The Presidential Palace in Mogadishu, Somalia, continues to exist only because 6,000 African Union troops are assigned to guard it and nearby government buildings. Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda-linked rebel group. is the current “really bad guy,” as one aide official has explained while attempting to classify the many murderous gangs that proliferate that impoverished country. The Islamist Al Shabaab has been brought to the attention of the world not only because of its well-reported ambitions of taking over Somalia, but for its wider goals of jihad internationally. This Somali terrorist group and its allies controls a large portion of the capital, Mogadishu, and most of the rest of the country. In declaring its allegiance to al Qaeda, al Shabaab has gained a guarantee of world press attention. The actual number of al Shabaab fighters has been estimated by British military sources to be around 7,000. Of these about 3,000 are reportedly organized guerrillas and the rest act as local police for both civil and religious control. The recent bombing of the Muna Hotel in Mogadishu located near seaside less than a mile from the heavily fortified Presidential Palace was a favored meeting place for government officials and parliamentarians. Of the approximately thirty killed, six were officials. It was a carefully planned operation aimed at intimidating government supporters. To insure security before government forces could capture them, two of the attackers committed suicide by detonating their explosive vests. The coordination and unrestricted killing is the mark of typical al Shabaab fighting tactics that apparently have been influenced by various veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. While there is a tendency to view al Shabaab’s structure as a unified command, it is divided geographically into three relatively autonomous units, with the strongest in Mogadishu and south-central Somalia. Juba Valley, a long time hot bed of insurgency, represents a fourth group aligned with but not a member of al Shabaab. There is little evidence that al Shabaab has yet reached an operationally unified approach. On the contrary, there remains considerable disagreement tactically among the several elements based on clan and ideological differences. There is little sign of material support from al Qaeda, though its links with the Somali organization are strengthened by strictly personal relationships and frequent travel to and from Yemen. Money continues to flow into Somalia through the traditional hawala personal transfer system and with increasing international links to the Somali diaspora. Certain elements in the immigrant African and general Islamic community in the U.K. and U.S. find exciting the prospect of assisting what they envision as a “revolutionary” al Shabaab. There is, of course, considerable speculation over the money extorted through piracy and an al Shabaab connection. For the most part, however, there is a consensus in intelligence circles that the proceeds of piracy first pass through a clan hierarchy. The religious orientation of al Shabaab appears to be one of convenience. Although it embraces a form of Wahhabism that is Sunni derived, it applies this ideology as it finds convenient in order to accomplish its purpose of jihad and recruit followers. Local units of al Shabaab apply their own interpretation of Sharia law in the belief that they are both the true civil and religious authority. There have been reports, however, coming out of central Somalia of orthodox Sunnis banding together to counter al Shabaab’s drive to dominate the religious application. To create an effective buffer against Somali insurgency of all hues, it will be necessary to provide substantial and consistent aid to President Sheik Sharif Ahmed’s Transitional Federal Government. This means a program that will enable the TFG to offer the basic services that are the responsibility of all governments. Increasing the size of the African Union Force (AMISOM) to twice it current size to a total of 12,000 troops would allow the TFG at least to gain administrative and security control of Mogadishu from al Shabaab. There is the view, of course, that the divisions in the country have been exacerbated by Western recognition of the TFG and that such action should be shelved in favor of ” constructive disengagement .” This would be followed, in theory, by acceptance of an al Shabaab Islamist state “as long as it did not engage in violence or terrorism.” With al Shabaab seeking to rule through intimidation by the gun, there is no way to institute civil authority other than to surrender to or outfight them. The Somali terrorist group has announced through its bombings last July in Kampala, Uganda, that killed 76 innocent civilians that it was “just the beginning” (as al Shabaab put it in a statement) of the internationalization of its ambitions. The signs are clear that al Shabaab intends to expand its operations even while consolidating its domestic position. The Somalis of al Shabaab are descendants of those outlaws and murderers known for generations throughout Somalia and nearby regions as t’era-shifta . At various times in the recent past these shifta have sought to operate under the guise of political change. Nonetheless they continue today their ancient practice of robbing , maiming and killing indiscriminately while taking no prisoners except to enslave or sell them. It has been thus for hundreds of years — and remains so today. “Constructive disengagement” is not in their DNA.
Original post:
The Really Bad Guys
A deconstructed transcript of Mr. Obama’s Iraq & Economy speech. Good news from the Crescent… er, Oval Office. Well, not exactly good, because good news about wars is inappropriate by definition, inasmuch as all war is regrettable at best and often reprehensible, and calling it “good” is insensitive to boot. The not-so-good news is that we won the war in Iraq. Well, not exactly won, because winning is a flawed construct based on concepts borrowed from other fields of endeavor. And on third thought, even those other fields of endeavor like sports and commerce should not refer to winning either, because it presents a false view of human superiority based on episodic rather than essential criteria. Furthermore, it feeds into a psychology which generates models of human interaction based on promoting gaps between levels of performance rather than achieving mutuality and symbiosis. So, to review, the not-so-good news is that we not-so-won the war. Well, not exactly war, because the United States has no interest which is opposed to the intrinsic interest of any individual or group of individuals in the Middle East or elsewhere. The notion of war cannot be rightly applied to a military action engaged in for the purpose of securing a democratic result within a country which we intend to neither occupy nor dominate. Additionally, even to the extent that manifestations of conflict emerge between our forces and local militant activists who perceive a contradiction between their interests and ours, the language of “war” is inflammatory. It has the effect of identifying particular civilian or quasi-military forces as an “enemy,” which communicates to American citizens a sense of demonization while entrenching a spirit of resistance in those opponents whom we have ostracized by this process. Once again, the not-so-good news is that we not-so-won the not-so-war. One thing we clearly did was accomplish the mission begun by President George W. Bush. Now, don’t take that as a compliment to him, but as a slap, since he — ha ha ha, wait for it — announced in 2003 with a funny sign that the mission had already been accomplished. And on second thought, this is not even the mission begun by George W. Bush, since that was a mission we opposed at the time. Then again, although combat is over, we have not fully accomplished the mission even yet, since we still have 50,000 men on the ground holding things together. Thus, we have not-so-accomplished the ill-defined mission which George W. Bush started for some stupid reason, so that the tangential advantages we are touting tonight should not rightfully accrue to his credit. But in all fairness we should note that I called former President Bush to tell him that we all agree he loves the country and the troops. Make no mistake. We are definitely leaving Iraq, except for the soldiers we left behind. And we are surging now in Afghanistan to clear things up so we can definitely leave by 12:01 a.m. of July 1, 2011. This decisive message should strike terror into the hearts of the Taliban (who will not get their free Slurpees in 7 Eleven unless Joe Biden sponsors their emigration to Delaware.) Let no one harbor any doubt about the determination of this administration to lead this military of this country in this conflict until the not-so-enemy collapses under the weight of all the heavily emphasized usages of ” this .” We will not-so-defeat the Taliban, including their newly formed and oddly named July 2 Committee. Which reminds us about the economy. The economy is struggling despite the wonderfulness of the stimulus, due to the scandalous mismanagement by former President George W. Bush, who everyone can agree loves the country and the fatcat bankers. Our administration will continue fighting the sluggishness of the economy, although we do not like the connotations of the word “fighting.” We will not rest until every trouble spot in the country has a sign trumpeting the American Remuneration and Retribution Act or whatever the heck Ol’ Joe is callin’ it this week. And this, my friends, is a big f***ing deal. At this point, we will have a moment of silence to ignore the Tea Parties and the Glenn Beck rally. My fellow Americans, now that you know my views with utmost clarity, I ask you to help me recover our lost American values, other than the value of a dollar. These are special times and history will judge us for how we answered the major questions of our times like: is the golf better at Martha’s Vineyard or Pebble Beach? Oh, and one last thing. If a pollster from Rasmussen and the vast right-wing conspiracy calls, will you stop saying you strongly disapprove? That is racist. Thank you and good night.
Read more:
Last Slap Around the Bush
The Irony of Manifest Destiny : The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy By William Pfaff (Walker & Co., 240 pages, $25) It was hardly necessary, but William Pfaff warns us anyway that some of the unconventional thinking in his new book “may give the reader pause” In fact, giving pause his been his specialty throughout his 50-odd years as a foreign affairs commentator. Pfaff continues to write as a “realist” from his expatriate base in Paris, apparently unconcerned by the reaction he invites from both right and left. His main complaint in The Irony of Manifest Destiny , his ninth book, is that the avowed American objective of exporting universal democracy amounts to a secular utopian gambit. As such, it is an “intellectually unsustainable idea as well as politically impossible to achieve, hence a cause for global concern.” Pfaff’s argument builds on an emerging body of thought from other analysts, including Thomas Corothers’ 2008 Foreign Affairs article and David Reiff’s book At the Point of a Gun . For balance, he acknowledges that he speaks for a minority view. “Republicans generally as well as neoconservatives and a great many people from the liberal camp remain supporters of the idea that the world’s destiny is democracy.” But he is convinced this road leads nowhere. “It is evident,” he writes, “that democracy on the American model is not going to be made to prevail in the contemporary world.” The conduct of U.S. foreign policy, he believes, has been “breathtaking in its ignorance of history” and disastrous for targeted countries as well as the United States itself. Pfaff takes his title from the old slogan of the 19th century when the United States was forcing its coast-to-coast geographical unity. That destiny seemed manifest, at least to Americans. Since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, however, the concept has been “reimagined as a divinely ordained mission to humanity and is now essential to the American myth”. He sketches 250 years of history in somewhat polemical terms, concluding that a Wilsonian global federation of democracies is “unrealistic and has virtually no chance of succeeding”. In recent decades, he says, the idea became more dangerous as it was recast to authorize “aggressive international intervention, and when necessary preemption, to destroy obstacles to the American vision of the future”. Today, he asserts, moral constraints have been relaxed and “nothing is prohibited other than what we prohibit ourselves.” Ethical values, he maintains, “have been subordinated to an ideology of national triumphalism”. Pfaff wondered how we became so deluded, and set about in this book to pinpoint the shift in Western thought that made is possible. He found the fault line in the Enlightenment of 18th century Europe, when religious domination of governance was cast aside in favor of secular utopianism. “The Enlightenment created a Western intellectual and moral structure that was expected to rest on reason, scientific knowledge and secular progress, but in this case [U.S. foreign policy] does not. Perhaps anticipating a critical outcry, Pfaff is quick to acknowledge that this book, probably the last of his long career, is “inevitably the work of sweeping journalistic generalizations.” Enlightenment scholars will be nodding in agreement. Some of his assertions seem sweeping indeed, notably his lack of nuance in his account of the history of Western thought and his failure to support his theses with references from Enlightenment luminaries such as Denis Diderot, or at least Voltaire. Pfaff also seems a bit cavalier in his condemnation of the current U.S. mission, scarcely mentioning the medieval justice systems of the Taliban and what that means for modern Afghans — brutality and suppression of women. He approvingly quotes the late George Kennan as saying the world has its share of unstable governments, “But so what? We are not their keepers. We never will be.”
Filed under: Barack Obama , Deep Background , 2010 Elections , Campaigns Democratic strategists say the president is doing little to help imperiled incumbents win votes on the most important concern to the electorate — jobs — and that he needs to come out swinging.
Executive agency funding and structure Original post: Executive agency funding and structure
Read more from the original source:
Executive agency funding and structure
