the decision. Buffer zone The Kenyan army has driven into parts of Somalia over the past one week, where it hopes to establish a buffer zone to prevent the militia from entering the country. He said the government expects "there will be some discomfort for one or two weeks" over the operation, but Nairobians would eventually be happier after the process ends. But Mandera East MP Mohamed Hussein Ali and Adan Keynan of Wajir West lamented that the security checks on the flights were misused and unnecessary because the passengers are Kenyans. "As much as we also support the security measures, this is a matter of harassment which also borders on corruption," said Mr Hussein, who said he has not been subjected to the same treatment on flights to other parts of Kenya. Toll stations Mr Keynan alleged that the policemen who carry out the security checks have turned them into toll stations. He said while moving a motion on a report by the Defence and Foreign Relations Committee on the Kenyan embassy in Somalia that criminals are exploiting the problem in Somalia for a profit. He said the problem is compounded by corruption within the security forces and the underfunding that makes it impossible for them to acquire the necessary equipment and vehicles to prevent the incursions. Mr Keynan said that while MPs from the region endorse the action on the al Shabaab, the Government should not do anything that will amount to discrimination against one community. The problems at the border with Somalia are complicated by the fact that the community straddles both countries and the language, culture and religion is shared. Nominated MP Mohammed Affey said while those flying in from Somalia, who make stops in Wajir, should be checked, it is unfair to lump Kenyans with them when the flights land in Nairobi. Relevant Links Dujis MP Aden Duale said the security checks infringe on Kenyans' freedom of movement. "As much as we allow the Government and this minister to act on al Shabaab, we will not allow harassment and discrimination," said Mr Duale. But Mr Ojodeh said the restrictions on chartered flights to North Eastern Province would remain, and passengers would require to produce identity cards on passports even on domestic flights. All buses and matatus plying the routes between Nairobi and North Eastern, Upper Eastern and upper Rift Valley would have all the passengers vetted. "I am within the law to protect him (the MP) and to protect his property. It is in the same Constitution that he must go to Wajir and return to Nairobi alive," said Mr Ojode http://allafrica.com/stories/201110191112.html

Abtigiis;752484 wrote: Yes, we are supporting Kenyan invasion because of our clan. So what, Tigre man and Goldcoast who foolishly thinks that is the case! I, for one, have changed my position upon reading kenyas mischief on the sea front. But in any case, two many things have changed between 2006 and 2011. Who knew Islamic courts would turn into Alshabab? There is also another difference. Back then Somalia was not occupied by anyone, now Ugandans control the state house. I may even be ready if the ethiopians hit the Alshabab in Hiiraan now. The fact is Ethiopia wants the war in Somalia to go on and on. And we still believe Kenya is a lesser enemy to us compared to Ethiopia. All this facts shape our opinions. For the simpletons who have to define everything in clan loyalty terms, let them read what they want. " Ninkasta halkii kuula mudan ee ay muhato laabtaadu Ee aanad madadaaladeed ugala maarmaynin Iska soo mar waa kuu bannaan marinkad doontaaye " I was not referring to you, I'm actually a fan of your analysis most of the time. However there are some clear contradictions, that abound this cannot be denied. The Tigre is trolling but Somalis will be Somalis.

^Half? From what I know Yusuf Haji is fully Somali. Not that this is relevant to the issue at hand here.

Johnny B;752250 wrote: No i must have not, why would i? AMISOM is in Somalia through a mandate, AMISOM is not occupying Somalia, lest you've bought the AL-QAIDA version that goes Infidels are occupying Muslim Somalis, hence it's AL-QAIDA's duty to liberate Somalia. Good question, this is a good quesion given that it was asked under cincere circumstances. Well, Every incursion has both short term and long term aims. here word from the grapevine has it so Kenya will at worst retake control over it's northren disctricts( specially the costal districts at the border with Somalia) those became AL-QAIDA/ AL-SHABAB hub as of late because of the social dynamics of those districts, and Kenya will hopefully tilt the volotile military situation in southren Somalia to the favor of Somalia's TFG , the majority of the Somali people and the international community. So yes, this incursion is already showing to be more successfull than expected, and to the disappointment of those who support the terrorits, it is not strengthning AL-SHABAB on the contrary , AL-SHABAB took severe military and political blows as their days became less numbered since the incursion got underway. - Kenyan troops advanced deeper inside Somalia and may target the port of Kismayo in their drive to thwart attacks by the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab, a defense department spokesman said. The Kenyans and forces loyal to Somalia's Western-backed transitional government have secured the towns of Tabda and Afmadow, which is about 120 kilometers (75 miles) east of the Kenyan border, Emmanuel Chirchir said today by phone from the Kenyan town of Garissa. Heavy rains have slowed the troops' advance, he said. "The next town is Kismayo," he said. "The troops are ready for anything. If it takes us to December they are willing to celebrate Christmas there." Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/18/bloomberg_articlesLT9N4C6JTSEC.DTL#ixzz1bAfwyHoK Looks like the grapevine might be off here. Kismayo surely isn't the border. These declarations are not in keeping with anything like what you announce. Also can we clarify who the TFG allies are in these regions? Surely you realize the likes of the Ras Kamboni group on the border, aren't that divergent from AlShabaab? If you are against their principles( a valid stance) Im not sure how much of a stark departure such groups are. Are they even capable of maintaining whatever territories are gained once the Kenyans leave?

Sorry but the resident Ethio govt spokesman has a point here.

There is clear differences between the ability to invade a country and sustain an occupation. The Ethiopian invasion already clearly has proven that. FYI the Ethiopian army is much better equipped and battle hardened than the Kenyans. The fact AS has been emptying out its villages and Kenya has passed through uncontested is already a clear measure of how they will fight this conflict. I recall people thinking the Ethiopians had defeated the ICU and the TFG had secured control of the country after the immediate result of the invasion as well.

Naxar Nugaaleed;752379 wrote: Listen the worst hit areas, in fact the only places where famine was declared is shabaab controlled areas. did they cause, pretty much when you refuse outside assistance for starving people because waa "gaalo" and then refuse for these people to leave in search of sustenance at gun point, yeah they're pretty much to the cause. What will the invasion do? first its not an invasion. two it will do one of two two things. what ever ground is wrestled from the shabaab however temporary, means food aid can reach these remote areas. or, the will further weaken the shabaab and allow the TFG to assert to assert itself into more areas. either outcome is better then the current state of affairs. all that is beside the point: Shabaab are a threat to Somalia and Somalis, any action that weakens them is good for Somalia. Incredible simplication of the matters at hand. Here is a link from Ken Menkhaus, a U.S. scholar on the underlying causes of the famine Somalia hasn’t been self-sufficient since the early 1970s. But aid delivery has been suspended in recent years for three main reasons: Insecurity – In 2008 a third of all casualties worldwide occurred in Somalia, so aid groups started pulling out because they couldn’t justify the risk. Second, the U.S. government’s suspension of aid due to counterterrorism grounds; allowing aid to reach Shabaab was a violation of the Patriot Act. Third was Shabaab’s ban on most international agencies from working in the areas it controlled, accusing them of being spies and of trying to put Somali farmers out of business. He mentions three manmade reasons, one being insecurity and that is from continuous conflict in the regions that has been pursued from both sides in question without respite. Two he mentions the US govt suspension of aid, due to its Patriot Act. Three being AlShabaab's ban of the WFP. See this nuanced view considers everything at hand. Its not a black and white issue. Its established that foreign intervention and poltiics has contributed to the famine. This Kenyan invasion falls right in line with the manmade reasons that have pushed these regions to the brink and you don't even realize it. As for your contention that it'll supposedly allow aid in. No aid groups even support this reasoning. In fact the ones who are already operating in AlShabaab territory including MSF and Islamic Relief have already raised concerns about how this will hurt their ability to reach people. If their is heavy conflict in the regions these organizations will pull out their workers, not move in. AlShabaabs destructive decision making was helping to contribute to the splintering of the group, internally. It was losing sway because of its decisions it made domestically. Instead of recognizing this process, you are wishing on a foreign policy that has proven to be just as damaging for decades.

Naxar Nugaaleed;752372 wrote: forgot all that, no one is under the illusion that there is a singular cause of the Somali conflict, the question do you dispute the these shabaabs are the greatest evil this country faces? the killing of students graduating, the killing of children waiting for scholarship, the man-made famine that has taken the lifes of countless men, women and children. people like you are obsessed with lofty ideas of nation and territory (which is kenya is not violating because they have permission to attack these animals) but what is the significance of land with out its people. can there be the Somalia so many of you are obsessed without Somalis. Save the pontificating. If you believe alShabaab is the only cause of the famine, you are being dishonest. It is "manmade" conflicts like the one you are supporting right now that have contributed to the lack of food security in the region. Even the United Nations will disagree with the contention that they alone have caused it. Its the dogmatic pursuit of "victory" over AS at all costs that has allowed people to completely disregard he livelihoods of civilians in the regions in question. Ironically much of what you accuse me of you are supporting. Its your lofty pursuit of uniting the nation and territory out of AS control that damns the people who live under them regardless of the realistic nature of these policies. What do you think this Kenyan invasion will contribute to the famine? Alleviate it? Few weeks down the line when the few feeding sites and doctors who are operating in famine regions pull out because of insecurity, will you continue to justify your support because of your concerns for the "people"? As neutral observers like the MSF have already remarked, this escalation will have huge negative impact on civilians living there. All for a "lofty goal"( your words) that history has shown cannot be attained from outside. The Kenyans will not defeat AS,it can only come from within period. Are civilian deaths( theyll likely be massive if this is sustained) to be disregarded because of the Kenyans "intention"? Or do you measure your repulsion at innocent loss of life simply based on who is behind it?

Following the abduction of two Médecins Sans Frontières MSF (Doctors Without Borders) staff in Dadaab, Kenya, on 13th October, the international medical organisation MSF has no verifiable information on the identity or motives of the abductors. MSF firmly and clearly disassociates itself from any armed activities and related declarations launched following the abduction. Military actions Blanca Thiebaut, age 30, from Madrid, was abducted from the Dadaab camp. © MSF MSF is actively and fully engaging with all relevant actors in order to seek a safe resolution of the abduction. Abductions are extremely complex and need to be handled with care, therefore MSF is very concerned that security and the resolution of the incident could be compromised by any use of force being related to the case. “MSF is currently engaging with all relevant actors to seek the safe and swift release of our colleagues and any use of force could endanger this,” says Jose Antonio Bastos, president of MSF in Spain. “We want to strongly distance ourselves from any military or other armed activities, declarations or presumptions of responsibility related to this case.” MSF's work continues MSF continues to provide assistance to people affected by the current crisis in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, despite the already highly complex security environment. As a result of the attack, MSF has temporarily suspended activities in Ifo two camp, Dadaab, where the abduction took place. These activities include two health posts and mobile clinics that were providing primary healthcare, reproductive health and antenatal care, routine vaccination programmes and referral services for secondary healthcare. MSF hospital Montserrat Serra, age 40, from Girona (Palafrugell) was abducted on 13th October. © MSF In Dagahaley camp, MSF has ensured the continuation of life-saving medical activities in the 243-bed hospital, with nearly 200 patients being treated in the in-patient therapeutic feeding centre. However, five health posts had to be momentarily suspended and medical teams are currently on stand-by, ready to resume all activities as soon as security conditions allow it. Part of the nutritional program, which was treating 15,000 people, was also put on hold. Dadaab and Somalia MSF has been working in Somalia continuously since 1991 and currently operates 13 projects in the country, including medical activities related to the current emergency, vaccination and nutritional interventions. In running such programs, MSF maintains an ongoing dialogue with key actors on the ground. In Dadaab, Kenya, MSF resumed operations in 2009, while it also assists Somali refugees in the camps of Dolo Ado, Ethiopia. “We are deeply concerned about the fate of our two colleagues. MSF is committed to continue providing healthcare to the Somali population in and outside Somalia,” says Bastos, “but the level of assistance to populations is being deeply impacted by such attacks. It is extremely alarming http://www.msf.org/msf/articles/2011/10/mdecins-sans-frontires-seeks-swift-release-of-two-abducted-staff-without-use-of-force-and-continues-medical-activities-to-assist-somali-population.cfm ------ Statement from MSF, making it clear Kenya is NOT representing their interests, and is deeply impacting their ability to work in Somalia. They also make it clear there is no evidence at all behind who kidnapped the workers. The organization the very people who were kidnapped disagree with their name being used to justify this, yet people are accepting the allegations without question.

Che -Guevara;752135 wrote: The excuses people make for invaders-I guess when it's not sisters getting raped, it is ALL OK. For most it seems this is the typical dimension at play. Not their cousins affected so who cares. Collateral damage, huge civilian casualities, humantarian crisis expanded beyond incredible reach, all justifiable if AS is "defeated". Never mind the fact that a) All evidence shows they will likely NOT be defeated through foreign intervention b) This could even strengthen them If you could perhaps present some sort of solid case that this action could defeat AS, I can grudgingly accept some people's views. But not a single person has yet to do that. I think everyone is avoiding the fact this case can't be made. The 20 years of precedent speaks for itself. The greatest hits AlShabaab has taken have almost all been from internal domestic factors. Not foreign ones. Yet this Kenyan invasion is different how? None of these questions have been addressed.

Such shortsighted and almost dogmatic thinking is incredible. Incredible especially because you'd assume Somalis who are aware of the trends of their conflicts and the groups within it might have learned something along the way. But alas, it seems all it takes is for a black and white narrative for everyone to lose all logic. These mantras of AlShabaab being evil and satanic child killers obscure a more complex issue at here. It can easily be established that this group has played a negative role in Somalia. However to argue that they are the ONLY factor that contributes to instability, conflict, famine etc. is laughable IMO. You don't have to support AlShabaab to acknowledge the negative roleforeign intervention has played in this conflict. You don't have to support AlShabaab to recognize that this type of unnecessary escalation is the exact thing that could serve as a catalyst to unite its divided leadership. I also find it incredibly dishonest for people to pretend their key reasons for supporting it are with regards to civilians well being and what could be done to them by alShabaab. This invasion, if sustained, will do untold damage to areas already under a famine crisis. The only groups who have been operating to provide medical attention among other things will be forced to pull out. This will contribute directly to more deaths than alShabaab could dream of combined. There is a reason MSF the same organization whose workers were kidnapped( supposedly by AS) have completely condemned and disassociated themselves from the invasion. They've stated there is zero info on the identity of the kidnappers and do not agree with this escalation taken on their behalf. They've also added that it will place their doctors under great distress throughout Southern Somalia and will negatively impact civilians. Considering this its quite clear this is politics at play and not humanitarian interest. This is without touching upon the fact, its campaign will likely fail in "defeating" AS. So what exactly is the rationale for supporting this?

Johnny B;752087 wrote: Lest one deeply harbours a blind support for the terror group of AL-SHABA / AL-QAIDA , we all know that neither Kenya nor Ethiopia are in political/social/ economical position to INVADE Somalia. This incursion aims to weaken the already weakened terror group and thanks to this incursion the days of al-qaida terrorists in south Somalia will be shorter.than otherwise. There is a difference between an incursion and an invation. If you are under impression AMISOM was successful, you must have taken into account that it was an occupying force not an incursion. How do you see a temporary incursion being successful in anyway other than giving AS legitimacy?

Also from a humanitarian perspective this will likely do great damage to the civilians of these regions. I am positive that if this is indeed a full scale invasion, all the NGO's currently operating in famine stricken regions will suspend their work. I do not see how an intervention that will do more damage to Somali civilians can be supported in the interest of the Somali people. If your distaste for AlShabaab is (rightfully) based on what they've done to civilians, surely you are aware this will likely do an even greater damage to civilians as well ? Perhaps the support can be justified if this did indeed lead to a total defeat of the group, but it certainly will not. Once we have established this, the intervention really cannot be supported in good faith.

The shortsightedness of some of the better observers on here is stunning. Surely you are not attempting to make the argument that Kenya is pursuing its national interest here. This incursion has all the fingerprints of American direction here. Newsflash the kidnappings were NOT by AlShabaab. Anyone who attempts to forward this argument is either woefully misinformed, or is being intellectually dishonest. When has this group ever shied away from claiming any act? Even miserable acts like the bombing a few weeks back, which would likely have hurt their popular support, they have claimed. They've repeatedly denied they have anything to do with the kidnappings. If it was a new tactic to kidnap foreign aid workers, they have hundreds at their disposal throughout Southern Somalia. MSF the organization which the Spanish workers belongs to operates in AS territory! If you read their statements today, you can hear that they are not pleased with the escalation and would rather not fight the Kenyans. As for Kenyan strategic interest how is it being met here? Increased conflict will not stabilize their border. Bombing their way to Kismayo is a ludicrous strategy. If it its containing AlShabaabs threat to Kenya, its even increased with this escalation. If you honestly believe the ill equipped Kenyan troops who haven't seen conflict in decades can defeat AlShabaab your opinion cannot be taken seriously. Even western experts have already remarked that Kenya does not have the capacity to sustain an occupation. The only thing this will do is a) grant greater legitimacy to AlShabaab and b) show how the desperate attempts to create this Azania clan enclave will continue to fail. What is far more likely is that the Kenyans are doing a favour for American policy, in exchange for greater financial support they need at home. BTW its just a coincidence the Kenyan defense minister is the kinsmen of the Azanian Professor lol, right?

lol What attacks? AlShabaab was not behind the kidnappings. What other attacks happened in Kenya? Kenya should focus more on its upcoming election and its simmering ethnic feuds that haven't been resolved yet. That is the real security threat.

100 KM!? That is not far from Kismayo. If this is really a full scale invasion, with plans to sustain it this is completely unprecedented. Looks like Kenya is trying to create their Azania province by force.

The idea that AS can be totally militarily defeated is laughable to me, especially solely through AMISOM might.