Since someone posted earlier in the week about how other countries should intervene in Somalia, I thought it might be good to present the other side of the argument. I think that its easiest to look from the perspective of why the US shouldn't intervene because thats the closest context we have to foreign policy action. Also since we're the global hegemon I think that its the most realistic scenario. Additionally I looked specifically at intervening with military because we already send a lot of aid, and relief to the area so I don't think that arguing anything along those lines is a big enough break from the status quo. The mentality that the US should not intervene in Somalia functionally rests on three main arguments: we did try to help once, and it went terribly, perhaps even making things works; we have tried once already this month and it also didn't go there; and finally, intervening in Somalia doesn't give the US any brightline to guide when the US should and should not intervene.
One of the more compelling arguments for me as to why intervening in Somalia would be a bad idea is that we have been there and done that, and it went terribly. If anyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down (if you have never heard of it refer here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265086/?ref_=nv_sr_1) it pretty closely explains the end of the US aid in Somalia, and how it didn't end well for anyone. This article from the History channel actually offers a decent recap of the lead up to the incident under H.W Bush, and afterwards. That can be found at this link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/last-us-troops-depart-somalia. Essentially, the failure of the US action was under the Clinton administration when he sent in about 400 US Marines to eliminate Aidid who massacred UN forces. It led to 18 US deaths, and led Clinton to pull all forces permanently. This shows that the US attempted to fix the solution, and not only utterly failed, but allowed Adid to continue, emblazoned by his success over the Americans. I think that another attempt to fix the problem could likely lead to another total failure, and the risk for troops outweighs.
Not only have we failed in the long past, but in a recent attempt to help intervene we once again failed. The Guardian posted at the beginning of the month a group of Navy Seals attempted to eliminate a terrorist target Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir. (Full article is here:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/us-raid-al-shabaab-somalia-navy-seals) However, because he was highly shielded by civilian targets they were unsuccessful. I think this is what the US would be facing in an attempt to intervene to stop the rise of terrorism in Somalia. I think in the current climate of Somalia, US forces are facing civilian losses, or the inability to get access to the major perpetrators of chaos. And any attack on civilian forces would only help the terrorist forces there, and potentially lead to more instability than already exists.
Overall, I think that a US intervention in Somalia would at best solve nothing, and at worst lead to greater instability in the country and potential loss of American lives. Additionally, I don't think it provides any bright line for US foreign policy on intervention. Why Somalia? Because there are terrorists? If we follow that policy then our military would be pretty far stretched. On top of that, I think that it brings more hypocrisy into US past foreign policy decisions, particularly with the Sudan and Rwanda areas where most of the action could have easily been labeled as terrorism. At the end of the day I think that it would create a more ensnarled US foreign policy, and lead to a greater mess than solution.
I concur.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that the attitude of those whom want to intervene stems from the Wilsonianism / American exceptionalism of the United States in the early 20th century that still remains. Aside from this aspect of the "world police," the bottom line is what could be done differently in a new intervention, anyway? Nothing that I can think of. It seems to me that it would just be a replay of the past.
ReplyDeleteWith our interests already so spread out over Syria and recently with Iran, I agree that it is not in the best interest of the United States to intervene in Somalia. However, playing devil's advocate, in response to the issue of spreading terrorism throughout the region, the US should perhaps not intervene in Somalia directly but could possibly begin 'buffering' Somalia's surrounding states of Ethiopia and Kenya. If the US were to place military units in the surrounding countries, the spread of terrorism in the region may not be halted but may certainly be hindered.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem rather irresponsible of the US to have a focus on Somalia while dealing with other major issues in the international landscape. In 2012, President Obama gave his address on the US strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa which touched on phrases like, "strengthening democratic institutions, "spurring economic growth, and "advancing peace and security" but if you look at the all the military engagements by the US throughout Africa they detail how its been only corruption and violence promotion. A consistent mentality for the US in most every country within the continent.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the US should not intervene in Syria. As Aaron David Miller, Former Adviser to Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State says, " the political, practical, and psychological obstacles standing in the way of effective unilateral or collective military interventions are just too great. Additional sanctions, clandestine military and intelligence support for the opposition; and a contact group on Syria to orchestrate political and economic pressure will have to do. " It would be more effective to promote democracy in Syria doing everything short of a military intervention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author in that it would be a mistake to send US troops into Somalia yet again. Surely, US forces would initially prevail over the Shabab forces but, as we have learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, the problems arise post invasion, once US troops attempt to occupy a foreign land for any prolonged period. While I believe direct US intervention in Somalia would be a mistake, I think the US should take steps to ensure that terrorist organizations are not able to turn Somalia into another safe haven for themselves as they did in Afghanistan pre-2001. The US could provide better weapons and equipment to AU forces, train and conduct joint exercises with AU forces, provide intelligence to AU forces and provide fire support to AU combat units in action against the Shabab militants. East African nations have an interest in securing stability in Somalia, the US military does not need to go at it alone on this one.
ReplyDeleteI think the author makes a strong argument that the United States already helps many other countries and does intervene a lot throughout the world. The U.S. cannot continue to send troops all throughout the world to every country that is in need. Until the country is in a bigger conflict the U.S. should avoid intervening.
ReplyDelete