thedrifter
01-10-07, 07:45 AM
No Exit in Somalia
This time the U.S. stays on the anti-terror offense.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
It may be some time before we learn whether Sunday's air strikes by an AC-130 gunship in southern Somalia succeeded in killing the terrorists who were the intended targets--particularly Abu Taha al-Sudani, reportedly an al Qaeda explosives expert, and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, mastermind of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. But the attacks--along with the deployment of a carrier battle group off the African coast--are welcome evidence that the U.S. has learned the lessons of May 19, 1996.
That's the date Osama bin Laden and his associates left Sudan for Afghanistan on a chartered plane. The Clinton Administration was aware that Sudan intended to expel bin Laden, and the U.S. might have easily tracked and destroyed the flight en route. The consequences of its failure to do so is only too well known, and the Bush Administration is right to be determined not to let terrorists get away again, whether by land, air or sea.
The strikes in Somalia are also a reminder that in the war on terror there is no "exit strategy" short of victory. The last U.S. military venture in Somalia is broadly remembered as a military and political fiasco, particularly after the notorious "Black Hawk Down" battle in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed, in part for want of adequate armor.
Yet America's sheepish withdrawal from the country had consequences. Bin Laden viewed it as yet another sign that America can't take casualties and will retreat when hit hard. Somalia descended into anarchy and became a haven for al Qaeda operatives and affiliated terrorist groups. Last June, the capital of Mogadishu fell into their grip, and the rest of the country surely would have fallen as well had it not been for the timely military intervention of neighboring Ethiopia.
That intervention has been criticized by some for running the risk of fueling regional conflict rather than checking it. Thus a British newspaper report from December frets that Ethiopia's invasion offers "Islamic jihadists the chance to establish a new front in Africa after Iraq and Afghanistan, and to wage another proxy war between East and West." Maybe.
Then again, a Taliban-style regime on the horn of Africa, capable of harboring, training, financing and equipping terrorists was an intolerable threat to global security. By contrast, the main risk now is that some Islamists will escape to fight another day, an excellent reason for the U.S. to take action when they are dispersed and on the run. Our forces were able to hit the terrorists this week because Ethiopia's offensive had pushed them out of their safe houses and into the open. It is a useful reminder to other terrorists that the U.S. can hit them anywhere in the world.
None of this requires the U.S. to deploy militarily to Somalia. Our security interests in the region are already well-served by our military deployment in neighboring Djibouti, from where we can monitor the region and, when necessary, rapidly deploy force.
What the U.S. can do for Somalia is offer meaningful logistical, military and humanitarian assistance to the Transitional Federal Government, which the CIA previously eschewed in favor of financing local warlords. TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf may not be a model democrat, but he showed his stripes well enough when he said of Sunday's air strikes that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." If only we received the same level of candid cooperation from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
The story of Somalia is far from over, and America's involvement in the area will not soon end. But U.S. interests are well-served by putting terrorists on the run, wherever they may be. We will be better served still if we take the lesson that the only exit for us in the war against terrorists--whether in Somalia, Afghanistan and especially Iraq--is to make sure there is no exit for them.
Ellie
This time the U.S. stays on the anti-terror offense.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
It may be some time before we learn whether Sunday's air strikes by an AC-130 gunship in southern Somalia succeeded in killing the terrorists who were the intended targets--particularly Abu Taha al-Sudani, reportedly an al Qaeda explosives expert, and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, mastermind of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. But the attacks--along with the deployment of a carrier battle group off the African coast--are welcome evidence that the U.S. has learned the lessons of May 19, 1996.
That's the date Osama bin Laden and his associates left Sudan for Afghanistan on a chartered plane. The Clinton Administration was aware that Sudan intended to expel bin Laden, and the U.S. might have easily tracked and destroyed the flight en route. The consequences of its failure to do so is only too well known, and the Bush Administration is right to be determined not to let terrorists get away again, whether by land, air or sea.
The strikes in Somalia are also a reminder that in the war on terror there is no "exit strategy" short of victory. The last U.S. military venture in Somalia is broadly remembered as a military and political fiasco, particularly after the notorious "Black Hawk Down" battle in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed, in part for want of adequate armor.
Yet America's sheepish withdrawal from the country had consequences. Bin Laden viewed it as yet another sign that America can't take casualties and will retreat when hit hard. Somalia descended into anarchy and became a haven for al Qaeda operatives and affiliated terrorist groups. Last June, the capital of Mogadishu fell into their grip, and the rest of the country surely would have fallen as well had it not been for the timely military intervention of neighboring Ethiopia.
That intervention has been criticized by some for running the risk of fueling regional conflict rather than checking it. Thus a British newspaper report from December frets that Ethiopia's invasion offers "Islamic jihadists the chance to establish a new front in Africa after Iraq and Afghanistan, and to wage another proxy war between East and West." Maybe.
Then again, a Taliban-style regime on the horn of Africa, capable of harboring, training, financing and equipping terrorists was an intolerable threat to global security. By contrast, the main risk now is that some Islamists will escape to fight another day, an excellent reason for the U.S. to take action when they are dispersed and on the run. Our forces were able to hit the terrorists this week because Ethiopia's offensive had pushed them out of their safe houses and into the open. It is a useful reminder to other terrorists that the U.S. can hit them anywhere in the world.
None of this requires the U.S. to deploy militarily to Somalia. Our security interests in the region are already well-served by our military deployment in neighboring Djibouti, from where we can monitor the region and, when necessary, rapidly deploy force.
What the U.S. can do for Somalia is offer meaningful logistical, military and humanitarian assistance to the Transitional Federal Government, which the CIA previously eschewed in favor of financing local warlords. TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf may not be a model democrat, but he showed his stripes well enough when he said of Sunday's air strikes that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." If only we received the same level of candid cooperation from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
The story of Somalia is far from over, and America's involvement in the area will not soon end. But U.S. interests are well-served by putting terrorists on the run, wherever they may be. We will be better served still if we take the lesson that the only exit for us in the war against terrorists--whether in Somalia, Afghanistan and especially Iraq--is to make sure there is no exit for them.
Ellie