A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jul 26, 2011 at 8:30am
The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene to prevent death by famine in the Horn of Africa are zero. In collective American memory, the last effort to do so was a catastrophic failure.
A point long since forgotten is that the intervention did, actually, end the famine. Most accounts of this story are written in this form:
The United States entered Somalia in December 1992 to stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Although it succeeded in this mission ...
And those six words are all you'll hear about that, as if that wasn't particularly important.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
"The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene..."
Claire
I find your choice of words odd. The military does not decide where it goes, it goes where it is told to go.
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Foxman: "The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene..."
Claire
I find your choice of words odd. The military does not decide where it goes, it goes where it is told to go. · Jul 26 at 8:45am
Of course--our military is under civilian command. But I think this is a fairly standard locution, isn't it? As opposed to "intervene diplomatically" or "intervene economically" or "intervene morally?"
May '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
The confusion arises as the way you wrote it, "The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene..." sounds different than "the odds of persuading Americans to intervene militarily." I think Foxman read Americans as in the possessive and thought you dropped the apostrophe, and read "militarily" as "military."
English class is now dismissed and you can carry on with the real discussion...
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
EJHill
The confusion arises as the way you wrote it, "The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene..." sounds different than "the odds of persuading Americans to intervene militarily." I think Foxman read Americans as in the possessive and thought you dropped the apostrophe, and read "militarily" as "military."
English class is now dismissed and you can carry on with the real discussion... · Jul 26 at 9:07am
You are correct. I read this as "America's military to intervene", rather than "persuading Americans to intervene militarily"
Apologies to Claire.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
EJHill
The confusion arises as the way you wrote it, "The odds of persuading Americans militarily to intervene..." sounds different than "the odds of persuading Americans to intervene militarily." I think Foxman read Americans as in the possessive and thought you dropped the apostrophe, and read "militarily" as "military."
English class is now dismissed and you can carry on with the real discussion... · Jul 26 at 9:07am
You are correct. I read this as "America's military to intervene", rather than "persuading Americans to intervene militarily"
Apologies to Claire.
May '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
From your link:
As Somalia lapsed into sectarian and ethnic warfare, regional warlords drew upon clan loyalty to establish independent power bases. This situation led to a struggle over food supplies with each clan raiding the storehouses and depots of the others. ...
International relief organizations paid protection money to the warlords as they tried to distribute what donated food supplies did arrive. More often than not, such supplies never reached the hands of those who needed them but instead were confiscated by the warlords who distributed or sold them to enhance their own power and prestige. ....
The U.S. had accomplished much in the initial stages of the operation, but the political situation had unraveled even as the food supplies increased, allowing Somalia to slide backwards into disorder and anarchy.
The problem was more cultural and political than a matter of resources. The drought did not kill them. Fellow Somalians did.
Exporting our culture has always been our greatest gift to the world.
Mar '11
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Claire: to address the substance instead of the locution, I think you are correct on both points (as I read them) that you are making. That is: 1) Americans are suffering from military intervention fatigue; and 2) Military interventions to stop starvation can be successful and were in Somalia.
I have written fairly hawkishly on a number of topics here and am more interventionist than many. But, my skepticism toward Somalia (and I've spent some time in the HOA) is summed up in the link you provided by the sentence "There was no peace to keep."
We've learned a lot of lessons since the Restore Hope. I'm generally skeptical of a light footprint strategy anywhere, but especially in a country that is largely ungoverned and simmering in civil strife. A significant ground presence will be necessary to establish the peace, keep order and feed the hungry.
But the security situation in Somalia today is, in my humble opinion, as bad if not worse than it was in 1993. There are plenty of groups more than happy to kill American soldiers under whatever pretext roaming about the hinterlands "controlled" by al-Shabaab elements.
Nov '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
The problem was more cultural and political than a matter of resources. The drought did not kill them. Fellow Somalians did.
Exporting our culture has always been our greatest gift to the world. · Jul 26 at 9:15am
Absolutely correct, but that's also our public relations Achilles heel. For reasons of political opportunism, the Western news media will gladly put a microphone in front of anyone who complains that America is trying to export its culture for selfish reasons. That's an easy meme to get started, and it's a favorite with leftists - and other enemies of America - all over the world.
It's terribly frustrating. We can put 20,000 marines on the ground, restore order, and get food to starving people, but there will always be an element that resents our presence, and they're the ones who get the attention.
Nov '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
I'm persuaded.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
It wasn't.
The cliche that applies is, "The operation was a success, but the patient died on the table."
The legacy of the operation in Somalia was an America unwilling to use its military to full effect for fear that leaders like Bill Clinton and Les Aspin would leave our soldiers vulnerable to massacre, and a world full of miscreants who knew that we had that attitude.
As a consequence, Clinton couldn't give the order to take out Bin Laden when Special Ops forces had him in their sights, and when Clinton ordered a missile strike on Bin Laden's compound, he felt compelled to tell the Pakistanis in advance -- giving them the chance to warn Bin Laden.
The operation didn't even end the famine: it postponed it, and so tens of thousands of Somali children grew up to make their country even more lawless and hopeless. I don't suggest that the preferred alternative was to let them starve, but rather to crush the warlords and set Somalia on a course to self-sufficiency.
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
I am curious--what would it mean to "set Somalia on a course to self-sufficiency"? Would this be like the current Libyan operation, where we have recognized a group as the legitimate government that is not elected and has hundreds of members formerly engaged in attempting to kill Americans?
"Somalia" is a common noun. Who are the actual people we should empower to build a decent nation there?
Stuart Creque
The cliche that applies is, "The operation was a success, but the patient died on the table."
The legacy of the operation in Somalia was an America unwilling to use its military to full effect for fear that leaders like Bill Clinton and Les Aspin would leave our soldiers vulnerable to massacre, and a world full of miscreants who knew that we had that attitude.
The operation didn't even end the famine: it postponed it, and so tens of thousands of Somali children grew up to make their country even more lawless and hopeless. I don't suggest that the preferred alternative was to let them starve, but rather to crush the warlords and set Somalia on a course to self-sufficiency. · Jul 26 at 12:40pm
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Stuart Creque
It wasn't.
The cliche that applies is, "The operation was a success, but the patient died on the table."
I think that is applicable, yes. But given the scale of the catastrophe now imminent, if these predictions are correct (I have no doubt they're very approximate), I wish people would at least seriously ask, "Does that mean we give up on surgery altogether?" I'd like to see people at least asking more serious questions about famine, aid, Somalia and the real track record of military intervention there and elsewhere in relevantly similar cases than I'm seeing--and a proportional weighting of certain things that seem sort of obvious to me, like "3.6 million people dying of famine is something we should prevent if there's a practical way to do it."
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
By the way--I am certainly not suggesting that there is a "practical way to do it," or that I have any policy recommendations at all. I'm just pointing out that in discussing this, that fairly important point should be noted, and it's one usually almost completely forgotten or reduced to six words.
Jun '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Why does it have to be us? Providing security for relief workers seems like a simple enough operation that any number of national or coalition forces could handle it: the E.U., the U.N., or what about the African Union? For that matter, why not Turkey? Are we really the only nation left on the face of the planet with a competent military?
And wouldn't an African or Arab force provoke less of a backlash?
Apr '11
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Alas Claire I think Americans would be far more confident and proud to help, if we garnered more appreciation for all that we have done and are doing. Instead whatever we do gets twisted and distorted a imperialistic, and chauvinistic.
The simple fact is that I sleep just fine with millions of Somali starving to death and so do most Americans. Is Somalia a friend? Will they become our friends? Do we even care if they are our friends? I feel like most of us are tiered and worried about our own problems here in America, and we just want the rest of the world to take care of itself, or at least appreciate us more. And private appreciation is nice, but we would like to know it too.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
John Grant: I am curious--what would it mean to "set Somalia on a course to self-sufficiency"? Would this be like the current Libyan operation, where we have recognized a group as the legitimate government that is not elected and has hundreds of members formerly engaged in attempting to kill Americans?
"Somalia" is a common noun. Who are the actual people we should empower to build a decent nation there?
Jul 26 at 12:48pm
Note that I wrote in the past tense of what ought to have been done in 1992-1993.
A little-remembered fact is that within weeks after Blackhawk Down, the warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid was on a US military transport, being given safe conduct to a "peace conference" in Addis Ababa. The response to Blackhawk Down should have been a rain of death on Farrah Aidid and his supporters, something reminiscent of Dresden. The people in the refugee camps might have formed a core around which Somali self-sufficiency could be built - especially had the warlords and their fighters in their "technical" vehicles been hunted down and exterminated.
The advantage of fearsomeness gained in Desert Storm was instead completely squandered.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Claire, I agree. When such crises arise, it would be wonderful if the world could get its act together and intervene to good effect.
However, when the world gets its act together and intervenes to bloody little effect or to ill effect, it makes it that much less practical to intervene again.
The UN has been in Congo for how long now, overseeing how many deaths, committing how many of its own atrocities? (The improvement there is mainly due to Rwandan intervention against former genocidaires across the border.)
The UN has been on the Lebanon-Israel border for how long now, doing next to nothing? Another jeepload of French UNIFIL troops were only just blown up today - which means UNIFIL troops will be confined to base to do even less, right?
Demonstrating might works - blustering doesn't.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
The important American policy interest in Somalia is that it cease to be an exporter of terrorism and piracy. If that can be accomplished by helping its people escape famine and become self-sufficient, that's wonderful. If it must be accomplished by demonstrating to the terrorists and pirates among them that we will kill them in massive numbers without hesitation, then that's how it has to be.
What we can't do is ignore the problem and pretend it won't blow up in our faces. No one expected Afghanistan to be the launching pad for a major terror attack, either.
Dec '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Joseph Stanko: Why does it have to be us? Providing security for relief workers seems like a simple enough operation that any number of national or coalition forces could handle it: the E.U., the U.N., or what about the African Union? For that matter, why not Turkey? Are we really the only nation left on the face of the planet with a competent military?
And wouldn't an African or Arab force provoke less of a backlash? · Jul 26 at 1:50pm
The simple reason why is that American soldiers are nearly unique in the world for their willingness to die so that other people, people who are not their countrymen, can be free.
Other countries happily export blue-helmeted soldiers to rake in the UN payments, but those soldiers have a low propensity to brave death except in self-preservation or in cases of narrow national interest -- as for example, French soldiers intervening in Francophone Africa. African Union soldiers haven't made the difference in Darfur.
As for Arab League soldiers: We can see throughout the Arab world that Arab soldiers have to spend most of their time worrying about their officers shooting them in the back.
Jun '10
Re: A Point About Somalia Few Will Wish to Consider
Stuart Creque
The simple reason why is that American soldiers are nearly unique in the world for their willingness to die so that other people, people who are not their countrymen, can be free.
True, but is that really the mission here? To prevent famine you would need to land, establish a secure port for delivery of supplies, establish supply lines to distribute supplies throughout the country, and provide sufficient security to allow aid workers to distribue enough food to last through the dry season. Then withdraw.
Not a permanent solution to be sure, but then neither was our 1992 intervention.
I would think Russia or China could easily pull it off. Whether they would want to, and whether we would want them to, are two entirely separate questions.