The Somalia Strike

Here's something that didn't come up at Sunday's Democratic debate: Under what authorization did President Bush order a military strike on Somalia this past Friday--essentially widening the "war on terror"?

While the Dems argued about the best way to get out of this failed and disastrous war in Iraq, what Friday's military strike reveals is how our political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit from a misconceived "war on terror"--and the damage that "war" continues to inflict on our security and engagement with the world.

That's why I think it's useful that John Edwards is attacking the Bush Administration for its cynical use of "the war on terror" metaphor. A bad bumper sticker, he likes to call it, that "has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do..."

Very true. Witness the collateral damage to our democracy. The "war" has been used by the Bush team as justification for almost everything-- unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty. It's also been used to justify the expansion of America's military capacity--over 700 bases in more than 60 countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion--as necessary to counter the threat of Islamic extremism and to fight the "war on terror." Now the expansion of the "war on terror" to the Horn of Africa.

What too few politicians (especially frontrunning Dem candidates) are willing to say--clearly, honestly--is that combating terrorism is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world (including Afghanistan). Indeed, the failed Iraq war should demonstrate, anew, the limits of military power. Yet what Friday's missile strike deep inside Somalia exposes is that the hyper-militarized "war" on terror continues in ways we are only seeing the tip of.

Where were the tough questions, for example, when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" earlier this year to hunt down Islamists in Somalia. The consequence: Friday's strike--led by a US Navy destroyer launching an attack on suspected militant forces--was the third US strike inside Somalia this year. (At least that's the figure we know about; There may well be more strikes we will only learn about through investigative reporting and real Congressional oversight.) According to Sunday's Washington Post, the attack was "the latest in a US military operation that began late last year in Somalia, a moderate Muslim country, and that US officials say is aimed at fighting terrorism in the Horn of Africa." The Post also reports that "Dozens of FBI and CIA personnel have traveled to Ethiopia to question Somalis and foreigners, including at least two US citizens, rounded up by Ethiopian troops in Somalia and held in secret prisons that human rights have likened to a mini-Guantánamo." Chilling. A mini- Gitmo in the Horn of Africa.

Yes, let's end the disastrous war in Iraq but let's not lose sight of how this Administration is USING the 2002 war authorization. It must be repealed, so as to provide some check on this Administration's ability to wage secret wars on obscure battle fronts, large and small, and inflate a real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war. Maybe there's a question in here for one of the next Presidential debates?

Comments (18)

1. Ohh dear...a couple of responses.

   First, KVH's analysis conflates two very distinct questions. One is whether the particular methods that the Bush Administration has been using are justified. I would argue that many of them are not. It is entirely a different question, though, to ask whether or not the idea of "war" is apt, i.e. whether combating particular terrorist threats is dependent to some degree on military operations.

   I think the answer is clearly yes, and I just don't think KVH deals with this issue at all. While her criticisms of a "mini-Gitmo" in the Horn of Africa may be accurate, she never gives any reason for her giant assertion that military operations in Somalia have no purpose at all. Given that some African nations had a prominent role in the birthing of bin Laden's movement, I think she's going to have to do a lot more work than she's doing to dismiss those operations out of hand. Her claim that the executive has no authority to implement those operations is equally bizarre, unless she would either narrow substantially the definition of "commander-in-chief" or suggest that the CIA has no right to, well, exist.

   Posted by Thrawn at 06/04/2007 @ 12:22am

2. KVH: ....this Administration is abusing the 2002 war authorization. It must be repealed, so as to provide some check on this Administration's ability to wage secret wars on obscure battle fronts, large and small, and inflate a real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war. Maybe there's a question in here for one of the next Presidential debates?

   Well, Ms. KVH, would you help us out & set out your parameters for "limited threat"? Are 4 planes into 3 buildings count as "limited"? Are hundreds dead from subway bombings within your tolerance "limit"? Neghborhoods (possibly) up in flames from aviation fuel killing 4-figures "limited" enough? Of course they are, just so long as it ain't your rich ass!

   Terrorists operate stealthily and smarter than your average bank robber or rapists who can't control their peckers. Most of us want our Admin. to have the power/authority to "wage secret wars on obscure battle fronts, large and small" and KILL as many of them as possible! Somalia needed help and Ethiopia and our forces are involved, Grrrrrreat! Any Dem candidate that take the position you advocate, will get CREAMED in Nov. 2008!

   Posted by Happy at 06/04/2007 @ 12:35am

3. I'm really amazed by this post.

   The fact that the "war on terror" has been used to, according to Katrina, justify bad things, does not mean that the whole idea of a worldwide war on Islamic terrorism is mistaken. If the abuses cited by Katrina were somehow necessary to the idea of a war on terror, then her logic would be sound, but they are not. Nothing in "war on terror" requires, for example, "unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies."

   Her complaint about the expansion of the war on terror to Somalia is, simply that it is expansion of a war on terror, as if it were self-evident that such an expansion is wrong. But what if it was an effective attack in killing terrorists? Katrina doesn't seem concerned at all with the question of whether the strikes in Somalia killed terrorists. Rather, she's worried simply about the fact that they were military strikes, and, therefore (by her apparent reasoning) wrong.

   She indicates that she was against the war in Afghanistan. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, around 20,000 jihadists were trained in Afghanistan before the U.S. invaded, and the training was still going on when 9/11 happened. Given that fact, coupled with the 9/11 attacks, opposing the war in Afghanistan seems to me counterintuitive.

   It looks as if Katrina has simply taken a pacifist stance -- that no war is ever justified. Lots of smart people in the past have believed this, and there's no shame in it (despite its entailing some very counterintuitive conclusions), but I doubt Katrina would admit to holding it as a belief. Most liberals I've met won't. But the rhetoric they use, such as that from Katrina on this post, make you at least wonder if there is any war they could ever support.

   What about liberalism (in the modern, American sense of the word) entails pacifism? There's the idea, which goes at least back to WWI and surfaces whenever the U.S. fights a war, that the war is "Wall Street's war," or just a way for rich people to profit from poor people. We've all seen this in the form of "no blood for oil," and in Michael Moore's work. It ties together the "class warfare" concept that is central to socialism and continues in its current, much watered-down cousin, American liberalism. Maybe it's just that liberals are predisposed to a "let's all get along" mentality that wants to believe there is always something else that can be done to try to avoid war. But this view has proven ridiculous in the face of, for example, a Nazi Germany back in the WWII era.

   Posted by utcareful at 06/04/2007 @ 12:43am

4. An excellent point Katrina.

   Meanwhile John Edwards made a point of explicitly repeating the line that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran -- a statement that has previously been echoed by both Clinton and Obama.

   To be fair, Edwards stressed the absolute importance of diplomacy first in regards to Iran. Yet, the zeal with which the front running candidates feel they must reiterate the point that "all options are on the table" should strike anyone as a bit odd at best, and more aptly as creepy.

   Obviously it is a sort of code phrase meant to appease the somewhat abstract, but nonetheless very real, Washington defense establishment.

   This goes to the core of the illness of the American political scene. It's what Kucinich alluded to in his answer to the silly Blitzer query, (I'm paraprasing) "Would you move to assassinate Bin Laden if innocent bystanders would be killed?". Kucinich bluntly stated that the US has no business conducting assassinations --it eventually leads to blowback-- and further emphasized the need for a foreign policy centered on establishing peace through cooperation as the ultimate prerequisite for our own security and stability's sake.

   His point is one on which I believe most of us would agree, yet it gets short shrift by our "MSM" and is subtly and not so sublty maligned by implication as anywhere from unrealistic to downright dangerous.

   On this fundamental point our country is in desperate need of a sharp intelligent voice to cut through the static with a bright crisp clarion call for sanity.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/04/2007 @ 12:58am

5. I see the usual posts involving misapprehensions, mischaracterizations, and misunderstandings.

   On Thrawn's post ending with his assumed to be a nutcase idea of abolishing the CIA, I suggest a reading of Steve Coll's critically acclaimed and essential account of the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan and the emergence of Bin Laden, "Ghost Wars". In Coll's gripping account are facinating details of the clash of parallel and dissonant foreign policies being waged by the CIA and the State department.

   There are a multitude of additional accounts that, at minimum, call into question the all too often self-defeating tactics of our covert agencies.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/04/2007 @ 01:21am

6. Well spotted, Katrina! And let's remind ourselves what waging war on multiple fronts did for Hitler.

   Posted by mikecope at 06/04/2007 @ 03:01am

7. "But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world (including Afghanistann)."

   I'm sorry, but did Ms vanden Heuvel actually TELL US what those "more effective and ethical ways" are???

   Like those Dem politicians, it may be something she doesn't want to say because the public, disgusted with THIS "War on Terror" (i.e. Iraq) may not EXACTLY want to go along with HER ideas as well....."Department of Peace", maybe???

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2007 @ 07:22am

8. Weren't most of the libs here opposed to the Iraq invasion on the grounds that it "removed resources that were tasked with finding Bin Laden...in PAKISTAN?"

   So...Pakistan is fair game, but Somalia isn't?

   Your selective aggression is most confusing, and non-sensical. "Arm-chairing" a war is about the only way that I can describe it.

   Posted by Sliver at 06/04/2007 @ 08:43am

9. "proof of Bush's widening war on terror."

   Pronounced (by Bush) "War on Terra" (which Bush looks to be winning and the rest of us losing).

   Posted by w_m_bear at 06/04/2007 @ 11:34am

10. Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/04/2007 @ 11:34am

    One quick, really random question. The "W_M" doesn't refer to a place/college, does it?

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/04/2007 @ 12:13pm

11. Perhaps, KATRINA, the answer to your original question has to do with you're being so out of the mainstream, you can't see that even Bushes enemies know when to keep their mouths shut rather than demonstrate how much they "know". You sure scooped 'em babe!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/04/2007 @ 1:45pm

12. Thanks for this and all your "posts" regarding the questionable actions of this administration/government. Where would thinking folks be if not for the alternative media countering the pulp dished up ad nauseam by the corporate press. You and your colleagues keep up the good work!

    Posted by Gary Butler at 06/04/2007 @ 8:02pm

13. UT,

    Thoughtful and correct, as usual.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/04/2007 @ 8:30pm

14. Under what authorization did President Bush order a military strike on Somalia this past Friday--essentially widening the "war on terror"?

    I'm not defending Bush's actions, but wouldn't S. J. RES. 23 give Bush the authorization? (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107u0QsKs::)

    Here's section 2 of the Joint Resolution:

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    Posted by WingaDing at 06/04/2007 @ 10:43pm

15. we bombed "suspected" militants...and killed an american citizen..dropping bombs on suspected sites is hardly effective or moral.

    Posted by toby at 06/05/2007 @ 01:13am

16. Why aren't liberal institutions such as "The Nation" calling for investigations into election fraud and relentlessly seeking the impeachment and war crimes trials of Bush and his Bush League? Watching the Democrats debate brings a sense of hopelessness because I fear that any Dem nominee will be the victim of election fraud as was Al Gore. Democrats of late seem to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I doubt that I am the only American who believes that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged? Where is the outrage? many Europeans (I live in France) think those elections were so obviously fraudulent and they are at a loss to understand why Americans are not marching in the streets calling for major investigations.

    Over here people are also puzzled as to why war crimes charges have not been brought against the members of the Bush administration, including the President. Is'nt killing more than half a million civilians enough justification for evoking at least the spirit of Nuremburg? Are we Americans, and the American press, so numb and ambivalent that we feel okay with the insanity of the last seven years? It seems the opposition has a vast talent for "going for the capillary."

    Kate Thorn-Simpson

    Posted by hokesimpson at 06/05/2007 @ 04:00am

17. Why aren't liberal institutions such as "The Nation" calling for investigations into election fraud and relentlessly seeking the impeachment and war crimes trials of Bush and his Bush League? Watching the Democrats debate brings a sense of hopelessness because I fear that any Dem nominee will be the victim of election fraud as was Al Gore. Democrats of late seem to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I doubt that I am the only American who believes that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged? Where is the outrage? many Europeans (I live in France) think those elections were so obviously fraudulent and they are at a loss to understand why Americans are not marching in the streets calling for major investigations.

    Over here people are also puzzled as to why war crimes charges have not been brought against the members of the Bush administration, including the President. Is'nt killing more than half a million civilians enough justification for evoking at least the spirit of Nuremburg? Are we Americans, and the American press, so numb and ambivalent that we feel okay with the insanity of the last seven years? It seems the opposition has a vast talent for "going for the capillary."

    Kate Thorn-Simpson

    Posted by hokesimpson at 06/05/2007 @ 04:01am

18. "What was China's reaction to Tiannemon? Didn't give a shit, did it????" asked "Happy."

    Mr. Happy, I remember perfectly China's reaction to the demonstrators on Tiananmen Square -- swift and violent.

    ....Would we ever have arrested the UNA-bomber if our strategy had been to bomb the cities of California?

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 06/05/2007 @ 08:26am

    You must be the only one to misconstrue my China's "didn't give a shit" comment! For your benefit only, I meant that China paid no heed to the world's outcries and even denied, for quite some time, the massacre ever happened.

    To compare the hunt for Bin Laden to the Unabomber is quite a brilliant feather in your FABIAN cap! Sure, let's just sent in the FBI/CIA, all fluent in Arabics or whatever dialects needed, and go door to door, or cave to cave, in those convenient locales........

    Can you do better?

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2007 @ 11:33am