Islamic militias defeat CIA funded Somalian Warlords

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
link

By David Morgan
Republished from Boston Globe

The United States has been funneling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia experts.

U.S. government officials refused to discuss any possible secret U.S. involvement in the strategically placed Horn of Africa state, which has been wrecked by years of fighting.

But former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said an operation to support the warlords’ alliance appeared to involve both the CIA and U.S. military.

John Prendergast, who monitors Somalia for the think-tank International Crisis Group, said he learned during meetings with alliance members in Somalia that the CIA was financing the warlords with cash payments.

Prendergast estimated that CIA-operated flights into Somalia have been bringing in $100,000 to $150,000 per month for the warlords. The flights remain in Somalia for the day, he said, so that U.S. agents can confer with their allies.

The Bush administration has maintained a silence over allegations in recent months of a U.S. proxy war against Islamist radicalism in the country.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Commander Joe Carpenter reiterated the administration’s position that the United States stands ready to “disrupt the efforts of terrorists wherever they may be active.”

SECRET SUPPORT

Claims of clandestine U.S. support for secular warlords who call themselves the “Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism” have been aired by Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and independent analysts.

A United Nations team charged with monitoring a U.N. arms embargo against Somalia has also said it is investigating an unnamed country’s clandestine support for the warlords alliance as a possible violation of the weapons ban.

The former intelligence officials said the operation was controlled by the Pentagon through U.S. Central Command’s Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa, a counterterrorism mission based in neighboring Djibouti established after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On Monday, after months of fighting that has killed around 350 people, the Islamic militia claimed control of Mogadishu and a warlord militiaman said his coalition’s leaders were fleeing the capital.

U.S. intelligence has produced no conclusive evidence of an active al Qaeda presence in Somalia, experts said. But there have been reports of al Qaeda members in the country, including suspects in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa.

“The Pentagon, and now the U.S. government as a whole, is convinced these are elements for establishing a religious-based government like the Taliban, that could be exploited by al Qaeda,” said a former intelligence official knowledgeable about U.S. courterterrorism activities.

The CIA has given its warlord allies surveillance equipment for tracking al Qaeda suspects and appeared to view the warlords as a counter to the influence of Afghanistan-trained Islamist militia leader Aden Hashi Aryo, Prendergast said.

“By circumventing the new government and going straight to individual warlords, the U.S. is perpetuating and even deepening Somalia’s fundamental problems, and compromising long-term efforts to combat extremism,” Prendergast said.

Somalia, a country of 10 million people, has had no effective central authority since 1991 when warlords overthrew military dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. The central government is based temporarily in the town of Baidoa and has been unable to control events in Mogadishu.

Americans have bad memories of U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1993, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 79 injured in a battle with guerrillas loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid after entering the country to support a relief
effort.
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#8
Another bad foreign policy move. Ive read in other articles the Bush Administration calling Somalia 'the next battle ground' against Islamic terrorism. LOL @ throwing a couple million dollars to a couple war lords and thinking that will win the battle against an ideology.

If you ask me itd make a lot more sense spending money to help Africans and stop the radical Islam and Christian/Muslim conflicts spreading there then throwing trillions of dollars into that black hole known Middle East.


WHITE DEVIL said:
I support the funding of factions allied against Islamists.
I agree but hopefully their is some criteria for who gets it and also throwing $100,000 a month into battles that the administration claims may be the next battle ground against Al-Qaeda and Islamic terror is bad policy.
 
May 1, 2003
6,431
25
0
53
#9
Somalia...here we go again. It's hot right now. The Islamic militia knows this. They gone let it cool down, and set up shop.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#12
Hah.

It is a far stretch today to believe we are actually in danger of being attacked in this manner, however in a few years it is more than likely.

Nuclear weapons today are still expensive and quite a hassle to procure and operate. Eventually, they will be more numerous, and possibly used more often.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#13
Somalia will never nuke the US. No matter who is in power.

The funny thing is, because the US backed these warlords out of fear of a possible "Talibanisation" of Somalia, it created support for the Islamists amongst the massess as an alternative to the chaotic and oppressive warlords, which of course led to precisely the outcome the US wished to avoid.

Supporting "anyone who will not nuke us" is not a very good stategy, comrade.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#14
2-0-Sixx said:
Somalia will never nuke the US. No matter who is in power.

The funny thing is, because the US backed these warlords out of fear of a possible "Talibanisation" of Somalia, it created support for the Islamists amongst the massess as an alternative to the chaotic and oppressive warlords, which of course led to precisely the outcome the US wished to avoid.

Supporting "anyone who will not nuke us" is not a very good stategy, comrade.
They may facilitate the transport of nukes, etc. I would never place Somalia in a group of nations who could nuke us. However, a wider Islamist support network could lead to easier facilitation of anti-US attacks, and in the worst case scenario, a new Caliphate authorized to commit offensive jihad.

There was an attempt to install Mullah Omar (Afghanistan) as the new Caliph, and there was some support, seeing how well Afghanistan ruled according to Sharia. However, Omar lacked the Islamic credentials and was also seen as a bit of a backwoods Afghan. If the number of Islamist states significantly increases, a new Caliph would wield a significantly larger amount of power, and a new Caliph is the goal of most Islamists.

The funny thing about US support in many international contexts is that it increases the power of the "enemy" among the populace. Bush's reference to Iran as in the "axis of evil", for example, led to much greater support for the Mullahs, something liberal Iranians deplored.

I believe the CIA can have an effective place in international operations, however, proxy funding, as we did with Afghanistan warlords against Osama bin Laden, rarely goes well. Direct covert operations or targeted assassination usually produces better results.
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#15
2-0-Sixx said:
The funny thing is, because the US backed these warlords out of fear of a possible "Talibanisation" of Somalia, it created support for the Islamists amongst the massess as an alternative to the chaotic and oppressive warlords, which of course led to precisely the outcome the US wished to avoid.
Blowback is a bitch as we all know, but lets not forget any alternative to what was going on there would be more than welcome whether the US supported the warlords or not.