This just angers me to no end:
The U.S. believes that the Islamic Courts are dominated by wanted al Qaeda operatives, and that it is too late to save the Transitional Government. The Al Qaeda members in Somalia include those responsible for the 1998 attacks on two American embassies in east Africa. Al Qaeda has used millions of dollars in donations from backers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, to establish themselves in Somalia. The United States does not plan to send troops into Somalia to deal with Islamic terrorists there, but will try and negotiate with the less extreme Islamic extremists who dominate the Islamic Courts.
We'll do nothing, then? Oh wait--not nothing! We'll negotiate!
So we'll just negotiate with the "less extreme" elements of the jihadis. What precisely does that mean? We look away from beheadings of Westerners as long as the jihadis don't film their guys dancing over the severed heads? Women are just prevented from driving rather than allowing "honor" killings of them for such horrible offenses as being raped or learning to read? The mind boggles at the possibilities for nuanced negotiations with such men. Perhaps we'll sign a treaty limiting how much Uranium Somalia will ship to Iran. Yes, that would be quite the triumph of talk, eh?
Are we at war, or what? Since when do we just let our enemies walk in and take over a place? Are we pining for those kite-flying halcyon days of Taliban-run Afghanistan so much that we think a Taliban-like Somalia would be just the ticket? Are we really willing to just let al Qaeda set up shop in a safe haven in Somalia?
I'm not talking occupying the place. Who cares about that pile of sand? But I should think that a visit by CENTCOM would be appropriate.
I'd say that I hope we are just pretending to give in to an al Qaeda victory in order to get the element of surprise, but I've given myself false comfort over the years with that argument in regard to Iran.
But even as we struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan to consolidate and protect the very real gains we've made, we can't ignore the need and opportunities for offensive military action. If we are on offense somewhere, it is more acceptable to our people to be on defense in some theaters of war. But it is important to feel like we are winning to bolster war support, and nothing gives the feeling of winning like offensive military action and dead jihadis.
I hope that our task force in the Horn of Africa will rouse itself from digging ditches and winning hearts and minds to actually kill our enemies when they appear in their backyard.
So what will it be Mr. President? Are we at war, or what?
UPDATE: Good grief. Apparently the President already answered my question:
Six months ago, the Bush administration launched a new policy in war-torn Somalia, putting the State Department in charge after secret CIA efforts failed to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from seizing power in Mogadishu. It hoped that diplomacy would draw the Islamists into partnership with more palatable, U.S.-backed Somali leaders.
Today, that goal seems more distant than ever. Since coming to power in June, the Islamists have expanded their hold on the south. A largely powerless, U.S.-backed rump government remains divided and isolated in the southern town of Baidoa. U.S.-sponsored talks, and a separate Arab League effort, seem to be going nowhere.
And so here we are. With jihadis consolidating their control in Somalia, providing a safe haven for al Qaeda types, letting Iran look around for Uranium, and providing the impression to Moslems everywhere that the "strong horse" is indeed winning the Long War. The CIA failed on defense and then we sent the State Department in to salvage something from that loss.
I have no problem with the State Department being put in charge of coping with developments in Belgium. But what deep-thinking genius thought the talking set was best suited to dealing with the beheading set?
