Hiiraan Online

The Senlis Council has recently published a 79-page report which takes a close look at the impact of the war on terror using Somalia and Afghanistan as case studies. The report identifies a catalogue of failings which cause “policy paralysis and increasing instability”.

Here are some of the persistent problems:

Misreading the context. Without proper evaluation mechanisms of success and failure, without defining the scope of military action, and without committing the necessary intelligence and diplomatic effort, the US has exacerbated the instability that already existed in these countries. On Afghanistan, the report says, “Afghanistan's resurgent Taliban provide a bleak example of how failing US-led War on Terror policies have promoted extremists to a level of political legitimacy they would never ordinarily achieve.” On Somalia, the report states, “These [US] bombings and sponsorship of a proxy Christian army – Ethiopia – to fight in Mogadishu have provided militant Islamists with abundant propaganda material.”

Long before the September 11 attacks, Somalia and Afghanistan were war-ravaged countries; the heart of the wars was local and regional power struggles and clan conflicts. After the attacks, many local and regional actors have jumped aboard America’s war on terrorism bandwagon to get financial and military muscle in order to suppress their rivals. They have massaged US government’s interests until they are in accord with their own interests. Unfortunately, America has failed to distinguish between genuine international threats and conflicting local and regional interests.

The report observes a new phenomenon in Somalia – suicide. According to the report, 3 suicide attacks were carried out in 2007 in Somalia while there were 137 attacks in Afghanistan. Before Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia, Somalia never had a suicide attack in all its troubled history. This indicates how Ethiopia’s presence in Somalia has worsened the situation and attracted freelance jihadists.

Over-militarised solution. Using excessive military power and paying no attention to the human cost is making this war unpopular. For example, on 8 January 2007, the US Air Force used AC-130 to launch an air strike against three Al-Qaeda suspects in southern Somalia. Even those who are familiar with the US operations were surprised that the US had chosen an AC-130 gunship. Startfor, a private intelligence agency, says, “Using an AC-130 gunship to eliminate specific militant suspects marks a departure from typical U.S. practice.”  A few days after, on 13 January 2007, the Independent reported, “Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow [southern Somalia] district near the border with Kenya had been killed.”

Lack of discussion. Bush’s simple formula of ‘with us or against us’ has eliminated any room for honest and open discussion. The Bush administration is on the warpath and unreceptive to even constructive criticism. As a result, the international community is confused and chooses to be a passive bystander who chronicles what happens rather than engaging and correcting US actions and the White House interprets the collective silence of the international community as a sign of tacit approval of the war. The report observes, “The international community's stance is characterised by inertia and a lack of clarity. Its collective failure to push back on the US or other actors when they act contrary to the interests of reconciliation contributes to Somalia's ongoing instability. The international community has also failed to censure Ethiopia for excessive use of force, to investigate credible allegations of war crimes, or to respond to the UN's Special Representative's appeal to end impunity in Somalia.”

Humanitarian crisis. The war on terror causes donor fatigue and discourages aid workers. The international community is poorly equipped to deal with multiple conflicts simultaneously. And aid workers are unable to work a place which faces a significant security threat. The report states, “The current humanitarian situation in Somalia is catastrophic, but there is little evidence to suggest that the international community is paying much attention. An unprecedented food emergency and the constant fighting between myriad warring factions have elevated a crisis that has been a constant presence in the Horn of Africa for decades, threatening the stability of the whole region. Unlike Darfur, where billions of dollars of aid are being invested and thousands of aid workers operate, Somalia remains a place to avoid. “

The report warns against the worsening humanitarian situation in Somalia which fell into a crisis without comparison. Natural droughts, runaway inflation, an ever-increasing roadblocks, and unabated armed conflict have led the country to face the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world. The report predicts that a grave famine will affect Somalia as a result of increasing malnutrition rates.

The conflicts in Somalia and Afghanistan have clearly exposed the flawed design of the war on terror and its divisiveness. Military solutions are pursued blindly without thinking what follows next. International problems are tried to be addressed without understanding and linking to regional and local problems. So what is the outcome of the war on terror? Increased instability, popularised Islamists, polarized societies, worsening humanitarian crises, human rights abuses, and a bullied international community.  

Mohamed Mukhtar

[email protected]