Eighteen years later, Somali’s problems are largely unchanged. Today, as in the early ’90s, fighting splits Somalia – although this time the major division is between the internationally-backed Transitional Federal Government and the hard-line Al Shabab Islamic group, rather than strictly between the clans. The current famine, meanwhile, is unequivocally as bad as that in the early ’90s, with as many as half of Somalia’s eight million people dependent on food aid.
Both sides in the Somalia conflict are ‘weaponizing’ humanitarian shipments. Al Shabab has banned the United Nations and aid groups from distributing aid in the territories Al Shabab controls, calling aid a tool of Western powers aiming to control Somalia. Al Shabab fighters have reportedly killed several families fleeing Al Shabab territory for areas where food is still being handed out.
Meanwhile, corrupt TFG officials are allegedly withholding donated food and doling it out at their own whim. ‘Whatever humanitarian (agencies) donate doesn’t reach the right people who deserve the donations, but instead goes astray to the wrong people,’ says Khalif Bashir Ali, unofficial leader of the Afgoye refugee camps just outside Mogadishu.
Today, hundreds of thousands of refugees are on the move in Somalia. Some head for Afgoye; others are bound for Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and other neighbouring countries – all of which are struggling with droughts of their own and so can’t safely absorb starving Somalis. That’s exactly the kind of dire scenario that US Army Maj. Shannon Beebe, an Africa strategist, probably pictured when he warned against ‘insecurities and the conditions of human beings that create…insecurities across state borders.’
Conditions today are very similar to those that led to the bloody 1992 US intervention in Somalia. But there won’t be a repeat. Memories of the Battle of Mogadishu, not to mention the continuing trauma of the United States’ land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mean Washington has zero appetite for more large-scale troops deployments.
Instead, the United States pursued separate air, naval and proxy ground campaigns that, today, have combined into a major demonstration of offshore balancing – but not without some serious hiccups along the way.
A Lost Decade
By 1995, the last US and UN troops had evacuated Somalia. For years following the end of the peacekeeping mission, Washington — and most foreign governments, for that matter – all but gave up on trying to influence events in the ruined country.
In a decade of isolation, a new form of government arose in the war-torn country. With everyday Somalis becoming more radicalized, a loose system of Islamic judges arose in Mogadishu. Their courts merged into a highly legalized but rudimentary government known as the Islamic Courts Union.
The ICU was a mix of hard-line and moderate Islamists. It was fairly popular and enjoyed a high level of support from Eritrea, which has long viewed Somalia as a proxy in its ongoing feud with neighbouring Ethiopia. The hardliners, and Eritrea’s patronage, together represented the seeds of the ICU’s destruction. But for a few years, there was relative calm in Somalia under the ICU’s reign.
Then al-Qaeda attacked the United States. In an instant, Washington’s attitude towards Islamists in any country hardened. Somalia no longer got a pass, though a working US policy for that country took several years to evolve. And it’s fair to say it didn’t evolve organically. For in 2006, Ethiopia, which had been positioning itself as a US partner in counter-terrorism, essentially hijacked Washington’s nascent Somalia strategy when it proposed a joint invasion of Somalia aimed at destroying the ICU. In usurping US efforts, Ethiopia exposed a major flaw in offshore balancing, specifically in its reliance on proxy ground forces with their own, sometimes competing, interests.
The ICU didn’t explicitly advocate terrorism, and there were probably only a handful of al-Qaeda operatives hiding out in Somalia at the time. But that nuance was lost on the George W. Bush Administration. Washington pledged support for the Ethiopian attack, including ‘intelligence sharing, arms aid and training,’ according to USA Today.
With this backing, plus air cover provided by US AC-130 gunships and carrier-based fighters and assistance on the ground by US Special Forces, the Ethiopian army launched a Blitzkrieg-style assault on Somalia in December 2006.
Ethiopian tanks quickly routed the ICU’s lightly armed fighters. ‘The Somalia job was fantastic,’ Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan told then-US Central Commander boss Gen. John Abizaid in 2007.
The Bush Administration agreed with that assessment, at least initially. And the proxy approach to African security challenges quickly became central to Washington’s policy for the continent. In 2007, the Pentagon formed a new regional command called ‘Africa Command’ to oversee operations in most of Africa.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Maduka
“Offshore balancing” might sound great to American policy makers far removed from the troubles in Africa. But mark my words, there will be hell to pay in the future.
America will have to make compromises with very nasty dictators and box itself into a corner when the people rise up against these unsavoury fellows. America will be accused (rightly so) of being a more malign influence in Africa than China and in a World where China is now Africa’s largest trading partner, this is a risk that should not be taken.
I respect America’s technology, but its strategic incompetence is legendary.It is as if all the lessons of Afghanistan (Mujahdeen during the Soviet invasion have been unlearned).
This kind of thing never ends well.
Yankee go home!!
aaron
Offshore balancing practices in Africa are highly unlikely to be applied to East Asia. The U.S. will use a mix of offshore concepts with traditional practices such as permanent bases in East Asia. Gotta give the author credit for trying, but it’s too hard to compare East Africa with East Asia. America’s allies in East Asia are stable, established powers which have similar strategic interests to the U.S. In contrast, Africa is a mess of shifting powers and interests. You’d need to write an entire book to distill any similarities which these two regions have in terms of their importance and focus for the U.S.
SManikCCBC
This is the first time I have heard of the term “offshore balancing”. It is surprising that this method isn’t brought up more in debates about military action. The concept is sound in its self that offshore balancing would protect America’s interest and American lives at the same time. This strategy also seems like a viable way for President Obama to get American foot soldiers out of Afghanistan and Iraq and still have a military presence in both countries. If the method can work in Libya it should work more efficiently in Iraq and Afghanistan because the troops on the ground would be American trained and supplied Iraqi and Afghanistan armies. Although it could also be more difficult because in both Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy isn’t an army like it is in Libya, it is just a bunch of locale cells. This strategy defiantly has the potential to change the way America gets involved in conflicts abroad.
yang zi
offshore balancing is a smart strategy. but this requires a responsible US administration. down the road, it might develop into a mercenary force. for example, if some anti-government force want US help, US can extract a promise to pay for the mission. If US use this model on Iraq, it could have all the Iraq oil.
Libya is the same, the new gov. should pay the cost of NATO bombs.
GFKjunior
How about we mind our own business and leave the ‘offshore balancing’ strategy to anyone but us. It costs us to much to keep the U.S. empire going.
Lighthouse
You do realize the ‘U.S. empire’ has evolved right? It is no longer just the US, but China and every other modern or modernizing country in the world that has a stake in the world becoming stable so financial markets can become more predictable and therefore more profitable.
Even if you want leave the ‘offshore balancing’ to someone else, it cannot be done because no else has the unified capability to do so in a short amount of time. The US has the largest and most profitable financial markets of any country and since stability is directly to them, the US almost has to intervene to keep prices stable.
As a side note: The current financial markets have only been around for the past 30 to 40 years. The Internet has only been around for about 15 years. The current Internet where I can have a live conversation with people from all over the world has only been around for the past couple years. All the bugs are still being worked out. These are growing pains. Suck ass growing pains.