In the month since the shopping mall shootout in Kenya which left over 60 citizens dead, the United States has taken it upon themselves to eradicate the Somali terrorist network al-Shabaab that planned the attack, whom are believed to be closely aligned with Al Qaeda. On Monday, a US drone struck a vehicle in Somalia killing two members of the radical islamist terrorist group al-Shabaab. This was the first US drone strike on Somalia in over a year. The strike killed Ibrahim Ali Abdi, a Somali who had helped carry out numerous attacks since 2008; including but not limited to attacks on the presidential palace, a Ethiopian consulate, and an UN facility. This drone strike comes a few weeks after a failed US Navy SEAL raid on the coast of Somalia in which the raid was met with heavy fire forcing the SEAL's to retreat. The motivation for the attack was a "fears of a similar attack against Western targets" (nytimes). However, US officials insisted that neither the SEAL raid nor the drone airstrike were a direct response to the Westfield shopping mall terrorist attack. Despite internal divisions in the organization and being exiled from urban regions of Somalia (Mogadishu & Kismayo) to less developed rural areas by African Union troops, the US clearly has identified al-Shabaab as a very dangerous organization.
Additional articles:
I can see where you're coming from but have to disagree for a couple of reasons. First of all, with Somalia being a failed state there isn't really anyone the US can declare intervention to. Second, with Somalia being in a state of perceived anarchy it seems to have become a hot bed for terrorist activity and considering these individuals have orchestrated numerous terrorist attacks in the past few years I think our actions to eliminate them are justified and we should not simply let them live solely because they are in a state we haven't declared intentions of intervention. If that were the case, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today as SEAL's killed him in Pakistan. I do however feel that we need to limit our use of drones because other military powers are going to acquire this technology in the near future and it would look hypocritical if we were to tell Russia to not use them in Chechnya for example. It is nonetheless a complicated and controversial issue.
ReplyDeleteWhile Justin makes a very good opined posing the question of international sovereignty especially with regards to drone strikes, it is important to remember that not only did we not have a formal declaration of war when we invaded Somalia under Clinton, but we continue to use drones in the skies over Pakistan as well, so there exists some historical precedent of stressing/fracturing another states sovereignty hen it comes to the use of unmanned arial vehicles. On the question of the United States rue motivation for action, I would argue that it is a combination of protection of regional interests and a continuance of our global efforts in the War on Terror. In fact, while i don't agree with this in principle, but i believe the U.S. government sees any area that is harboring terrorists as a potentially viable area for strike - bringing us again to the issue when engaging in asymmetric, non-state generated warfare, state borders cease to be used by ones enemy, so in order to adapt the U.S. must do the same. While again i disagree with this, like the poster mentioned we are in a seven year low for piracy, and i would postulate that U.S. military action in the region is a large part of what helped slow piracy off the coast of Somalia.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Somalia is a failed state I would say that the US doesn't have an obligation to declare war against it. After all, who would they declare war against? The various warlords, or perhaps Al-Shabaab? I think that this falls under the global War on Terror and the military actions taken, provided they are consistent with the rules of engagement. If a terrorist group is operating and growing in a failed state, someone, maybe not necessarily the US, has an obligation to slow or end it. If the goal of a group is to terrorize a population they should not be allowed to exist unimpeded.
ReplyDeleteSomalia is a very interesting state which provides for a very interesting case when concerning armed conflict. Somalia is more or less, an anarchist state that has no real overarching governing power. Since there is no real central government than there is no real accountability for the citizens of Somalia and no one for the US to answer to when considering a possible strike. Also, the terrorist organizations are not technically a direct affiliate with any national government. For example, Afghanistan; to fight the Al Qaeda in this state we do not need to declare war on Afghanistan as a whole, because we are not fighting the state but rather insurgents who happen to reside within the state. This is similar to Somalia because we are not fighting the state but rather the terrorist network of Al-Shabaab. We need not declare war on a state if we are not fighting that particular states government.
ReplyDeleteI also find it very refreshing that we know EXACTLY who we killed with the drone strike. This shows extreme planning and perfect execution from out military. Since we are able to hit a deliberate target and confirm who we killed, it means that we can ensure that any killing we must do in Somalia is who we meant to kill. This shows the world that we are not just in there killing random people, but rather deliberate targets without collateral damage. In the eyes of the international community, this is a very good thing when considering armed conflict.
I agree with the above comments. The "failed" state status that the other comments have deemed Somalia would mean that sovereignty and even territory for that matter are in question whether they even exist at all. From a realist's perspective, the number one goal of any state is to maintain security to avoid loss of power, sovereignty, and influence. With this being true, it is no doubt in the United States' best interest to use unmanned drones to eliminate potential terrorist threats in a state that has no central government. It is a dog eat dog world out there and if the US has the ability to use low cost drones (i.e. no risk of human capital) to eliminate potential threats, then by all means they should do so. Especially in a state like Somalia where use of and threat of force is the only action that still holds credibility.
ReplyDeleteI think Thomas makes an excellent point however, that as other states acquire equal technology, how then will state sovereignty and "Just Strikes" be weighed. The US has gone too far and has benefitted too much from the use of drones in my opinion to create a mutual disarmament. I think in the future what will occur is much what has occurred as sea trade has evolved where air space is declared international unless one violates that air space which then in turn will allow for states' intervention. This will come at a cost obviously as certain states will find themselves acting as the "World Police" again while other states sit idly bye. That is the price to pay I guess for being the first to create such an environment.
I think that as time goes on countries, including the US, will start to use drones more and more as a tool for military operations. Although these UAV's can be precise and accurate as we saw in Somalia, but there is still a host of other moral and ethical questions associated with their implementation. Drone strikes may not be extremely popular among public opinion, but their value as an effective striking tool means they will most likely continue to be used in military operations.
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say that the US has every right and responsibility to attack and destroy known terrorist targets around the world. To begin with the question of declaring war, terrorist organizations such as these are not recognized states or governments which would require a formal declaration of war. Afghanistan which is a much larger scale operation than a drone strike and raid or two has never had a formal declaration declared.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the US or any state for that matter has a responsibility to prevent terrorist organizations from carrying out their activities against civilian or legitimate government targets regardless of if said activities threaten our home land. Maintaining regional stability should be more than enough of a reason to intervene in other countries who have no means of defending themselves against such attacks.
In response to the drone strike itself, I believe it was justified and for the United States to make this strike, even though I understand where Justin is coming from with the ‘lack of evidence’ argument. The fact that the drone strike was successful is a good aspect of the situation. However, I think what Justin pointed out about the overall costs of war being reduced because of the advancement of military technology and the use of drones is vital. It is important because other countries will soon have the technological capabilities to build drones, and then that becomes a huge security threat. Because the cost of war is reduced with drones, does this mean war is more likely? In a way, this also dehumanizes some aspects of war because you’re taking away a huge human factor.
ReplyDelete