Somalia's Pirates: The Next "Safe Haven" To Invade?

By Steve Hynd

The biggest problem with Obama's characterisation of the Afghanistan mission as denying Al Qaeda a "safe haven" from which to operate has always been that there are plenty more safe havens. If escalation of a military occupation of one nation offering such havens is a "good war", does that mean the same would apply to all the others?

Apparently not - since Pakistan has safe havens a-plenty and no-one in the White House is advocating a massive Western occupation there (so far). But then the logic gap springs out at you. Why not, especially since there's no meaningful Al Qaeda presence actually in Afghanistan right now? Is the converse true then, as is apparently the strategy for Pakistan - that the best way to deal with safe havens for criminals and terrorists is instead to contain them from straying outside their havens' boundaries, offer civilian aid to slowly strengthen the host state and only minimal military intervention? If so, what are all those troops doing in the country next door?

The White House's Af/Pak policy is hopelessly muddled, neither fish nor fowl. That's mostly why it offers no benchmarks on the road to success and no exit ramp. But now that same muddled policy may be applied to another nation offering safe havens - Somalia.

Following yesterday's dramatic sudden rescue of captured US captain Richard Phillips, Rightwingers are already advocating military intervention in Somalia - up to and including the collective punishment of the whole nation through naval blockade. (Possibly as an over-reaction to their wish for Obama to stumble, something that disgusts some of their fellows.)

Some prominent Dems are saying things that could be construed either as a call for armed intervention, or for a more Pakistan-like civilian adventure in nation-rebuilding. Russ Feingold is head of the Senate Foreign Relations' African affairs subcommittee:

"While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem," Feingold continued.

Feingold added, "We must commit to a comprehensive strategy that helps stabilize the country while also establishing effective governance and the rule of law. If we don’t, we will continue to see Somalia's historic instability manifest itself in piracy and growing extremism, both of which pose serious security threats in the region and around the globe.”

The trouble there, of course, is that thanks to constant advocacy from the likes of CNAS, the source for much of the Obama administration's defense and foreign policy thinking as well as personnel, Bob Gates has now gone looking for a budget to ensure that the military is America's only effective nation-building outfit. Real hands-on aid will inevitably come in a uniform. It's difficult to see how mission creep could be avoided and mission creep would inevitably lead to yet another decades long COIN occupation.

So far, progressive think tanks like CAP who have backed the COINdinista interventionists, and thus Obama's Af/Pak strategy, are sitting on the fence and being carefully noncommital about how Somalia should be treated. There are few voices of caution like that of Foreign Policy magazine assistant editor Elizabeth Dickinson:

Does the United States know what they're getting into? Piracy experts have long suggested that the root of the problem is indeed on land. But air strikes on Somali bases would be dangerously close to a U.S. military operation in Somalia -- the kind that the country has avoided since Blackhawk down in 1994.

Let's think hypothetically about what might happen if strikes go ahead. U.S. onland intervention will surely anger al Shabaab, the Islamist militant wing that controls an alarming percentage of Somali territory and is the biggest single threat to Somali stability. Already, the Somali government is struggling to convince the country that its relatively pro-Western stance is for the greater good. That argument will lose all weight if and when the U.S. starts airstrikes. Forget about the government's effectiveness, and forget about any hopes that al Shabaab will disarm. This would fuel the fire. No, we shouldn't kneel to the demands of al Shabaab, but nor should we ignore that their ire will be taken out on the already dilapidated Somali population. 

Talk about an escalation.

To be fair, the rumored U.S. plans includes the creation of a Somali coast guard, and support for the Somali government. U.S. Congressman Donald Payne, long a Somalia pragmatist, made a daring visit to Mogadishu today to talk about how the U.S. can help the Somalis fight piracy. But the fact that his plane was shot at only proves how difficult a situation we are walking into.

If we have learned anything about Somali over the last two decades, surely it is that military escalation (this one included) will inevitably breed more chaos. And if we have learned anything about the pirates, it is that chaos on land breeds impunity at sea.

There are three options: a fantastically long, bloody and stupid invasion/occupation; a nation-building by uniforms course that would rapidly turn into option one, or a hands-off containment policy that recognises that it is neither right nor wise to attack then occupy every destabilising place on the planet. Guess which one I'd prefer. Guess which one the Somalis would prefer?

The truth is, if you ask any Somali, if getting rid of the pirates only means the continuous rape of our coast by unmonitored Western Vessels, and the producing of a new cancerous generation, we would all fly our pirate flags high.

Unfortunately, I'm none too confident that interventionist Dems will agree with the Somalis or me.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

I just heard of all people Charles Krauthammer on FAUX and even he thought invading Somalia was a really bad idea.

[yogi-one]

Yes, it's a terrible failure of an idea. It would (1) fail, (2) make America look very stupid, (3) cost us a lot of money (read: add yet another staggering debt to our economic plight) and (4) cost us anything that remains of our cred in Africa.

Basically, the Pentagon, and in particular, the GOP has to realize that the PNAC is DOA. There will be no unilateral, American-dominated 21st century where what we say becomes the world's law, and we can shoot up anybody who disagrees with no real-world consequences. I don't know where those idiots got such an idea in the first place.

We blew the first Afghanistan invasion by being in such a huge hurry to waste all our time, energy, resources, and lives of our kids in Iraq. Wow, look at the fat lot of good that got us.

I swear, sometimes I wish the "experts" would just get the hell out of the way. They aren't helping anybody.

How about we fix our banking system and rebuild our own nation?

Ya Think? Does any body inside the Beltway have half a brain? I wonder.