> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:14 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: History lessons not learned? > > 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. 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 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. If people don't respond to heavy pressure, why would they respond to light pressure? 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? 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? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
