AND YOUR PLAN FOR FIXING AND YOUR PLAN FOR FIXING THIS IS...? Scott Peterson has a review of Black Hawk Down in today's Telegraph
. The main point of interest is why he considers American actions in Somalia
to have been a military as well as a political failure. But I have to wonder
sometimes at the nebulous and pointless advice-giving that commentators often
indulge in:

Yet fail they did [to accomplish the humanitarian mission in
Somalia]. For most of the past decade, poverty-stricken Somalia has been
abandoned by the rest of the world. Perhaps, then, the most suitable lesson
regarding Somalia is a more recent one, from Afghanistan, where it is now
clear that years of Western neglect allowed bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda network
to take root. Somalia, like Afghanistan, needs a political and cash commitment,
to help rebuild schools and stabilise government; to welcome Somalia back
to the league of nations. Somalis say they have matured, and should not be
cast as villains of the piece.

Um, which
Somalis? Wasn't an attempt to make a "political and cash commitment" exactly
what led the UN into Somalia, and the subsequent debacle, in the first place?
Peterson freely acknowledges that Somalia "has always been dangerous", riven
by a "centuries-old system of clans and blood feuds". Why does he then turn
around and offer advice based on an assumption that its poverty and lack
of central government are the result of Western neglect, and opine that they
can be cured by renewed Western attention?

Isn't this the way America should step back into Somalia, rather
than by renewing military strikes - and thereby risking the start of a new
blood feud?

It would be nice to know exactly what "way" that
might be, that will magically enable the world to "build schools and stabilise
government" in a dangerous ungovernable rat-hole. Which leads me to an article
in this morning's WSJ (no free link), about the the continuing destabilization of Afghanistan:

In particular, U.S. and U.N. officials say recent intelligence reports suggest large numbers of explosives aere being smuggled into Kabul in preparation for an attack on U.S. officials or Western aid workers in the city. The explosives are being brought in by forces loyal to the recently overthrown Taliban regime and by regional warlords, angry because they haven't been give a prominent role in the new central government[...]

It only gets worse from there. The common argument is that we have to "fix" places like Somalia and Afghanistan to ensure our own security. Nice idea, but is it possible? The article also refers to reports that Iran is already busily working away at destabilizing whatever government exists in Afghanistan.

Colin Powell said Afghans should take responsibility for their own security, adding that international assistance should be designed to "train Afghans to take care of themselves and not depend on foreign forces to do so."

These two examples suggest that, in the meantime, we can only keep governments (or tribal groups) from giving terrorists safe-haven by maintaining a credible threat of force against them.
Posted by Moira Breen at January 21, 2002 09:34 AM