Dog in this Fight

I have to admit that I’m a little puzzled by Matt’s dudgeon regarding the Ethiopia-Somalia war. The situation in Somalia has, for the last fifteen years, been just about as bad as one can imagine. The Islamist groups that control parts of Somalia seem far less promising on a host of metrics than the interim government supported by Ethiopia and the US. That no one can point to specific terrorists seems to me beside the point; it’s hardly unreasonable to suspect that Islamic terrorists would seek to use Somalia as a base if jihadist groups asserted control, as Somalia would undoubtedly offer precisely the kind of environment in which terrorists thrive (low state capacity plus sympathetic central government). The options of the US on this point seem to be three:

1. Do nothing.
2. Pick a side.
3. Try to stop the war.

The ability of the US to affect events in the Horn of Africa since 1990 has been remarkably limited, so I’d say that #3 is off the table. Given that, I don’t see anything at all wrong with picking the side that a) is likely to win, and b) is preferable from a policy standpoint. I’d go farther and say that it’s important to make sure that shipments of Eritrean arms (especially surface to air missiles) don’t make it to Somalia, or make it only in very limited amounts. As to the question of whether the Islamic world will draw the conclusion that the US is trying to fight a “clash of civilizations” by proxy, supporting a Christian country against an Islamic one, I would say that a)someone unconvinced thus far is going to be pushed over by this? and b)they aren’t going to believe the US is behind it anyway?

As to the course of the war, I’m not that surprised that the Ethiopians have been successful. The Ethiopian Army did ok in the Eritrean War, more or less defeating a well-regarded but much smaller Eritrean Army, but in this case they’re only fighting poorly trained militias whose main experience is in local coercion rather than modern combat. The Ethiopians may eventually face an insurgency, but not every invasion/conquest results in an insurgency. Whatever the Ethiopians do in support of the interim government will result in MORE order for Somalia, not less.

Now, none of this should suggest that Josh Trevino’s (now with extra bombast!) critique of Yglesias is fair. Blogging from Hugh Hewitt’s place, Trevino argues that it’s not sensible for Matt to even ask the question “Who are the terrorists in Somalia?” because Matt is not deserving of specific intel. Now, I suppose that blogging at *Hugh Hewitt’s* place means that one has to defend the swallowing of every bit of PR tripe that the Bush administration pushes down the chute, but that may be why I’d be a bit more careful than Josh in accepting guest-blogging gigs. To put it as briefly as possible, the tendency of the administration to spin fantasy out of whole cloth and of the right blogosphere to buy without question even the most transparent lies has undermined the credibility of the foreign policy apparatus of the United States. If Condi Rice claimed that the Harlem Globetrotters were likely to win a game, you could expect me to be on the phone with my bookie putting down a c-note on the Nationals within the hour. The fault lies more with your host, Josh, than with Yglesias.