The Next War Has Already Begun

Last weekend's peace march in Washington was short a few bodies. A plane-load of potential marchers was held up by British Airways on our way back from the World Social Forum in Nairobi. No, we weren't detained, just delayed, by an engine failure discovered late at night on the runway.

There we were, packed, pumped up, and eager for action after a week of talk when the pilot came on the sound system and announced that one of the jumbo jet's four engines had failed and our departure was put off for a day.

We missed the marching, but I've been thinking about our engine failure as I've read the coverage of the demonstration. Turnout wasn't bad. Organizers estimate the crowd at half a million. But after ten days in Kenya, the contrast in priorities between the peace agenda in DC and that in Nairobi couldn't be starker. Dig as I might into the reporting on Saturday's event, I can't find any serious mention of the US intervention in Somalia. While many US activists are quoted talking about the threat of a US operation against Iran (and I think the Iran threat is serious) the US is already engaged in a military intervention in the Horn of Africa, yet it's barely mentioned. It's enough to make you wonder if the US peace movement is firing on all cylinders.

It is the stuff of daily concern and discussion in much of Africa, but here's an update for US readers: American gunships stationed at the US base in Dijbouti carried out two deadly air strikes on Somalia this January. The Pentagon delayed confirming the January 8 attack for more than twenty-four hours but Oxfam claims that US bombs killed seventy nomads as they searched for water near the Kenya border. Two weeks later, a second strike claimed more lives, but still not the supposed targets--suspects wanted for their alleged role in the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

Speaking to the East African newspaper January 22, Michael Ranneberger, the US Ambassador to Kenya, cast the US intervention as pro-peace, pro-democracy move. "We want to ensure security on the ground and that includes trying to interdict these foreign terrorists connected with Al-Quaeda that have been operating in Somalia," Rannenberger told the East African. "Second, we want to promote stability in Somalia." The Somalia operation will take a while, the ambassador admitted. "It would be a mistake to put an artificial time line and say it will take four months or six months." All of this sounds dreadfully familiar.

Air strikes are just one face of the US intervention. The US is also backing Ethiopian forces which last month invaded in an effort to drive forces loyal to the Islamic Courts Union out of the Somali capital, Mogadishu. (The operation is said to have been in the planning since the Courts Union took control over the city the last summer.) The Somali political picture is complex--the Courts Union is the closest thing much of Somalia has had to an effective government in more than 16 years--but a few things are clear: the country is situated in a strategic region, with the continent's longest coastline, rich mineral and oil reserves and several deep sea ports. It's no surprise the US wants a client regime there. With US troops stretched thin, the next best way for the administration to fight its wars is with a mobile force (like the one stationed at Djibouti) and proxy ground forces that may not be popular on the ground but will do their paymaster's bidding (like the Ethiopians' and local warlords.)

So far, so bad. While most of us haven't been paying much attention, the US action in the Horn has stirred up Somalia's civil war, sent an armory of new weapons to local warlords and sparked a new refugee crisis. (Last month, the Kenyan government closed its borders those fleeing the bombing.) According to local reports, Courts Union Islamists gain favor with every assault, as they cast themselves as victims of US imperialism.

Welcome to the next war now. The US engagement in Somalia is what the new generation of US wars is likely to look like and it would behoove the US peace movement to pay attention.

Comments (43)

1. Thanks for the update on the Somalia situation. Where can we read any comprehensive coverage of the situation besides the aforementioned East African?

   Posted by bjkron at 02/02/2007 @ 2:38pm

2. The reason Ms Flanders for the "blind eye" to the Somalia missions is quite simple.

   That is the Democratic position on how the War on Terror should be prosecuted. Nobody outside of maybe Dennis Kucinich, maybe even just a TAD right of him (not even over to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards) would oppose such strikes.

   Even if you discount their effectiveness, they are simple, bloodless (on our part), and cost a few million dollars each. All of which adds up to WIDE bipartisan support in Congress.

   As paradoxical as it may sound, the quickest way to end military actions like Somalia...would be to turn them into military actions like Iraq. Costly, bloody, unpopular and ultimately doing more harm than good regionally.

   Since nobody wants that...such missions will continue and the "peace movement" will have (for good or ill) "bigger fish to fry" until we get out of Iraq.

   Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 2:59pm

3. Thanks for the Somalia update and pointing out that while many are concerned over the possibility of the IraQuagmire spilling over into either Iran or Syria, we are already expanding the war on terror mission into Somalia.

   When you think about it, Somalia could be attractive to neocons for several reasons. First its already destabilized, so how much worse can our presence make it? Second, the fact that we were there in the Clinton administration and pulled out after some ugly action allows the neocons the chance to succeed where the left has previously failed. Third, it is a small and unorganized country where we might dominate quickly and possibly succeed in establishing a better government than the existing chaos. Fourth, Somalia has been cited as a haven for terrorists for some time. Finally, and most importantly, Somalia's location is strategically important to both Africa and the Middle East.

   I've been waiting for someone to notice the actual expansion of the war and to stop whining about what might happen elsewhere.

   Posted by noparty at 02/02/2007 @ 3:21pm

4. I agree, its about time someone noticed, I spent two weeks in Djuiboti, in 2003, nice to finally be appreciated.

   Posted by CPT at 02/02/2007 @ 3:56pm

5. "We will achieve total victory." (Bush)

   "Air strikes killed ...... innocent victims."

   "Roadside bombs killed.....innocent victims."

   The world is waging war against innocent victims.

   Only the guilty will be left behind.............

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 02/02/2007 @ 4:14pm

6. "We will achieve total victory." (Bush)

   "Air strikes killed ...... and innocent victims."

   "Roadside bombs killed..... and innocent victims."

   The world is waging war against innocent victims.

   Only the guilty will be left behind.............

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 02/02/2007 @ 4:18pm

7. BOHDAN YURI, you might find this interesting...

   The Nation comment | posted April 8, 1999 (April 26, 1999 issue) The Case Against Inaction by Bogdan Denitch & Ian Williams

   The abject pacifists are a much smaller minority than you think...even on the Left.

   Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 4:42pm

8. actually its kind of in the grand old traditions of american imperialism, but yeah, there are different dynamics now...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2007 @ 4:43pm

9. As paradoxical as it may sound, the quickest way to end military actions like Somalia...would be to turn them into military actions like Iraq.

   i have a third option: how about not meddling in the affairs of countries which don't concern us?

   Posted by katamantulo at 02/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

10. Posted by KATAMANTULO 02/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

    ah, theres the rub. us? concern?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2007 @ 5:10pm

11. Must be cool to be a jet-setting global peace activist like Laura Flanders.......Conferences in africa, peace march on DC...What's next? I must however, compliment her on the originality of her Nomads-looking-for-water-get-rocketed bit, it's so much fresher and edgier than the tired old wedding-party-gets-blown-up, or the tried and true women-and-children-get-strafed stories we've come to expect.............

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/02/2007 @ 6:57pm

12. Posted by KATAMANTULO 02/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Like Sudan....Darfur?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 7:07pm

13. Organizers estimate the crowd at half a million.

    That's why they're organizers and not accountants. Most reports from the media that I have read, pegged the turnout at around 30,000.

    Media reports aside, if you know anything about photography, just watch the C-SPAN coverage and judge for yourself. All telephoto lenses with narrow field of vision. Not a wide angle pull-back to be found. Coincidence...hardly.

    To the average viewer of C-SPAN...if you can't at least be honest about the number of warm bodies that show up, what credibility could you possibly have regarding anything that's said there.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/02/2007 @ 9:01pm

14. Posted by SLIVER 02/02/2007 @ 9:01pm

    Inflated numbers by marchers isn't just a "Left" issue. The anti-abortion guys do the same thing.

    Frankly I'd think if it WAS "half a million"...and the Democrats are STILL not listening...that's even worse!

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 10:25pm

15. Inflated numbers by marchers isn't just a "Left" issue. The anti-abortion guys do the same thing.

    I would include just about ANY group in that category when the people that either organized or attended it are stating the numbers.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/02/2007 @ 11:00pm

16. Intresting how when we aid other nations trying to rid themselves of Islamic facisms oppression...

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/03/2007 @ 12:44am

    Did we do that in Iraq??? Saddam was a secularist (I'm sure you're familiar with the term), not an Islamist, and we installed Shiia who support a theocracy like Iran.

    Posted by Mask at 02/03/2007 @ 07:45am

17. No, Rio, the people receiving a sympathetic ear are the innocent one that got killed. What is wrong with accountability? You can bring up Clinton as a foil all you want, he was roasted for his bombs missing targets too.

    I just cannot understand rooting for a failed missile strike. Sad.

    Hearts and minds are not being won. That is why we are losing the war. Refugees from our wars are flooding into many countries, while we here build a fence to keep out our workforce of cheap labor. Fascinating.

    "As the fourth year of war nears its end, the Middle East's largest refugee crisis since the Palestinian exodus from Israel in 1948 is unfolding in a climate of fear, persecution and tragedy.

    Nearly 2 million Iraqis -- about 8 percent of the prewar population -- have embarked on a desperate migration, mostly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugees include large numbers of doctors, academics and other professionals vital for Iraq's recovery. Another 1.7 million have been forced to move to safer towns and villages inside Iraq, and as many as 50,000 Iraqis a month flee their homes, the U.N. agency said in January.

    ...Fewer than 500 have been resettled in the United States since the invasion. "

    Many Iraqis here view the U.S.-led invasion that ousted President Saddam Hussein as the root of their woes.

    "We were promised a kind of heaven on earth," said Rabab Haider, who fled Baghdad last year. "But we've been given a real hell."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR200702 0301604.html?nav=rss_print/asection

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2007 @ 10:29am

18. The military has had 5 years to win, they have failed. support the troops all you want, they can't get the job done. Face facts.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2007 @ 10:37am

19. What's with the bombs. For years the CIA has been infiltrating countries and offing unsavory (or so they argue) characters. Hell, they even managed to off Chile's president some years back. It really wouldn't be all that difficult to knock-off an al Qaeda operative here or there. Remember that Marin County kid who made it into bin Laden's inner circle? Seems like a CIA guy could pull that off.

    It really doesn't take a sledge-hammer to kill an ant. Maybe the bombs are more about flexing our military muscles, which, come to think of it is what presidents, dictators and emperors really get off on. Remember when Reagan? dropped a bunch of bombs on Khaddafi? Missed him, but killed his baby daughter. It was touted by the press and the Reagan bunch as victory in Libya. You figure it out.

    Posted by felicity at 02/04/2007 @ 3:02pm

20. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/04/2007 @ 8:23pm

    don't you ever tire of misrepresenting peoples words and actions? The time for a military solution is long past. Bring em home alive. You support more being killed.

    You are a sad excuse for a man.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2007 @ 11:23pm

21. My point is proven in Iraq. Four years, civil war, no closer to victory. hundreds of thousand killed. Just because you cannot accept it does not make it untrue. Just review all the crap you have bought in the past four years.Then you tell me which one of us is in touch with reality and which one of us lives on faith alone.

    You know the drill, no wmd's, no links to ALqaida, Jessica Lynch did not go down in a hail of bullets, she was not rescued from the clutches of the repub guard, Tillman was not killed by Taliban,the mission is not accomplished, the insurgents are not in their last throes, we are not winning, there was torture at Abu Graib, at Gitmo, at Bagram, most kept in Cuba are not "the most vicious" . shall i go on, or do you have some prophetic symbolism to change all that crap into the truth?

    What is your Plan for Victory Rio? I am just itchin to read it. I know you have a fine grasp of the situation and all the nuances, so please, do tell us how to win in Iraq. Then call Chimpy and tell him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2007 @ 11:33pm

22. Make sure you sleep with your nightlite on. Usama is still a free man.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/04/2007 @ 11:35pm

23. Aside from all the rhetoric about Iraq, only one real argument (as opposed to an assertion) against this action has been made, namely that the CIA should go in instead. The obvious response is: well, why wouldn't they have done it then? Since we clearly don't have an interest in having Somalia in the spotlight, there wouldn't be a reason to not put CIA people in if we thought it would work. The fact that we're not seems to suggest that we have pretty good reason to suspect that it wouldn't work.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/04/2007 @ 11:46pm

24. My support of the troops, minus jingoistic ribbons, will not make them succeed any more than questioning Chimpy will make them fail.

    Please explain to me how the military solution has succeeded. is the guvt stable? are the streets safe? Is crime under control? Are the borders secure? Are female soldiers able to walk alone safely even in the Green Zone at night?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:12am

25. Perhaps you missed this in your glee to misinterpret my words:

    "Nearly 2 million Iraqis -- about 8 percent of the prewar population -- have embarked on a desperate migration"

    Remember when we were told the refugee crisis would never happen? s this another sign of success? Or is it just a success because bombs still fall and Cheney says so?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:15am

26. "Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it." (CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

    too bad that debate never happened.

    "Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints." (Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

    bloodless victory. Lets hire him as the spokesman for our country. Tony, you're doin a heck of a job.

    "We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back." (Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:19am

27. I don't think that the war serves U.S. interests. I think Osama bin Laden's interests and the Iranian interests are very much served by it, and it's becoming a huge drain on our resources both material and political. - William Odom

    We've also nearly broken the U.S. Army by over-extension and over-commitment, which means there's less of it available for Afghanistan and even for al Qaeda in other parts of the world. - William Odom

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:27am

28. "Training problems as well as other shortfalls -- lack of personnel, equipment, or fully-rehabilitated equipment -- have combined to result in lower than normally acceptable readiness ratings for most active Army and Guard combat brigades outside Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, according to Senate testimony given by JCS Chair, General Peter Pace, on 3 August 2006: "about two thirds of the brigades...would report C-3 or C-4," which are the lowest readiness levels.35 (This estimate applies to the total compliment of active - and reserve-component Army combat brigades.)

    Today, the situation of the Army National Guard is especially acute. While its role has been essential in sustaining Operation Iraqi Freedom, the cost has been a serious disruption of its functioning.37 In October 2005, the GAO found that:

    The heavy reliance on National Guard forces for overseas and homeland missions since September 2001 has resulted in readiness problems which suggest that the current business model for the Army National Guard is not sustainable over time.38

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:33am

29. ya'll got a funny way o supportin the troops, send more to sit in the middle of a civil war, use em up, kill em off, under supply em, pass the bill off to your kids.

    Doin a heck of a job.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:43am

30. Did we do that in Iraq??? Saddam was a secularist (I'm sure you're familiar with the term), not an Islamist, and we installed Shiia who support a theocracy like Iran.

    Posted by MASK 02/03/2007 @ 07:45am

    Our biggest mistake would be to think that there is a difference between Sunni and Shia. Read up on the origins of Islam, Muhammad, and the Palestinians. Learn how that operates. The answers are in the Qu'ran and most specifically the Hadith. The entire religion is based on Pagan roots and the problem is bigger and more widespread than we could ever imagine. Saying that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked is an oxymoron.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/05/2007 @ 07:51am

31. Posted by SLIVER 02/05/2007 @ 07:51am

    I'm guessing SLIVER is a big John Ankerberg fan....hehe [en.wikipedia.org].

    And I'm sure he has "explanation" for why Spanish Jews, who had lived peacefully under the Moors in Spain....fled for Islamic countries when the Christians "reconquista'ed" the place!

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2007 @ 08:58am

32. actually in that somalia has been an anarchic islamic hellhole for years now and the only government that finally started taking hold is one that shows every liklihood of eventually becoming a REAL terrorist haven like afghanistan under the taliban, some kind of action there is not so stupid. using the ethiopians as supported proxies is also not so stupid.

    if we had not been suckered into iraq we could have taken half the wasted money (hell, even a quarter) and used it to fight a real and possibly even effective "war against terrorists, mainly islamic", which would include many such proxy/brushfire conflicts...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/05/2007 @ 09:36am

33. Saying that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked is an oxymoron.

    Posted by SLIVER 02/05/2007 @ 07:51am | i

    not exactly, but thepeace comes when everyone is converted to their faith or belongs to one of its two other barely tolerated predecessers...

    pagan? not so sure about that. as far as the shia/sunni thing, i'm afraid there is a difference. "pure" islam did not take root in iran for a number of reasons, including the persian disgust for their semite conquerers (using "semite" here in the broad sense of the word), as well as the ancient zoroastrian faith that was the official religion of persia...

    funny little irony, in a gallows humor sense...

    ultimately this iraq debacle may well have some positive results, but not in any way like what the neocons figured...aside from the american public's realization of the true character of their leadership, once we do withdraw, the middle east shows every indication of erupting into bloody shia/sunni warfare, taking some of the heat of both israel and the us...if we can get the hell out and encourage the israelis to kind of "lay vigilantly low" for a generation or so while the radical islamists slaughter each other to prove who is most detestable...

    then when a few decades have shown the true nature of their faith (if, like christianity, taken literally, that is) and millions have been slaughtered, perhaps the islamic world will come to grips with their great bullshitty pack of intolerant, conflict enabling, lies like the christian west did some 3 centuries ago, and begin to move on...like the christian west did some 3 centuries ago...when most started using their "god given" intellectual faculties and moved beyond the flawed doctrines of theological irrationalism...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/05/2007 @ 09:51am

34. hehe, Patraeus is reaching into the Ivory towers for some ideas. That's gotta rile the anti-intellectuals here

    By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01

    Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, is assembling a small band of warrior-intellectuals -- including a quirky Australian anthropologist, a Princeton economist who is the son of a former U.S. attorney general and a military expert on the Vietnam War sharply critical of its top commanders -- in an eleventh-hour effort to reverse the downward trend in the Iraq war.

    Army officers tend to refer to the group as "Petraeus guys." They are smart colonels who have been noticed by Petraeus, and who make up one of the most selective clubs in the world: military officers with doctorates from top-flight universities and combat experience in Iraq.

    Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents, who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way."

    Boy, these guys must really hate the military.

    ""Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military war college,"- a professor, at a war college. Hmm. ah, he don't know squat.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 10:30am

35. Posted by SLIVER 02/05/2007 @ 07:51am

    your description really separates Christianity from Islam. Pagan roots? check. Political schism? Check. Peaceful religion oxymoron? Check.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 10:53am

36. Posted by CRABWALK 02/05/2007 @ 10:53am

    Again, willing to bet that SLIVER put up a ....Christmas tree a few months back.

    And that in a few more weeks, his kids, grandkids, whatever....

    will be hunting Easter eggs....hmmm?

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2007 @ 10:57am

37. Did Jesus lay eggs? Do bunnies lay eggs? Was Santa intimate with Mary?

    We will find out on the next episode of SOAP.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 11:37am

38. I'm not going to suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace, but I certainly think the argument that Christianity isn't is simply unwarranted.

    The standard to determine whether Christianity is fundamentally peaceful should be based not on past actions which could misinterpret the scriptures, but rather on the scriptures themselves. More specifically, it should be based on the New Testament, since it represented a shift from the theology/morality of the Old Testament.

    Given that standard, the answer seems fairly clear. Nowhere in the New Testament does it advocate violence against those who either believe differently or not believe at all. Nowhere in the New Testament is any kind of worldly "holy war" defended. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest (mistakenly, I believe) that Christianity requires its believers to be pacifists.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/05/2007 @ 11:39am

39. New Orleans was just declared the most murderous city in America. I think its time we withdrew from New Orleans.

    Posted by abell12ct at 02/05/2007 @ 12:00pm

40. I was using Slivers standards.

    why shouldn't past actions of those that interpret the writings be used to classify the followers of those writings? This is not a vacuum. Believers use both New and Old testament scripture to justify their actions and even their politics.

    I think there is a line in the Koran that says something like "to kill one person is to kill all of humanity. Don't do it" . Just like a "thou shalt not kill" commandment that many sheep here choose to not only ignore, but flaunt.

    ---"We" teach our kids about the Easter Bunny, Santa etc, but whoa be to any teacher that tries to teach that not every kid has 2 parents of opposite sex and other kids should accept that. See New Jersey news for details.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/05/2007 @ 12:04pm

41. Posted by THRAWN 02/05/2007 @ 11:39am

    Only problem with that, THRAWN, is...

    that most of your fundamentalist Christians spend most of their time quoting the OLD Testament (such as "Leviticus" on homosexuality)....and ask somebody like LVLIBERTY if he thinks that Jesus supported pacifism, or "wouldn't have a problem" with a few tactical nuke strikes "if the cause was just"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/05/2007 @ 1:15pm

42. Rio: if i could go back in time and tell them, i would. my comments apply equally to democratic interventions. and you forgot kosovo.

    Mask: i don't think the U.N. or the U.S. did ever get involved militarily in darfur or the sudan, did they? if they had, you can bet it would have been because of ulterior motives hiding behind a "humanitarian" rationale.

    Posted by katamantulo at 02/05/2007 @ 3:28pm

43. US troops on the ground in Somalia: It looks like our involvement may be greater than gunship attacks and backing the Ethiopians. Shabelle reorts 11 american soldiers were captured by the Islamic Courts troops and are still captive. http://www.shabelle.net/news/ne2220.htm

    Posted by htom28 at 02/05/2007 @ 10:49pm