> Dan Minette wrote: > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell [article about Somalia] > > Last year the International Crisis Group, a > political > > think-tank, reported that: "In the rubble-strewn > > streets of the ruined capital of this state > without a > > government... al-Qaeda operatives, jihadi > extremists, > > Ethiopian security services and Western-backed > > counter-terrorism networks are engaged in a > shadowy > > and complex contest waged by intimidation, > abduction > > and assassination..." > > What a tangled mess. I am not saying "do > nothing," > > but doing any old thing in the short term is not a > > substitute for thinking ahead and acting for the long > > term. Backing warlords accused of murder and rape > > is not how to win the hearts and minds of the locals > > (or anyone else). If you're going to claim moral > > superiority over the world, you'd do well not to > > be supporting butchers and rapists. > It is a very messy situation. But, if you look at > previous policy in > Somalia, you will see the most unpleasant nature of > the options that exist. > We tried doing the right thing early in the '90s, > but we got caught up in > the very messy situation, and ended up with our dead > soldiers being dragged > through the streets. Our choices at that time were > to either escalate, and > take real control of the security of the country, or > to get out. We got out.
I wonder if the response would have been different had that occured post-9/11 (I'm betting yes, but hindsight-) > Now, we are in a situation where we can find no > parties without blood on > their hands to back. One option is to refrain from > being involved. But, if > AQ ends up running the country, and has a safe haven > for staging raids > elsewhere, will we end up having to intervene with > troops, as we did in Afghanistan? I supported the military engagement there, as the Taliban contributed directly to al-Quada --> 9/11. But the Taliban's being in power came from the vacuum after Russia left, and 'we' concluded the job was done. We learned to our deep chagrin that it was not. Unfortunately, by hopping into Iraq essential military units were pulled from hunting and clearing al-Quada and the Taliban; they're back in play quite strongly there again. It was an error, IMO, as I stated years ago. > I know you talk about diplomatic pressure. But, to > first order, diplomatic > pressure is making threats/promises. Even between > nominal allies, this > happens. Since you cited a column on the limited > usefulness of sanctions, > and appeared to approve of it, then I'm not sure > what your thoughts are on > diplomatic arm twisting. Oh, I'm all for carefully applied, even under-the-table arm-twisting as I think I called it several years ago; the art is in chosing who and what to go public with, and who to really treat with kid gloves. You have to know what kind of a culture you're dealing with, and judiciously use carrots and sticks (I even compared it to dealing with a proud-but-potentially-useful horse vs. a vicious one, IIRC! The former deserves to have ers dignity preserved as much as possible, the latter needs to be shown in no uncertain terms who's lead mare). <grin> Incidentally, in our approach to fundamentalists, you take Fareed's 'engagement' option, while I tend to the administration's 'isolation' option; who has a better chance of changing their minds? Hint: not this writer. > If people don't respond to heavy pressure, why > would they respond to light pressure? Actually, if you apply light but correctly-placed pressure, rather than the heavy-handed smackage that pretty much requires a vigorous dominance stand-off, you have a decent chance of getting at least some of what you want. As the article noted, consider the treatment of Vietnam (post-Saigon's fall) vs. Cuba, and the outcome for those citizens and US interests. > One of the difficult things is that backing the > lesser of two evils has > resulted in a better outcomes for the US a number of > times. Spain, South > Korea, and Taiwan are three examples that come to > mind. For that matter, > would it have been better to not work with Stalin to > beat Hitler? To zeroth > order, it was the Russian army that beat > Hitler...the US's supply of Russia > may have been it's biggest contribution to winning > the war in Europe. > Should FDR have gotten more out of the deal? Yes. From what I have read (admittedly not extensive), the partition was a gift to the Russians, whether direct or not. But you also have to be able to correctly identify the lesser of two evils; here might be the former Shah of Iran, Saddam himself, the Contras...and so on. Not a great record, IMO (which is not as well-informed as it ought to be). > Another way to look at Somolia is that finding a > political solution there is > just that much harder than in Iraq, where we have a > great deal of influence > and, finally, a first rate ambassador. In Somolia, > what exactly would AQ's > motivation be for coming to a meeting of the minds > with the US...if we > weren't fighting them by proxy? Wouldn't they just > laugh at our diplomacy? That's why I said it's a sticky-wicket; but if you back anarchistic butchers the regular people eventually will welcome any semblence of order, even if at a terrible price. Consider that some groups in Uganda currently don't want the international court to deal with the 'lord's resistance' movement, for fear of continued random violence. "Peace at any price" - not my ideal, but than I haven't watched generations of my people's children kidnapped, tortured, and turned into near-monsters. Debbi Perhaps Being A Bit Of A Gardening Mary Maru ;) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
