Saturday, April 21, 2007

Get out of Somalia! (Reply to Michael)

Michael,

Good hearing from you once again. In the last conversation we had under the thread "
America's Role in Somalia", in spite of my opposition to Meles' invasion of Somalia, I wished that the invasion will give Somalis the opportunity to start over again and I hoped to be proven wrong in my assessment of post-Meles-invasion Somalia. As it turned out, it did not take Meles too long to prove that my assessment was correct with his arrogant and foolish attempt to impose his will on Somalis through his proxy. I still would not mind to be proven wrong, but I have now concluded that the chance for bringing "stability" in Somalia with Ethiopian troops on Somali territory is slim to none, and the best scenario for Ethiopia at this point is to unilaterally withdraw from Somalia immediately.

There are many reasons why Meles' invasion of Somalia, in his own words, "to protect the sovereignty of the nation and to blunt repeated attacks by Islamic courts terrorists and anti-Ethiopian elements they are supporting" was destined to fail. To start with, it was clear from the pre-invasion period that Ethiopian invasion and the inevitable occupation of Somalia was not a welcome idea by a majority of Somalis. Period.

Secondly, the main motive for orchestrating the invasion by Meles was to distract from his troubles at home and not to deny terrorists a haven in Somalia as the Bush Administration officials desperately wanted to believe. I am sure the Bush people knew what they were getting into, but they were willing to take a chance with Meles and let the local forces in the region do their bidding as the article you suggested back in January articulated well.

And last, but not least, there were and there continue to be external actors in Somalia (the peevish Eritrean regime being a prime example) who are determined to use various Somali factions as proxies to achieve their own objectives in the region.

Your comparison of the consequences of Ethiopian withdrawal from Somalia with the consequences of American withdrawal from Iraq is not an apt comparison in my view. Please allow me to explain.

First of all, the American intervention in Iraq, although world public opinion was against it and a vocal minority in the US opposed it, it was fully debated by democratically elected representatives of the American people in the US Congress and the legislation authorizing the intervention had received a super majority (more than two-thirds) support in both houses of Congress. On the contrary, the Ethiopian government is an illegitimate regime in the eyes of a majority of its own citizens. The illegitimate parliament supposedly conducted a debate on the merits of military intervention in Somalia, but the outcome was never in doubt. But the Ethiopian people, a clear majority of whom were opposed to the military intervention, were never allowed to express their views.

Although there now is a consensus that the American intervention in Iraq was made on a faulty intelligence, the consensus before the war was the opposite. As a matter of fact, the majority view in America and perhaps around the world before the intervention was that WMDs in the possession of a crazy person like Saddam Hussein, who had a history of using them, was something that should not be tolerated in the post-9-11 world. So, unlike the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia, the American intervention in Iraq, although controversial and badly managed after the initial battle victory, was a mission that was carried out with the will of the American people.

Yes, the war in Iraq is going badly at the moment and the calls for American withdrawal are at a fever pitch at this time. For what it's worth, my view in early 2003 was that the Bush Administration was making a strategic blunder by rushing to go to war. But once the war began, I felt that the right thing to do was to support the Iraq mission until it comes to a satisfactory end. I believe politicizing the war in Iraq ad nauseam, as many on the left are doing nowadays is irresponsible and does not serve the interest of the US and the long-term stability of the Middle East. Therefore, I believe a total withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq at this point in time is ill-advised, and, however wrongly framed the mission was before the war, I am of the opinion that the Bush Administration should be given the tools necessary to carry out the mission in Iraq.

For the reasons I mentioned above and the arguments I have made earlier on this blog, the Ethiopian military has no business being in Somalia and I strongly believe that Ethiopia's long term interests are best served if Meles swallows his pride and withdraws Ethiopia’s troops from Somalia immediately. The more time passes with the Ethiopian military staying in Somalia as an occupation force, the stronger the resentment of Somalis will be towards Ethiopians. This definitely is not in Ethiopia’s interests. I am very sure Ethiopian-Somali enmity will not serve US interests in the region as well.

Unilateral and immediate withdrawal of Ethiopian troops will not make the security situation in Somalia any worse than it is now with Ethiopian troops stationed there. Yes, if Ethipian troops immediately and unilaterally withdraw, Meles' ego will be deflated a bit, but so what? Anyways, what is mostly bad for Meles is usually good for Ethiopia! As to terrorists making Somalia a safe haven, I do not believe Ethiopia's invasion has made much difference. In fact, an argument can be made that the intervention may have emboldened the terrorist elements of the Islamists and, in the long-term, may have made things worse than they were before the invasion.

Fikru

This is a reply to Michael from Germany for the comments he wrote under the posting: "Get out of Somalia".

20 comments:

Gooch said...

Nice post!

To be fair, there was 'objective' opinion (think tanks, donor governments, etc.) on both sides of the argument on whether to invade or not to invade. But most were on the side of not invading.

But let's face it, most Ethiopians opposed the invasion because they don't trust Meles' decision-making in such situations. Can't blame them - it's difficult to trust someone who's not accountable to you and who's missed no opportunity to denigrate you for sixteen years.

I think it's ever-so-slowly dawning on the EPRDF that they'll never be popular. Recently, I heard in a cadre communique (EPRDF marketing speech) a comparison of Meles and Mubarek of Egypt. The storyline is that though everyone in Egypt hates Mubarek, they properly stand with him when it comes to the good of Egypt. A defeatist ad campaign if I ever heard one.

Anonymous said...

Fikru,

many greetings!

I'm honored and flattered that you respond to a comment of mine not in the comments section, but with an extra post.

I guess we'll not really come to an agreement over this because ultimately our perspectives are likely not only informed by arguments, but by deeply rooted affective attitudes shaped by experiences accumulated over the years. Nonetheless it's always a pleasure to exchange reasoned points of view with a knowleageable and, above all, courteous and non-ideological interlocutor.

First, let me concede right away that the Iraq analogy only carries so far. Certainly the decision-making processes that led to the two interventions were very different in each case, with the difference not being in favor of the Ethiopian procedure.

By the way, I was not opposed to the US intervention in Iraq, and still think it was the right thing to do. Also I believe that while certainly things there are not exactly peaches and cream, they are not going quite as badly as the MSM worldwide suggest, and that there are a number of under-perceived strategic benefits. I only mention this because I somehow get the impression from your posting that you take me to be anti-US-in-Iraq and therefore take great pains to convince me of the (relative) merits of that operation. Well, you needn't. I almost fully concur with that part of your analysis.

What I still think is valid in my Iraq-Somalia (or shoudn't one rather say: Mogadiscio?) analogy, though, is the aspect of outcome in case of an immediate withdrawal of the intervening forces. As I said, it would hand a victory to the worst (aggressive Islamic) forces in either society. At the same time, it would amount to a betrayal of one's loyal local allies, representing the most benign and enlightended elements in both societies, namely the Kurds in one case and the TG of Somalia in the other.

Or what would your scenario of what would happen after an immediate (!) Ethiopian withdrawal be?

Sure, Ethiopia could then wash it's hands in -- presumed and cheap -- innocence again, like Pilate. But would it benefit "the Somalis"? And would it be a moral thing to do, to abandon the allies who banked on you, who wagered their lives on your unflinching support, even if the going on the ground as well as in the media got rough? It is for a reason that Prime Minister Geddi is making the most harsh and determined public statements continously these days, vowing to continue the fight again the Islamic fascists until victory. He knows the beast from up close, and he and his folks -- I repeat: the most enlightened in Somalia, and moreover come to power legitimately -- will be among the first otherwise devoured by it. In this case, too, there is no substitute for victory. I believe you are under illusions as to the nature of the Islamic Courts and kindred spirits.

By the way, there is a plan for a phased withdrawal of Ethiopian troops anyway, approved by the African Union.

A further point: It is wildly inaccurate to speak of an Ethiopian "occupation" of Somalia. "Occupation" is a highly charged propagandistic vocabulary item tossed around mostly for political purposes these days. In Somalia it certainly reflects no reality whatsoever on the ground. How many Ethiopian troops are there in Somalia? 15,000 at best. And with these you "occupy" a country (well, a "country") the size of Somalia?!? Except for Mogadiscio, most of Somalia will be completely empty of Ethiopians, and the folks living there in no immediate way affected by the fighting in the capital.

As to Meles' motives, could it not have been a combination of both: Genuine concern about the march of the IC, as well as the added benefit of some distraction from domestic woes?

Last tidbit: As to emboldening the Islamic fascists of Somalia, well, I have recently seen Shaykh Sharif Shaykh Ahmad on al-Jazeera, and he spoke as meekly and pleadingly as never before. For heaven's sake, he had even donned a suit in his attempt to come across as a reasonable and moderate politician. No comparison to his firebrand rhetoric of the times before the Ethiopian intervention, when it was "first Baidoa -- then Dire Dawa -- then Addis Abeba: Islam will rule the Horn supreme!"

Also, Shaykh Zahir Aweys now argues: We Somalis can have a nice dialog among ourselves and sort out our differences once the evil Ethiopian occupiers are gone.

He really has a sense of humor, that guy. Because before the Ethiopians ever came to Mogadiscio, his "dialog with other Somalis" consisted in marching on the -- again: legitimately formed -- transitional government of Baidoa and caring sh*t about the "suffering of ordinary Somalis" that he now loudly laments.

These people, these Islamic fascists, cannot be peace partners. They will lie in your face when it serves their purpose, agree to everything and anything when they are in position of weakness, but make an immediate U-turn once they feel they are strong enough to assert themselves, flouting all previous agreements they had with you. It is my impression that folks like Abdullahi Yusuf and Prime Minister Geddi (can't remember his first name right now) from protracted first hand experience are much more acutely aware of this than kind-hearted people in greater distance from the various theaters of confrontation.

It's always a pleasure to exchange views with you, Fikru!

Best wishes,
Michael

enset said...

Hi Michael,

It seems to me the main difference between your view and mine about the problems of Somalia and our respective solutions stems from our differences in how we diagnose the root cause of the Somali conflict.

I see the Somali conflict raging in the last 16 years as stemmimg more from inter/intra-clan rivalry and less as a struggle between radical Islamists on one hand and secularists on the other. If I am not mistaken, you see it the other way around.

I have argued that political Islam which manifested itself in the form of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) should not be allowed to take root in the Horn of Africa. But I also believed that the ICU did not rise to power because its radical Islamist agenda was popular among Somalis and that the best approach to take was to contain the ICU.

The Ethiopian invasion seems to have gotten rid of the ICU as an organized political force, but obviously its radical elements have kept themselves alive to fight another day. However, from all accounts, it is not the agenda of the radical Islamists that is the driving force behind the latest mayhem in Mogadishu; it is the rivalry among Somali clans which is the culprit.

In this tragic conflict, outsiders should not choose sides with this or that clan. Unfortunately, Meles has already taken sides and he has lost all his credibility with the general Somali population. There is a slim chance that troops the don the African Union uniform may help to bring stability. But I seriously doubt that there will be enough AU personnel to do the job.

The bottom line is that it is the Somalis themselves who will need to decide that their affinity to their respective clan(s) needs to be subordinated to their common good. Outsiders can help Somalis with bringing reconciliation to Somalia. Since Meles has lost all his credibility, however, I believe that the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia will not have any positive contribution to Somali reconciliation. That is why I believe Meles should withdraw Ethiopian troops immediately.

Fikru

Anonymous said...

Fikru,

the ICU may have advanced on the back of the perennial Somali inter-clan rivalries, but it introduced a new element and a new dynamic of its own.

After all, the various Somali factions active before never credibly and consistently championed action (in the ICU's case: jihad) against Ethiopia.

Moreover, through its Islamic ideology the IC ceased to be a purely local / regional phenomenon, but established links to the worldwide Jihadi sphere, enabling it to tap resoureces in funds and fighters that "secular" Somali warlords never had access to.

Also, let's never forget that the ICU became active when for the first time in a decade there was a chance for a genuine and regular political process in Somalia, with a legitimate and otherwise universally recognized government having been established.

Lastly, I yesterday learned from al-Jazeera that the fighting now allegedly is all but over, that the ICU-inspired resistance has been virutally crushed, with only a few minor pockets remaining.

If, as I hope, this is true, it is a welcome reminder that you can end conflicts through victory over the bad guys too, and not only through much-vaunted "dialog", "compromise" and "reconciliation" with them. Can anybody tell me why reconciliation with totalitarian murderers would be a good thing, preferable to victoy over them? Would anybody in his or her right mind have proposed "reconciliation" with the Nazis?

Regards,
Michael

Ersasu said...

Fikru-as always, your arguments are clear, lucid, and brilliant. Ethiopia neglected the pottery barn rule: you break, you own it.

enset said...

Michael,

You are correct, the ICU introduced a new dynamics in Somali politics, a dynamics that you and I agree is not welcome. Where my thinking diverges from you is that the ICU may not have had that opportunity had it not been for the heavy interference of outsiders in Somali affairs, interference that does not have the interest of the Somalis at its core.

I also hope that fighting in Mogadishu will cease and that innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire will get badly needed emergency help.

No one in his/her right mind would disagree with you about not reconciling with the Nazis, perhaps except the current Iranian president and his ilk. But it is not wise to label all Somalis who are opposed to the TFG and their Ethiopian allies as the "bad guys" who need to be crushed and pushed aside from the Somali reconciliation table. Most of these "bad guys" have legitimate grievances against the TFG and the Ethiopian occupation force that props it, and their grievances are best addressed thru dialog.

Speaking of dialog, please allow me to leave you with the thoughts of David Shinn, a former US Ambassador to Ethiopia and my favorite analyst on the Somali crisis, speaking on April 21st at a Somali Conference in Columbus, Ohio in the US:

"It is much too late to expect the crisis can be ended through elusive political dialogue (the favorite term of the international community) and a 3,000 member national reconciliation conference, which keeps being postponed. Real power-sharing is required immediately."

This type of push is what is really needed to prevent Somalia from being a haven for terrorists. I fail to see how such a power-sharing can be achieved thru the "crush them" approach you are prescribing.

Fikru

Anonymous said...

Fikru,

my last word for now, in the current round of our Somalia debate, will not be a word of my own, but a reference to someone else's thoughts on the there situation.

I recommend you read what American geostrategic blogger Westhawk, whom I highly respect, had to say this past Friday on the current state of affairs in Somalia and some of its possible implications.

The URL is: westhawk.blogspot.com

As always, I send you my best wishes.

Michael

enset said...

Michael,

Thank for the link. I just visited it. It was a pleasure debating with you. Even though we do not see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Somali crisis and issue of Ethiopian involvement in Somalia, I believe your insights are valuable for my readers and I. I appreciate your time, and please visit Enset again. Take care.

Fikru

Zenobia said...

Your analysis of the situation in Somalia is objective, humane and pragmatic.

Anonymous said...

the situation in somalia and ethiopian militery support to the TFG and eritrean support to the ICU is only part of a greter conflict of power in the east africa which is played by the main actors ethiopia and TFG eritrea and ICU.The big story started in 1991 when government collapsed in Ethiopia and Ertrea won its independence,similarly in somalia the government of Ziad Barre collapsd .In Ethiopia and Eritrea situations quickly changed and became peaceful but Somalia desended into total chaose of tribalisem.after eight years of relevent peace, the eritreans who have been enjoyeng the status of super powers of the horn also with hugh influence and domination of ethiopia's economy saw their position being undermined by ethiopia's ricovery and the emergince from its internal problems which was about to break up the whole country. EPRDF wes asserting control over the whole of the country and the economy,this means that eritrea will loose its only source of income to support its huge army and over ambitious economic plan so they have to do something about it or accept ethiopia as the dominant figure of the horn so they decided to use their military advantage over ethiopia .when a small border incident happened in Bademe they launched a full scle invasion of the country hoping it will scare the Meles regim of forching him to agree to eritrean demands and encourage rebelion by other ethiopian partis after exposing Melese's weakness even hoped a coup with in the TPLF will overthrow Meles from power.Instead of doing what Issayas Afworki wanted Meles did the opposite,that was the doomed of the Eritrean regim.After two years of bloody war Ethiopia emerged as the dominant power of the horn. when the conventional war stopped the war of words started with both sides supporting rebel forces of the other one where eritrea still enjoyed the advantages of more opposition movements against the Meles regim OLF,ONLF and Al-Ithad movements were based in Somalia.It was at this time that Abdulahi Yousif leader of the TFG of Somalia planed for a take over of the whole of southern Somalia. instead of fighting a costly war to subdue every clan militia he would let the ICU do that and he would difet the ICU with the help of Meles zenawi to achive his final goal of uniting all of the southern Somalia under his control .and in return for ethiopian support he would deprive all ethiopian rebels supported by the eritreans from their bases in somalia .this would mean another difet for the eritreans so the eritreans decided to support the ICU against the TFG. after the battels that followed we can see the TFG more or less in control of the whole of southern somalia.That was a total victory for Meles Zenawi and Abdulahi Yousf After now the last conflict of the Ethiopia Eritrea war will be very direct and will probably end with the disruction of the Issayas regim by ethiopian militery .We can already see the clouds of war over ethiopian and eritrean sky.

Chereka said...

Interesting discussion, between Fikru and Michael. Let me put in my 2 cents here. Fikru and Michael, you seem to have forgotten one important point here when you assert that the ICU is not welcome in Somalia. Actually, as far as the Ethio occupation is concerned, that is not even the issue. The main issue here is that the Ethiopian army, which is composed mostly of Christian members, is occupying an Islamic country! This is a major problem. Just like the people, not the Al Qaeda terrorists the MSM in the US would have you believe , the people/citizens of Iraq are resisting the US occupation, the Somali people are resisting the Ethiopian forces. In the history of world conflicts, such an occupation has never worked! It has not worked in Iraq in the 1920's, it has not worked in Algeria with the French, has not worked with US military occupation of Saudi Arabia and so on and on and. When you add other elements to it like political, economic and racial, what you have is a ticking time bomb. Period! So, Michael, you can preach about the 'quick or swift victory' of the Ethiopian forces in Mogadishu and it's effectiveness just like the US bragged in Iraq. But sooner or later, the citizens of these countries will rise up. Ann they have shown it recently by dragging dead bodies of Ethiopian soldiers in the streets. Let me as you this Mr Michael, would you sit idle if a largely Moslem invading army occupied your country, be it Germany or the US?

What you are seeing in Somalia is no different to what you seeing in Iraq, in Iran, in Egypt or any other African countries. It is a response to an increasingly hostile Western policy towards Islam in the name of fighting terrorism. BTW, you are creeping me out with your Nazi and 'radical Islam' analogy. Seeing that you are currently in Germany, could not help wonder if it is sort of what psychologists call "projection"? Hmmm, interesting. Anyway, please stop it! Last time I checked the so called Islam radicals did not pick on a certain group of people based on their ethnicity and didn't' have control of a country. So easy with the absurd analogy.

Also, you said :... there are a number of under-perceived strategic benefits." to the US occupation of Iraq. Yes, it is an occupation, as is the Ethio/Somali conflict, no matter how you dress it up. Anyways, I challenge you to come up with one...one benefit from it. Nothing personal, but there is a certain amount of arrogance or even a subtle racism in your analysis of situation. You keep referring to the people who you think are not fighting the occupying forces both in Iraq and Somalia, as the 'most enlightened' segment of the population. Does this mean that the rest are un-enlightened and backwards? Interesting. See, this is the kind of rhetoric the Islam world is constantly fighting to eliminate from the debate. You also described the Kurds in Iraq, who seem to be so far anyway, the bystanders in the civil war, as the '..most benign and enlightened elements'. lol So, when did the Kurds become the bargaining chip for the debate whether or not to stop the occupation? Like Spike Lee said of the Nike shoes in his commenrial, "It gotta be the oil, Money!!' lol Aren't these the same Kurds whom the father of this current president abandoned and allowed to be slaughtered by Sadam Hussein in 1992? Yeah, I can almost hear the Kurds saying "Thank God or Allah for small favors" lol Yeah, they will trust the US again...keep dreaming.

As for your question, " Can anybody tell me why reconciliation with totalitarian murderers would be a good thing, preferable to victoy over them? Would anybody in his or her right mind have proposed "reconciliation" with the Nazis?" It is a legitimate and good question, but one can ask exactlty the same of the US conduct, (minus the Nazi reference...well, for now anyway) when it comes to the so called 'Global War on Terror'.

And finally, when did the Somali people request an Ethiopian assistance. I wasn't aware that they did. Even if they did, isn't that against international law to invade a country based on a request by an opposition group? The fact is that the US, the UK and the Ethiopian governments apparently did not do their homeworks. If they have, they would not have repeated history.

Anonymous said...

this is to chereka i've rade your comment through and I strongly disagree with your view on the situation first thing is you faild to understand the geo-politics of the horn of africa as you understand the diffrence between islam and christanity.there are four players in the theatre of war in somalia ethiopia and TFG on one side and eritrea , ICU ,OLF, ONLF and others on the other side.ethiopia fighting eritrea, OLF and ONLF and the TFG fighting the ICU .

enset said...

Chereka,

I agree that the occupation of Somalia, a near 100% Muslim country, by the Ethiopian army, which probably is 90% Christian, should have been one more obvious reason for Ethiopia to avoid entangling herself in the Somali conflict. That said, I do think that the war in Iraq is better understood thru a 9-11 prism, which is primarily a politico-economic prism, not a religious one.

As I have said previously, the prime motive for the US to go into Iraq was Saddam Hussein's proven track record of using WMD's and his desire to control the oil fields of the Middle East. In the aftermath of 9-11 a substantial portion of the US policy making establishment concluded that allowing Saddam to continue in power was a risk the US can not afford to take, even at the risk of antagonizing Muslims. To this end they convinced a super majority of Americans to support the war. At the very least, they thought Muslims in Iraq (Shias and Kurds) would tolerate the invasion which was designed to get rid of the hated Saddam regime. What they failed to anticipate was that this toleration could easily give way to a hostile relationship if manipulated by Al-Qaeda and unfriendly governments in the region. As it turned out, this is what happened and the US is entangled in a quagmire of its own making in Iraq. I am sure most of those policy makers who thought the US occupation of Iraq will be tolerated now think they were naive with their assumptions.

The case of the Ethiopian quagmire in Somalia is quite different, I believe, and 9-11 and the war on terror were not the prime factor for the Meles regime to into Somalia. With the history of conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia over the Ogaden region and an array of unfriendly governments in the region, foreseeing the unintended repercussions of invading and occupying Somalia should not have been a difficult thing to do. But the regime was blinded by the short term prestige it could garner from a quick military victory over the Islamists. The regime had the benefit of learning from the mistake of the US as far as the need for planning for the post-military victory, but it chose to repeat the same mistake. The Meles regime still doesn't get it. It believes might is every thing. Although I agree with you that the difference in religion between the two countries is a factor for the Somali resentment of Ethiopian occupation, I do believe that the main reason for Somali resistance of Ethiopian occupation that we are witnessing is the historical conflict that the European colonial powers left for the people of the Horn of Africa region to sort out.

Anonymous said...

to chereka again its me i can see your point of view in the situation and I can understand the point you re making you are saying the whole drama played by the ethiopian government makes ethiopia simply look like an american satelite .but you still faild to see that ethiopia even before 9/11 and the american claimed war on terror and the ethio-eritrea war, has done several cross border raids in somalia, on bases of Al-ITHAD AL ISLAMIA(which was to become the core of the ICU recently) ,OLF,and ONLF bases.

Anonymous said...

for the first time in our history ethiopians are deling with their enemys on their own turfs .

chereka said...

Enset, I am a bit surprised with your comment about 9/11 and Iraq. You must know by now that it has pretty much been estblished by many including this administration's officials that Iraq or Saddam had no connection with 9-11. It's like blaming or even trying to blame Pearl Harbor on the Mexicans. There is no prism whatsoever it can be understood, even in the remote sense. If the US was to invade countries for the use of WMD's, they would have started with Italy in the Ethio-Italian war in 1936 and have concluded it in Israel in 2006.

Again, the decision to ivade Iraq was made well before 9/11. And the reason was because Sadaam was going to start trading oil in Euro's instead of dollars as the sanction came to an end. He had made that clear to the world. The reason they are bogged down now is an arrogant US policy coupled with total incompetence.

What they failed to understand is that there is a secterian difference in the country and that the only thing that kept it in tact was a dictator like Sadam. Al Qaed got a gift in Iraq. Bin Laden got his wish when he found thousands of US military in an Arab nation, so he sent whatever little force he has. Al Qaeda represnts very little percentage of the fighting force. A vast majority of the people are citizens of Iraq It did not manipulate anything.

As for your comment on the historical conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, (and this is for the first anonymous too) there might be some truth to that, are you saying that Meles pre-emtively attacked the ICU because he feared that they may start a historical border war? If that is true, he is even dubmer than we think in my opinion, because what makes him think that the current govt' will not have the same claim once they are situated and have consolidated their power. Regardless of the reason, it is an agression by one nation over another.

Anonymous said...

I think Meles Zenawi did a great job in dealing with the agents of Eritrean regim in Somalia.Shabia try to lit a fire around Ethiopia ,we have every right to put off the fire that will torch our house before it got out of control and that's what happend in Somalia .I dont agree with everything what Meles did since he took power in 1991 but this one thing I truly support .And like some so called opposition leaders tried to do its not good to sale out on national interest for personal interest.

Anonymous said...

mohamed

to that last comment

you support meles invasion somalia i would not understand why any ethiopian would support the killings of their brothers in somalia we somalians try sort our problems we are no danger to ethiopia meles is doin this because bush promise him to keep him in power somalis will never forget what you doing to us when we are weakestonce again the west is pushing you to fight your naghbor somalia ethiopian troops in muqdisho is a big insult to all somalis why did you gain?how can this 500 icu soldiers reach addis? is that why you are ixamar cade-muqdisho

Blackstacey said...

When the smoke clears and alll of the fighting has been resolved, how far behind the power curve will the Somali people be? While the Somali people fight each other over clan dominance the rest of the world is growing their economies, developing nuclear technology, developing new medicines and whatever else it is that countries/nations do that desire to be number one in the world.

Clan dominance? Are they fighting to decide which clan is the most retarded? If I thought the Somali people were fighting a war with weapons that they themselves manufactured, then you could argue that the war is good for their economy. But I suspect that they are fighting with other peoples technology. Good going guys. Good job.

Osob said...

It is so nice to hear such a sentiment from a fellow African, particularly an Ethiopian. As a Somali interested in African unity and prosperity, I appreciate the many cultures and histories of our rich continent. But I'm frequently confronted with the tensions between groups of people, who are usually neighbours and similar in many ways. Somalis and Ethiopians are just one example. It pains me to read and hear the negative things both say or feel about each other. And a lot of the time, such sentiments involve politics. So it is refreshing to see one of us hope for the sovereignty and prosperity of the other and to face the realities of our nations' politics and interactions. I just hope that the majority of Somalis and Ethiopians would follow suit.