Tuesday, April 16, 2019

US Intervention in Somalia, 1992 Essay Example for Free

US Intervention in Somalia, 1992 EssayThe 1992-1993 handling of the US forces, with UN authorization, in the fractured country of Somalia is a complex issue non just in terms of Somalian domestic politics, but too the constellation of foreign entanglements that were involved in this strategic part of the world. This brief essay will plan of attack to answer some key questions about the conflict itself, the American role and the diplomatic and power struggles internation whollyy, specially given the strategic location of Somalia on the Indian Ocean trade routes and the directling reside in the mouth of the personnel casualty sea. The conflict itself is rather straightfor struggled. The dictatorship of Said Barre was an eccentric one, since he attempted to heighten the Moslem stool with that of Marxian socialism. simply Barre, in this tribally fractured society, found himself at loggerheads with the powerful Hawiye tribe, as sanitary up as certain Islamic particular ions operating deep down the country, eveningtually to develop the Somali National Alliance (SNA), which, for minds to be described below, became the main derriere of the American wrath.Concerning the basic structure of the conflict utilise the typology of Kriesberg, his concern for interests and determine is very important, since the basic struggle, outside of its tribal basis, was one of independence from the west. If the SNA were to be victorious, than the US might well be shut out of this strategic bea, and a hostile power would come into play, just when the US had helped oust the hated Marxist dictator in Ethiopia, Mengistu Hailie Maram. It is the contention of this writer that this specific reason chthonianlies the consummate US intervention in 1992-1993.But apart from interests and values, it seems that the Civil War in Somalia was a zero-sum battle, in that the Islamic movement had a very different agenda than the pro-Ethiopian movement. The victory of one meant the automatic sack for the other. The organizations themselves were twain tribal and ideological, centering around the destiny of Somalia relative to the Arab-Israeli conflict, w here(predicate) the Muslims rejected the US presence in support of Israeli interests and the pro-western side sought to use Ethiopia to eliminate the Islamic movement of General Farah Adeed.Hence, in Kriesbergs terms, these organizations were basically bi-focal, with two mutually exclusive agendas that eventually, in 1993, permitted the US government to hold that the Islamic movement is the great threat to Somalia (cf Kreisbergs typology, 2006, 7-14). Now, the basic issues in the conflict concern, first of all, the actors themselves. After the disgraceful war with Ethiopia in the late 1980s, the Barre regime in Somalia tottered, and eventually was overthrown by an military organization, backed generally by the Hawaye tribe, the United Somali Congress (USC).They overthrew Barre, but were incapable of managi ng the post-war world. Hence, the development of the Civil War and the rhytidectomy of Addids SNA. The CIA maintained a study post in Kenya, and the US maintained a publicise motif in Ethiopia where spy planes can traverse the Middle East (Griswold, 2007). After the overthrow of the communist DERG demesne in Ethiopia in 1991, the western backed government intervened regularly in the conflict within the US frame of reference. Hence, it seems that the American approach was to either restore Barre in power or wee-wee a coalition of anti-Adeed forces (preferably led by militia leader Ali Mahdi (US regular army, 10).None of this subject areaed, and Adeed seemed to emerge from the conflict victorious, as he played upon the anti-colonialist struggle against the United States and successfully engendered hatred against the US (Kaemph, 2007). Therefore, in general, the Somali war pitted Adeeds forces against some(prenominal) the Ethiopians and the United States. In addition, the stat e of Eritrea was alike involved, and received both Israeli and American backing from its independence against he former communist government of Ethiopia.Hence, the Eritreans were used against the Adeed government and the state itself became a base for the anti-Islamic movement. Eritrea was very useful for the United States and Israel (who certainly had an interest in the Red Sea being open to western trade), since they fought with the Islamic government of Sudan, and became a part of the peace-keeping efforts of the US in that country, also with the ultimate purpose to eliminate the influence of the anti-US and anti-Israeli Islamic movement.Hence, the causes of the conflict and the American intervention are twist within the functioning of the actors themselves within an international context. To put it simply the US, the UN and Israel supported Ethiopia and Eritrea (though these two have fought in the past), as well as what was left of the Barre regime. Barre himself had offered s everal oil concessions to American oil firms not to pine before his overthrow, and hence, the major oil firms and the US government had an interest in his movement, discredited thought it was (Kretzman, 2003).The major purpose was to keep any coalition that could be formed by Adeed and the anti-US forces under both a nationalist and Islamic banner. The US Army holds in its official account of the war that psychological operations (PSYOPS) were the order of the day in the Somali countryside. This ominous methodology is not elaborated upon in the Armys description of events (US Army, pub 70-81-1, p 10). At the same time, the CIA was providing the basic logistical support for the intervention out of Kenya. Given this background, the major issues that motivated the American intervention might be reduced to four.First, the control of any oil found in Somalia and, more importantly, the massive oil reserves of Sudan. The two conflicts are very similar in that both Omar Bashir and Adeed a re anti-US and anti-Israel, and are fighting for a country that has at least some oil reserves that can be exploited. Secondly, both the US and Israel have an interest in keeping Islamic movements out of power in this strategic area, since such movements may well join with Iran and Russia against American oil interest in the area.Third, to maintain a secular and pro-western state in both Ethiopia and Eritrea. Fourth, to keep friendly powers in charge of Somalia in order to keep both the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean free of hostile powers, since major shipping goes though these areas, and importantly, oil shipping. But similarly, this is all based on a certain geography Somalia is highly strategic for the above reasonsthis east horn of Africa sits upon oil and major shipping lanes that cannot drop cloth to hostile powers.But the area of the US intervention, it should be noted, only developed in the extreme south and west of the country, not accidentally the area bordering Kenya, wh ere the CIA maintains a large base and listening post (Griswold, 2007). The US, as part of its PSYOP mentality, hit the radio post belonging to Adeed, as well as attemptingunsuccessfullyto harm his infrastructure. The reality of the situation is, in the funny house of the war, the Islamic movement of Adeed developed his own social services and social infrastructure, not unlike Hamas in Palestine.To destroy this became the main purpose of the 1992-1993 intervention and largely dictated the popular hostility of the masses to American intervention. Adeed successfully created his own anti-PSYOP mentality by holding the Islamic faith and using nationalist ideas to pull together the country to his cause. Hence, the nonsense about feeding the starving masses should not even be interpreted seriously, since the only man who successfully rebuilt at least a modicum of social services became the main target of US attacks (Kaemph, 2007). Hence, several things can be said in conclusion.First, oil is an important issue here, both in Sudan and Somalia. This is one of the most important motivating influences behind the intervention in 1992. But this oil is not sitting in the ground, it is being shipped worldwide, and hence, the Indian Ocean routes near Africa and the Red Sea both need to be kept open, and hence, Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia are primordial actors here. Second, the Eritreans were encouraged in their independence drive under the communist DERG state in Ethiopia by both the US and Israel so as to maintain a pro-western state in that location.Eritrea hence, sought to support the US in the conflict with the purpose of maintaining its independence and legitimacy. The Islamic forces in Sudan and the SNA wanted an Islamic and nationalist state to fight the west and the Israelis. For the US, this was unacceptable and might be the central issue in the entire American mentality of the time. The reality is that Adeed wonand he won using anti-colonial rhetoric that sa w the US as invaders, not interveners. Third, the American PSYOP organization, with CIA backing fizzled.They failed to convince the existence that the US was their friend. The very fact that Adeeds own infrastructure was attacked proved to most that the US was there for the sake of realpolitik, not humanitarian aid, a rather silly official story from chapiter, given the strategic character of the area. Since PSYOPS are little more than brainwashing, Adeed certainly seems to have the moral high ground herehe had the money and the power, as well as the support and military training to make his movement work.Insofar as Kriesbergs organization typology (cf pg 12), the reason for the American intervention is that it seemed that Adeeds forces could not be beaten. His main opponent, and a recipient of US money, Mahdi, had no real military training and was no taking into custody for Adeed (US Army, 10). The former forces of Barre were also fractured and demoralized, and hence, to keep Ad eed out of power, intervention was necessary. But what remains central is that the official reason for the American involvement was not only false, but laughable.Not even an armchair analysis could hold that humanism was the central issue when which globally strategic issues were at stake. An Islamic government in Sudan and Somalia could spell sentence for the American interest in the shipping lanes of the area, and might well serve to harm the states of Ethiopia or Eritrea. Israels interest were also central, since the US presence in northeastern Africa is substantial and is a major base for operations against he enemies of the Israeli state such as Iraq (formerly) and Iran, not to mention Sudan or even Libya.The US, in short, appeared as an amoral colonial invader against the genuinely popular Adeed forces. Ultimately, the Somalia failure proved the problematic nature of American post-Cold War foreign policy. First, her official rationale made little sense. Second, the simple bat tle for American interests will not win the US forces respect throughout the world (Allard, 1995). The nations of the world will work out their own problems without CIA meddling, which only rarely provides a lasting solution (though few could doubt that the fall of Mengistu in Ethiopia was not a good thing).But lastly, what seems to come out of the Somalia failure is the simple fact that the US drive for global empire is doomed to fail, and what should come out of the decay of the bi-polar world is not a uni-polar world or even an multi-lateral one, but the simple concept of self determination for all the nations and peoples of the world according to their own lights, not dictates from Brussels, New York or Washington.BibliographyAllard, K.. (2005) Somalia Operations Lessons Learned. Washington National Defense Griswold, Diedre (Jan 7, 2007) Why Somalia has no National State. Workers World. http//www. workers. org/2007/world/somalia-0111/ (This is a communist publication that should be taken with a grain of salt but it does have some interesting observations about the CIAs role in the area, as well as Israels) Kriesberg, L. (2006). Constructive Conflicts. Rowman and Littlefield. Kretzman, Steve (2003). Oil Security, War and the Geopolitics of United States capability Planning. Multinational Monitor, Jan/Feb. (http//www. thirdworldtraveler. com/Oil_watch/Oil_Security_War. html) United States Army (nd). The US Army in Somalia. CHM Publication 70-81-1

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.