Overshadowed by the increasingly dire situation in Iraq, the conflict in the East African nation of Somalia has quietly provided the United States with perhaps its greatest success in the War on Terror. Just a few months ago, Islamic militants were quickly taking over the country and were threatening to provide Al-Qaeda with a new safe haven in a strategically important part of the world. Alarmed by the growth of Islamic extremism in Somalia, the United States encouraged and helped the neighboring country of Ethiopia to invade Somalia and fight the extremists. The ensuing war, which lasted from Dec. 20 of last year to roughly the first days of this year, resulted in a complete victory for Ethiopian troops and a complete defeat for the Islamic extremists. Currently, though violence still exists in Somalia, the United Nations backed transitional government is starting to exert more control over the country and the Islamic extremists are in shambles.
The goal of this column is not to debate if the United States was justified to interfere in Somalia. Although there are serious ethical considerations in making other countries fight our wars, this column instead aims to objectively explain why the United States succeeded in defeating Islamic extremists in one country when it is failing to do so in other countries, namely Iraq. The philosophy behind this sort of approach is that the end of defeating Islamic extremism is more important than the means used to achieve that goal. In other words, this column aims to explain the world in terms of what it is and not in terms of what it should be so that a realistic solution to the problem of Islamic extremists can be achieved.
The United States succeeded in defeating the threat of Islamic extremists in Somalia because it relied on a regional power to basically do the dirty work. The conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia goes back centuries, and the two countries have been in full fledged war as recently as thirty years ago. The advent of Islamic extremists is just the latest variable in this long conflict. Ethiopia has an incentive to fight the Islamic extremists in Somalia for the United States because it can gain greater influence in the region and the United States has an incentive to give Ethiopia influence in the region for the benefit of not having to fight a war. In other words, the United States will allow Ethiopia to be a strong power in the region in return for fighting Islamic extremists.
The reason why this policy has been so successful is that there is an accepted norm or belief within Somalia that it is at least expected for Ethiopia to interfere within Somalia. The two countries have constant hostilities and to many this current war was just the latest manifestation of this conflict. Many of the Islamic extremists tried to portray the conflict as an epic jihad against crusaders and imperialists because such tactics had worked so well in places like Iraq. However, most Somalis simply did not view the conflict in this light because the United States did not engage in direct military intervention. As a result, many Somalis could simply accept that Ethiopia had won the war this time around and that it was time to move on. This logic implies that had the United States put troops in Somalia to defeat the Islamic Extremists, the resulting war would not have been successful.
The United States experience in Somalia provides us with valuable insight into the results of American military involvement. At least in Islamic countries, there appears to be a direct correlation between the amount of American troops on the ground and resistance by the local population. During the current war in Somalia there were practically no American troops on the ground and the war resulted in a crushing defeat for Islamic extremists. In Afghanistan there is a moderate American troop contingent and Islamic extremists have been able to survive though a successful resistance has failed to materialize. However, there are a large amount of American troops in Iraq and the Islamic extremists have been successful in resisting the American presence.
Therefore, the United States should try to shift as much of its troop commitments to regional entities through various incentives. The War on Terror should not be fought through direct military involvement, but through the use of these proxies. This may seem like common sense, but many of the policy proposals coming out of Washington advocate the opposite. President Bush's plan for a troop surge in Iraq will only make things worse because more American troops increases resistance. Similarly, many Democrats say that American troops should be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to fight Al-Qaeda more effectively. However, this plan too will fail for the same reason that the Bush's plan will fail. The American experience in Somalia demonstrates that to win the overall War on Terror, the United States should be very wary of committing any troops and instead should try to get regional entities to fight Islamic extremists.
Sam Shirazi is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. He is a first-year student in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
RASHID: Noncitizen students are under attack, and the University must act
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayNow is the time to act, proving our commitment by protecting and expanding programs that keep the University open and accessible to all.
