Comments on: War and Peace, Horn of Africa Edition

By: withywindle

withywindle — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:24:23 +0000

I will defer to Prof. Burke should he contradict me … but I’d guess there’s no need to bother with changing the formal borders, since states and factions can project power regardless of the formal borders. E.g., what’s gone on in West Africa and Congo the last decade. I don’t have a sense that Ethiopia-Somalia and Chad are all that different (as yet) from what’s gone before.

By: john theibault

john theibault — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:52:27 +0000

As a complete outsider, one of the most striking things about the diplomatic history of post-colonial Africa is the absence of much border change. Aside from the South African Bantustans, Eritrean Independence is the only new international border I can think of. There’s presumably a literature on this I’m not aware of. Is the conflict in the Horn of Africa and Darfur incursions into Chad a precursor of interstate wars for changing borders on the continent?

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:51:06 +0000

Sure. I think that was well done.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:26:11 +0000

Well, it would be nice to think we were that proactive, though I suspect the Ethiopian government probably had some sense on its own that the Islamicists in Somalia were an unpleasant bunch. But I hope you’re correct about your suspicions.

I go back to wanting that list of military interventions you favored beforehand, and think of as effective and appropriate. Wondering if the list is greater than zero. Wondering if you’ll acknowledge Liberia as Burkean intervention. I have a great sense of wonder.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:19:19 +0000

Yeah. Nothing.

Which would be the same for an Ethiopian-Somalian war. Nor are they distinct: that would be my point. The current situation is a *product* of clumsy intervention. Not just in internal Somalian politics: we’re also urging, and likely organizing, a substantial Ethiopian military presence *already* on the ground in Baidoa. The US is playing a significant role in provoking the war, not trying to ameliorate or prevent its occurance.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:22:17 +0000

And we should have done … *nothing* as the Islamicists came to power? Sorry, yes, there was that. But I thought you were talking about US policy vis-a-vis an Ethiopian-Somalian war, not about intervention in Somalian internal politics. They are distinct cases.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:41:12 +0000

To give you an example of what has already been done in Somalia, we threw a goodly amount of resources into trying to prop up the warlords when it became clear that the Islamicists were close to gaining control of Mogadishu recently. This had the exact opposite effect of what presumably was intended, significantly strengthening the Islamicists and garnering them considerable popular support, not the least of which because they seemed to bring order to a situation that had long been profoundly in flux.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:40:53 +0000

Oh, yes … I’ll mention here (again?) the most underplayed Bush administration success of recent years. Whatever that crisis was in Liberia a few years back, when the New York Times and the other idiots suddenly sent up a cry that the US must land our entire armed forces immediately. Front Page Moral Condemnation of Bush for Not Doing Enough! And he sent 2,000 Marines to hover offshore of Monrovia while getting some African troops in to eject the relevant thug. Who was duly ejected, as the local Liberians acted with a due weather-eye to the offshore Marines. After which, the yappers of the press went on to their next Outrage of the Day, forgot about Liberia, and as far as I can tell Liberia went back to low-level awfulness (presumably our policy objective, as a preferable alternative to high-level awfulness) and the Marines sailed away. I think, Mr. Burke, that you should always cite the minimal and calibrated Bush intervention in Liberia, conducted against the yapping of the press, as an excellent and highly successful example of the sort of “realist” policy you advocate.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:32:23 +0000

Since the Ethiopians and Somalians actually do have regular armies, surely the scenario “we provide airpower support to the Ethiopian army, but nothing else” is possible? Particularly if there is a successful Somalian land invasion of Ethiopia. (Which, since the part of Ethiopia bordering Somalia is Muslim-inhabited, as I recollect, is a possibility.)

I strongly doubt the Somalians will do anything the US wants short of the exercise of a level of military force that you fear. I think you also underestimate the value of preventing particular outcomes, regardless of whether the subsequent outcomes are precisely what you want. (I, for one, remain delighted that Hussein’s Iraq is gone, and that the prospect of a revived Baathist Iraq dwindles by the day. The Iraq we have is by no means my ideal, but the Iraq we got rid of is well worth the ridding.) As usual, I remain entirely dubious of your much-vaunted realism, which shades off so easily into fatalistic unwillingness to act. If you could provide a list of occasions in recent decades where you thought the exercise of US military power was both appropriate and effective–and that you supported beforehand–it would lend some credibility to your supposedly “realistic” critique.

Meanwhile, aren’t you blasting both neoconservatives and realists prematurely? So far as I can tell, no one in any position of power, or in the chattering classes, has said anything about Somalia recently save “Looks unpleasant. Let’s see what develops.” I suppose I hope the US has been having administrative contacts with the Ethiopians–and, yes, I hope they are considering providing them arms–but I fancy they’re still in the mulling and dickering stages so far as any major support is concerned. So given that everybody concerned is saying “Wait and see,” why are you accusing anyone of being simpleminded?