The Import of Somalia

Fareed Zakaria’s column in today’s Washington Post, seeking to dissect Somalia and the problem it poses—or to Zakaria, doesn’t pose—to US national security is wrong both on the merits of the argument and in its retelling of Somali history.

Let us begin with the history. The collapse of Somalia is usually dated to 1991—not Zakaria’s 1992—when Said Barre was finally driven from Mogadishu in January. In fact, Somalia was without effective government for at least several years before Barre’s ouster as the country struggled to address multiple anti-regime armed movements and recover from its disastrous war with Ethiopia.

The United States did not give tacit support to Ethiopia’s 2006 invasion of Somalia. The United States gave material support to Ethiopia, providing Ethiopia with intelligence and air support for its invasion.

The Islamic Courts Union, the emerging indigenous government of Somalia that Ethiopia and the United States help to oust, is a difficult movement to color broadly. They really were an alliance of Islamic courts that exercised extremely localized jurisdiction. Some of the courts were relatively moderate, while others were draconian in their interpretation and implementation of Sharia. To describe the ICU as a “radical movement” is, I think, overbroad—in fact, one of the erstwhile leaders of the ICU is now the president of the US-backed Transitional Federal Government.

As to whether the United States has suffered deleterious effects owing to the chaos in Somalia, the only answer to this question must be yes. In the governmental void of Somalia, members of al-Qaeda have reportedly found safe haven; the al-Shabab has been born, grown and strengthened; pirates operate with impunity from Somalia’s coast, reaching into the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and even the wider Indian Ocean. These waterways, particularly the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, are critical avenues of international shipping. Simply glancing at the IMB’s Live Piracy Map communicates the intensity of piracy occurring in and around the Horn of Africa as compared to the rest of the world. Reading the IMB’s Piracy Prone Areas and Warnings does an even better job. Somalia-based pirates have driven up the costs of ship insurance 4,000%; the costs of maintaining the naval flotilla in the Gulf of Aden—to which the United States contributes vessels and manpower—approaches $300 million. The impact of Somalia-based piracy on global trade has been estimated as high as $16 billion annually.

Beyond piracy, the strongest pole of power in Somalia, currently, is the extremely radical al-Shabab which emerged from the ashes of the ICU. Its links with al-Qaeda are worrisome in themselves, more worrisome in the wake of the Kampala bombings, which demonstrate an ability to mount at least regional operations. Again, this was the first cross-border operation mounted by al-Shabab and therefore represents a sea change in the behavior of a heretofore Somalia-centric organization. Finally, transit between Somalia and Yemen is common, frequent, and unregulated, making it possible, even likely, that al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Somalia physically communicate.

Stimulus != War in Iraq

Today, in an article discussing Pres. Obama's legislative success yet "unpopularity," Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times compares the passage of the stimulus package, comprehensive healthcare reform, and financial regulation to Pres. Bush's taking the United States into an unnecessary war. No, really:

It is an argument that sounds eerily similar to the one Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, made to justify an unpopular war in Iraq as he watched his own poll numbers sink lower.

Just because two presidents claim that their unpopular actions are in the best interest of the country does not make the actions themselves equivalent. The war in Iraq was predicated on nonsense. The stimulus package, financial reform, and comprehensive healthcare reform--what ever you think of the policy choices themselves--were reactions to actual problems, actually doing harm to the United States.

The Economy - Let someone smarter explain it

This post on the Economist.com Democracy in America space pretty much sums up the current economic situation and the current impotent political situation in this country better then I ever could.

Bottom line, Republicans are disingenuous and Democrats are chicken shit.

The Kampala Bombings

Al-Shabab, the al-Qaeda linked militants that control most of Somalia, have claimed responsibility for the bombings—and attempted bombing—in Kampala on Sunday. The Kampala attacks represent the first time al-Shabab has launched an attack outside of the territory of Somalia—excepting, of course, a spate of attacks last autumn in Somaliland.

In the past, Al-Shabab has threatened to attack Kenya and Ethiopia for their support of the Transitional Federal Government and their occupation of Somalia, respectively. It would appear that the bombings in Kampala fit the pattern of al-Shabab reacting against what it views as foreign interference in Somalia—Uganda has provided a large contingent of the AU peace keepers currently operating in Somalia; al-Shabab threatened further attacks against Uganda and Burundi if their troops do not leave Somalia. Notably, the United States also backs the TFG and provided military and intelligence support to Ethiopia during its invasion in 2006—the invasion that sparked al-Shabab.

Despite this apparent causal relationship, the US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs is quoted in today’s New York Times as saying, “[Al-Shabab] was a localized cancer, but the cancer has metastasized into a regional crisis. It is a crisis that has bled across borders and is now infecting the international community.”

It is not clear, at this point, that al-Shabab has or even desires to obtain the capacity to operate on a global level and truly “infect[] the international community.” Nevertheless, al-Shabab’s now demonstrated ability to operate at least regionally, and its supposed close links to al-Qaeda, should make the United States very nervous.

The Kampala bombings demonstrate quite clearly:

• The international community’s policy in Somalia has been an abject failure. The TFG should be abandoned and a clear eyed reassessment of US interests and local actors should be undertaken.
• In the territory of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab, terrorists are able to plan, train, and launch at least regional, cross-border terrorist assaults of a relatively sophisticated nature.
• In the territory of Somalia not controlled by al-Shabab, pirates have free rein and are able to act with impunity.

Thus, it is only the territory of Somalia governed by unrecognized Somaliland that does not present a threat to the international community. In fact Somaliland’s cooperation with the West, its government’s ability to control its territory, and its working judicial system, make it something of bulwark against the international insecurity festering in rump Somalia. A good step forward, from a security policy perspective, would be to recognize Somaliland.

Stimulus and Unemployment

Federal Reserve Working Paper on the effect of the Stimulus Package: 800,000 jobs saved or created by May 2010, down from approximately 2 million in March 2010.

NPR reporting on a Moody's Analytics study demonstrating the economic impact of unemployment benefits versus tax cuts. Mark Zandi, Chief Analyst for Moody's and a former advisor to Sen. McCain's 2008 campaign, testified similarly before Congress.

A Good Regulation

A new federal regulation imposing steep fines--$27,500 per passengers—on airlines that subject passengers to 3 hour or longer tarmac delays may be bearing fruit. In May, the first full month in which the regulation was in effect, only 5 flights suffered 3 hour or longer tarmac delays—compared to 34 in May 2009.

The airline industry trade group argues that the number of 3 hour or longer tarmac delays has been in decline for over year. BTS data, however, reveals a more mixed picture. April and March 2010 were likewise significantly lower than the numbers for 2009, but February 2010 was actually higher by 50%.

Read USA Today’s article on the new regulation here. See the BTS data for yourself here.

The Glory of Deregulation

The other day, our friend and foil at To Get Rich is Glorious put up a couple of posts, one called "Questions for Progressives" and the other "What Inflation?" both included references to the airline industry.  What Inflation purported to demonstrate that airfares have decreased in real terms over the last decade while Questions for Progressives included this bit: "Deregulation of the airline and trucking industries are widely credited with producing lower costs and improved service. What are the lessons should be taken from this experience?"  Both of these items raised my hackles, particularly for the reference to the airline industry.  I had set about to write a post describing, contra the premise in Questions for Progressives, the long decline of the airline industry since deregulation.  But, TIME has done my work for me, relating the history of decreased service and increased prices since deregulation.

Highlights:

• The disappearance of in-flight meals.
• The end of checked baggage for free (or, rather, included in your ticket price).
• Charging for blankets and pillows.
• The death of stand-by.
• The impending end of carry-on baggage--which, nicely dovetails with being charged for checked baggage.

And, the best part of most of these added fees?  Well, the best part is that they occur after ticket purchase meaning the Bureau of Travel Statistics does not count them as airfare--leading to the apparent real decline airfares!

John McCain's Kagan Op-Ed

Sen. John McCain pens an Op-Ed in today's USA Today outlining his opposition to Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Sen. McCain's argument against Solicitor General Kagan is built on her actions as Dean of Harvard Law School in opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While the bulk of the Op-Ed rehashes Kagan's actions, McCain goes completely off the rails in the second section of his piece when he attempts to link Kagan's action as Dean to a judicial philosophy.

According to McCain, because the Supreme Court disagreed with actions like Kagan's, Kagan "stepped beyond public advocacy . . . into the realm of usurping the prerogative of the Congress and the president to make law and the courts to interpret it." One would be justified in asking how exactly an university administrator could possibly "usurp[] the prerogative of the Congress?" The statement is so baldly irrational it really defies critical examination. McCain's criticism might sound in reason if he were extrapolating her actions as Dean to some indication of judicial temperament--this too would be an extraordinary leap--but McCain goes out of his way not to do that. Instead he writes, "I do not believe judges should stray beyond their constitutional role and act as if they have greater insight than representatives who are elected by the people. Given the choice to uphold a law that was unpopular with her peers and students or interpret the law to achieve her own political objectives, she chose the latter." But Kagan's duty was to the students of Harvard Law School--all of those students, regardless of sexuality--it was to not interpret the Constitution of the United States. She embraced the rather long and generally celebrated tradition of American academia staking out positions that sometimes contravene current law in pursuit of justice and equality.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was and is a stupid, half-measure of policy that has served only to discriminate against patriotic Americans. It is one thing for the Congress to pass such a law and for the Supreme Court to interpret it in accord with its plain meaning, however they manage to rationalize it with the principles of the American Constitution. It is entirely another matter for the Dean of an institution of higher learning--to say nothing of one dedicated to educating students in the law and justice--to invite onto campus recruiters compelled to discriminate in hiring against one or another minority.

Kagan's actions were civil disobedience. They were not an example of one branch of government overreaching and insulting another branch of government. I should hope that every future Supreme Court nominee in a position like Kagan's during the era of Don't Ask, Don't Tell--or any other patently discriminatory regime--would take similar action on behalf of her students.

Time to Recognize Somaliland

On Friday, the newest President of Somaliland, Ahmed Mohamed Silanyo, declared his intention to make Somaliland’s international recognition his top priority. In truth, recognition has been a top priority of Somaliland’s political leadership since it declared its independence over nineteen years ago. Analysts and observers have been quoted in the few articles and bulletins announcing Somaliland’s election results pronouncing that this election—graded free and fair—will encourage the international community to extend Somaliland recognition.

It is not the first time a successful democratic process in Somaliland has inspired hope that now, finally, Somaliland will receive international recognition. Similar hopes attended the referendum ratifying Somaliland’s constitution in 2001, its first presidential election, and its parliamentary elections. In fact, Somaliland’s short, nineteen year history is a string of disappointments for the people of a country that is doing all the things that vex post-conflict societies all over the world: disarmament, reconstruction, establishment of the rule of law, and adoption of democratic institutions. Somaliland has done all these things without outside assistance and in the face of outright hostility by the international community.

Somaliland’s story would be remarkable and triumphant anywhere in the world. In a place nominally under the jurisdiction of Somalia—a state synonymous with failure and anarchy—it is unthinkable. But the incongruity of the international community’s refusal to recognize Somaliland is not limited to its juxtaposition with its neighbor to the south. No, what makes Somaliland’s nonrecognition bizarre is Somaliland’s cooperation with the international community which refuses to recognize it. While Somalia serves as a haven for al-Qaeda linked militants and pirates, Somaliland cooperates with NATO and prosecutes captured pirates and terrorists.

On this, the two hundred-and-thirty-fourth anniversary of our independence, the United States, through a simple act of diplomacy, has the power to secure the dreams of independence of a small nation. In doing so, the United States will both be manifesting its own values and securing an ally who shares those values in a region of the world with few nations evincing commitments to democracy and rule of law.

It is time to recognize Somaliland.

Conflict Minerals

More on Afghan Mineral Wealth

AFP reports that the Taliban have threatened to attack any companies attempting to extract minerals from Afghanistan.  This is wholly unsurprising.  I actually find it a little odd that the Taliban felt the need to state their threat explicitly.  It would seem to me clear—threat or no threat—that any company doing business with the Karzai government would become a target, just as aid organizations have been targeted.

On McChrystal

The now infamous profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone makes for compelling reading. McChrystal comes across as a deeply dedicated and committed commander. For all the hyperventilation over the disparaging remarks McChrystal has for Vice President Biden and others in the Obama administration, what is most interesting is how clearly McChrystal understands counterinsurgency—and how clearly the author of the piece, Michael Hastings, does not.

Passages like this one are particularly telling:

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.
"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work."
"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."
"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?"
A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."

That McChrystal gets it, understands what must be done to achieve any sort of success in Afghanistan, makes it that much worse that he must now, in my view, be relieved of command. In what is truly epic irony, the man the article describes repeatedly as knowing just how far to push against a system and survive, in allowing this profile to be done, he has pushed too far.