Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Segue nostro Telegram.

Donne di inusitata bellezza, sultanati sonnacchiosi, dune di candida sabbia tra frondosi palmeti in riva a un mare d’un cristallino azzurro, alla fine dell’Ottocento la Somalia è questo e poco altro, mentre nelle acque antistanti la costa le navi inglesi incrementano il loro passaggio con poderosi bastimenti provenienti dalle immense distese del vicereame delle Indie in direzione di Bab el Mandeb, per poi dirigersi fino alle coste britanniche, imboccando il mar Rosso e il canale di Suez.

Tutto inizia con l’abbandono del Corno d’Africa da parte del Khedivato d’Egitto, propaggine ottomana dimenticata da Istanbul, il quale esercita per lungo tempo un’autorità sempre più esclusivamente nominale sui sultanati locali. Gli italiani, grazie ai commerci della Rubattino, nel 1869 acquistano la baia d’Assab, originando quella che diventerà la colonia Eritrea, in Somalia non organizzano una guerra coloniale, ma una molteplice serie di accordi con i sovrani locali, scambi amichevoli, collaborazioni in ragione di una reciproca tutela, la quale dovrebbe essere condotta anche con i moschetti di qualche contingente militare, ma viene piuttosto realizzata addestrando i giovani del posto da qualche graduato in cerca di esotismo e soprattutto inviando esploratori e geografi che lasciano diari e descrizioni saporose di sensuali desideri.

Il giovane e sostanzialmente povero regno d’Italia dell’epoca, ancorché inebriato dallo spirito coloniale del tempo, obbligatorio per assurgere all’ambitissima e ristretta cerchia delle grandi potenze, fa infatti imbarcare per l’assolata e lontana terra somala, più che soldati, i suoi studiosi d’Islam e di arabo, alla ricerca di una auspicata convergenza piuttosto che di un’esplicita sottomissione, nel solco di tutto questo agli albori del Novecento si forma quella che in arabo si chiama Al-Sumal Al-Italiy e in somalo Dhulka Talyaaniga ee Soomaaliya. Mogadiscio, che diverrà capoluogo della colonia e poi capitale dal 1960 della nazione indipendente, è affittata dalla Società Commerciale Italiana dal sultanato di Zanzibar, scomparso un quarto di secolo dopo alla scadenza del contratto, permettendo quindi agli italiani di insediarvisi definitivamente per estinzione del precedente proprietario.

Alla regina Vittoria questa penetrazione degli italiani, prima in Eritrea e poi in Somalia, a poche miglia marine dall’entrata del mar Rosso, è di forte fastidio e così nel 1884 dà mandato e ordine ai suoi sudditi di stanza ad Aden, dall’altra parte dell’omonimo golfo, sul limitare della penisola arabica, di procedere con un’occupazione effettiva e pienamente coloniale di una porzione considerevole della terra dei somali, nasce così la Somalia Britannica, che tale resterà fino al 1960, per poi unirsi alla nuova Somalia socialista e indipendente e quindi riacquistare la sua piena autonomia, se non formale assolutamente sostanziale, quando Washington scatenerà con la più inopinata superficialità una guerra tribale di feroce violenza. Il Somaliland, oggi ufficialmente riconosciuto solo da Israele, bramoso di tutelare i suoi interessi economici e militari agendo come elemento di destabilizzazione regionale, è il prodotto di questa lunga, complessa, intricata storia.

Gli inglesi ovviamente non dimenticano i loro sodali francesi, il canale di Suez lo hanno costruito insieme e, fino alla cacciata che subiranno nel 1956 per volontà di Gamal Abd al-Nasser, lo gestiscono e ne incassano congiuntamente anche i profitti, dunque li spalleggiano nella conquista, negli stessi anni di fine Ottocento delle terre di Afar e Issa, nome arabo di Gesù, che diventeranno la Somalia Francese e oggi Gibuti.

Nel corso del secondo conflitto mondiale, l’Italia è pesantemente sconfitta in Africa Orientale nel novembre 1941 ed Eritrea e Somalia passano sotto il controllo britannico, mentre l’Etiopia torna un regno indipendente guidato dal negus Hailé Selassié, tuttavia le Nazioni Unite nel 1952 unificano l’Eritrea all’Etiopia, mentre la Somalia già nel 1950 è assegnata ad una Amministrazione fiduciaria italiana che per un decennio i democristiani governeranno fino al riconoscimento il 1° luglio 1960 dell’indipendenza, capace di suscitare molte speranze, seppur a fronte di una modesta realtà in cui il 60% dell’export è costituito dalle banane. La Somalia costruisce allora, come larga parte delle nazioni africane, una delle tante vie creative al socialismo, ma l’esperienza dura poco, meno di un trentennio, lasciando poi spazio alla guerra civile, che può a tutti gli effetti essere considerata il conflitto meno seguito dai media occidentali e più dimenticato dall’opinione pubblica mondiale.

Deflagrato nel 1986, di fatto a quarant’anni di distanza non si può ancora dire del tutto terminato. Nel primo quinquennio l’Occidente fomenta le divisioni tribali e come sempre il separatismo etnico per scardinare e abbattere la Repubblica Democratica Somala guidata dal 1969 da Siad Barre. A peggiorare la situazione si aggiunge il conflitto tra Somalia ed Etiopia, diventata quest’ultima dal 1974 una Repubblica Democratica Popolare, anch’essa di orientamento socialista, guidata da Menghistu Hailé Mariàm e fortemente sostenuta dai cubani. Nel 1991 Siad Barre si dimette, dimostrando a posteriori l’enormità di problemi ben superiori alla sua persona, si forma infatti un governo unitario, che vede rappresentate tutte le tribù e tutti i gruppi clanici, probabilmente il solo nella storia dell’umanità con ottanta ministri. Potrebbe apparire ridicolo, se non fosse assolutamente tragico, infatti il governo evapora con maggiore velocità delle enormi lungaggini che avevano portato alla sua formazione e la Somalia sprofonda per un altro quinquennio in una guerra di inaudita e cruenta violenza, forse gli anni più terribili, in cui spadroneggiano le forze armate tribali e in particolare quelle del generale Aidid.

Nel 1992 gli statunitensi impongono alle Nazioni Unite di assegnare a loro stessi una missione umanitaria armata, la prima dal 1945, realizzata non con i quaderni, le penne e le sementi, ma con i fucili, purtroppo ne seguiranno altre. La missione ha il roboante quanto improprio nome di “Restore Hope”, ovvero “Ripristinare la Speranza”, mai nome sarà più drammaticamente contraddetto, viste le migliaia di morti e l’interminabile striscia di sangue che l’accompagnerà. Naufragata la speranza, gli statunitensi si convincono di poter portare la pace con un’operazione ancor più esplicitamente militare, chiamandola “Gothic Serpent”, pensando di trovarsi forse immersi in un videogioco, sarà un totale fallimento e contribuirà a rendere ancora più terribilmente violenta la guerra civile. A Washington dovranno contare alla fine diciannove militari statunitensi caduti e l’abbattimento di due elicotteri Black Hawk, le cui immagini fanno il giro del mondo. A Mogadiscio il 20 marzo 1994 vengono trucidati la giornalista RAI Ilaria Alpi e il cineoperatore sloveno di Trieste Miran Hrovatin, uccisi perché hanno scoperto come l’Italia abbandoni in Somalia a cielo aperto e in mare una quantità indescrivibile di bidoni di scorie radioattive derivanti dalla modesta operatività delle centrali nucleari italiane e da una parte delle scorie delle centrali nucleari francesi, in cambio delle quali il governo di Parigi fornisce energia alla Valle d’Aosta e al Piemonte. Nel frattempo l’Occidente e l’ONU abbandonano la Somalia nella primavera del 1995, constatando l’ennesimo fallimento dell’ultima missione organizzata dal Palazzo di Vetro, dal nome “United Shield”, ovvero un più sobrio ma inutile “Scudo Unito”, senza farsi carico dello sfacelo di cui sono responsabili e senza preoccuparsi minimamente della tragedia umanitaria che vede donne, uomini, bambini e anziani morire di fame e di malattie ed essere allo stesso tempo vittime civili di un conflitto che non ha più regole, se non quelle della sopravvivenza e del peggior tribalismo, il tutto nel momento in cui si affermano a vario titolo e grazie a finanziamenti internazionali poco chiari, ma in cui i giochi della Casa Bianca e della NATO non sono estranei, gruppi terroristici di ispirazione religiosa, prima le Corti Islamiche, poi Hizb Al-Shabaab, ovvero il Partito dei Giovani, quindi gruppi armati che hanno rivendicato, non si sa quanto in maniera veritiera, l’appartenenza allo Stato Islamico. È certo che la presenza delle missioni ONU dal 1992 al 1995 e dei contingenti statunitensi non abbiano risolto nulla, senza alleviare le sofferenze della popolazione, senza aprire spiragli di pace, ma anzi contribuendo ad esasperare e peggiorare una situazione già pesantemente drammatica.

Solo l’intervento della Turchia di Recep Tayyip Erdoğan negli ultimi cinque anni è riuscito a portare una relativa pacificazione tra le parti in lotta, offrendo un credibile progetto di collaborazione e cooperazione volto a far uscire la Somalia da una quarantennale stagione di devastanti distruzioni con pesantissime ripercussioni sui civili e con un incalcolabile numero di morti.

In tutto questo gli abitanti e i politici del Somaliland, insofferenti verso le imposizioni dello stato unitario, hanno sfruttato la guerra civile e tribale per giungere, con l’appoggio di Washington e di Londra sempre favorevoli al separatismo etnico, alla dichiarazione d’indipendenza il 18 maggio 1991, il presidente dal 2017 al 2024 Muse Bihi Abdi ha ospitato nella capitale Hargheisa e nel porto di Berbera delegazioni del Regno Unito, dell’Unione Europea e di Taiwan, isola con cui ha sottoscritto un accordo bilaterale di cooperazione e reciproco riconoscimento. L’Etiopia, che cerca uno sbocco verso il mar Rosso, nel gennaio 2024 ha firmato con il Somaliland un memorandum d’intesa che prevede l’accesso etiope ai porti, scatenando le evidenti proteste del presidente somalo Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, il quale denuncia ripetutamente e con ragione gli intenti separatisti anche del Puntland, la regione somala settentrionale confinante con il Somaliland. Il Puntland si è dichiarato stato autonomo nel 1998, durante la guerra civile, anche se negli ultimi anni ha accettato di essere considerato parte dello stato federale somalo, seppur con un proprio presidente Said Abdullahi Dani in carica dal 2015. Grazie alla mediazione turca, al fine di non creare nuovi attriti e conflitti, l’accordo Somaliland – Etiopia è al momento sospeso.

A peggiorare la situazione è subentrato nel dicembre 2025 il vergognoso riconoscimento dei separatisti del Somaliland realizzato dai sionisti, interessati a portare nel Corno d’Africa una cospicua parte dei palestinesi che Benjamin Netanyahu, conclamato criminale internazionalmente riconosciuto come tale, vorrebbe deportare, così come l’apertura di una o più basi militari aeree e navali israeliane sulla costa del mar Rosso, con l’obiettivo di attaccare più agevolmente gli huthi yemeniti. D’altro canto, l’adesione contestualmente programmata del Somaliland attraverso la firma dell’attuale presidente Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillah agli accordi di Abramo rappresenterà non soltanto il riconoscimento dello stato sionista, ma anche e soprattutto l’innesco di una gravissima crisi regionale.

Il presidente della Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, eletto nel 2022, ha dichiarato, con il sostegno unanime di tutta l’Unione Africana e l’appoggio di Turchia e di Cina, impegnate da tempo nella ricostruzione della Somalia dopo i devastanti anni di abbandono e di terrorismo promossi da Washington, la gravità del fatto e la pericolosità di tale infiltrazione israeliana. Il rischio di incendiare con nuove guerre il Corno d’Africa è del tutto evidente, forse anche uno dei criminali obiettivi perseguiti subdolamente da Tel Aviv.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Geografie pericolose

Nel 1944, mentre la guerra infuriava in Europa e in Asia, e quattro anni prima della creazione dello Stato di Israele, un gruppo che affermava di rappresentare i rifugiati ebrei durante la guerra si rivolse al governo etiope per richiedere un rifugio nella provincia orientale etiope di Harrar e nella parte occidentale della Somalia britannica.

La proposta riservata, inviata in copia al Dipartimento di Stato americano, suggeriva che il territorio “fosse riservato all’immigrazione degli ebrei europei e posto sotto un regime autonomo amministrato dagli stessi rifugiati”.

Esprimendo grande simpatia personale per la difficile situazione degli ebrei europei, l’imperatore Haile Selassie respinse la proposta, affermando che il “sincero desiderio” dell’Etiopia di “aiutare le vittime dell’aggressione non è in alcun modo in linea con la richiesta che la stessa nazione riservi un’intera provincia a un qualsiasi gruppo di rifugiati”.

Somaliland, inteso come le sole regioni dell’ex Somalia britannica oggi sotto il controllo del clan Isaaq, Sudan orientale, in particolare Darfur e Kordofan, governati dall’amministrazione di “Pace e Unità” delle RSF, e Yemen meridionale, dominato dal STC, nel quale gli al-Hirak rappresentano la componente principale ma non esclusiva, erede del movimento secessionista del 1994 e, più a monte, delle aggregazioni claniche confluite nell’ex Partito Socialista Yemenita della RPDY, costituiscono i tre principali cripto-stati che la convergenza strategica israelo-emiratina punta a trasformare in entità pienamente sovrane, attraverso il riconoscimento della loro separazione da Mogadiscio, Khartoum e Sana’a.

Come ha notato l’esperto di Africa Filippo Bovo, sebbene tali entità non godano di alcun riconoscimento nel quadro del diritto internazionale, queste secessioni esistono di fatto da tempo. Ciò, tuttavia, non può essere assunto come giustificazione per accreditarle politicamente, legittimando di fatto conflitti civili e fratricidi che ne costituiscono il fondamento. Le aspirazioni indipendentiste degli Isaaq si alimentano infatti della subordinazione e della vera e propria “cattura” degli altri clan, all’interno di uno Stato gestito come fosse un possedimento privato. Il progetto delle RSF di Hemedti di proclamare uno Stato nel Sudan orientale è intriso del sangue delle operazioni di pulizia etnica condotte contro le popolazioni locali non arabe o non arabofone, secondo schemi che richiamano direttamente il DNA janjaweed di questa milizia. Analogamente, la riproposizione dell’indipendentismo sud-yemenita rievoca l’esperienza di uno Stato già allora strutturalmente instabile (come gli altri due), nel quale dietro la facciata di un presunto socialismo reale si celavano compromessi clanici violenti e continui, con il potere conquistato o conservato attraverso lo spargimento di sangue.

Si tratta, in tutti i casi, di identità storiche che Israele ed Emirati Arabi Uniti, seguendo una propria “ragion geopolitica”, sfruttano e strumentalizzano per disarticolare Stati unitari, facendo leva su alleati e intermediari locali. Tra questi figurano Paesi come Etiopia, Kenya, Ciad, Libia, Ruanda e Uganda, oltre a una costellazione di attori non statali quali al-Shabaab, IS-Somalia, STC, RSF, M23, JNIM, ISWAP, insieme a varie fazioni claniche e tribali disponibili alla cooperazione. L’area interessata va dalla Penisola Arabica al Corno d’Africa, dalla Valle del Nilo ai Grandi Laghi, dal Mar Rosso al Golfo di Aden.

L’obiettivo è garantire la sicurezza di rotte strategiche di primaria importanza, nonché preservare forme di estrazione neocoloniale altamente redditizie – dall’oro ai minerali critici – e al contempo contenere o neutralizzare quegli Stati che, nella loro dottrina geopolitica, vengono percepiti come rivali strategici rilevanti nella regione, tra cui Arabia Saudita, Egitto, Turchia ed Eritrea. Volendo ricorrere a una metafora automobilistica, questa strategia di destabilizzazione tra Africa e Medio Oriente, dopo una partenza già problematica in Somaliland, nello Yemen meridionale sembra ora procedere “a tre cilindri”: più prudente fermarsi in officina che rischiare di proseguire il viaggio.

Nel tentativo di evitare uno scontro frontale con l’Arabia Saudita – che non sbloccherà centinaia di miliardi di dollari di investimenti nell’economia statunitense finché Washington non avrà posto fine al sostegno emiratino a RSF, STC e Somaliland – gli Stati Uniti hanno notificato a Israele, Emirati ed Etiopia che non riconosceranno l’indipendenza di Hargeisa. Per Addis Abeba, che puntava a riattivare le intese con gli Isaaq previste nel Memorandum of Understanding del gennaio 2024 (riconoscimento del Somaliland in cambio di accessi portuali e navali etiopici, finanziati da Abu Dhabi), si è trattato di un colpo significativo. Parallelamente, Washington è sempre più in frizione con il governo etiope, sia per questa vicenda sia per il sostegno fornito alle RSF in Sudan, in coordinamento con gli Emirati, oltre che per le pressioni esercitate sull’Eritrea in merito al porto di Assab.

In seguito, Riyad ha colpito a Mukalla, nello Yemen meridionale, una spedizione di armamenti destinata al STC e proveniente dagli Emirati. Il deterioramento dei rapporti tra Arabia Saudita ed Emirati appare sempre più evidente, e questo attacco ne rappresenta un segnale inequivocabile: il carico, di origine emiratina, era diretto a un alleato di Abu Dhabi ma a un nemico di Riyad, in un porto – Mukalla – dove gli Emirati esercitano presenza, controllo e investimenti. Il messaggio era rivolto anche a Israele, che nella stessa area opera in modo più discreto. Successivamente, l’Arabia Saudita ha rivolto un vero e proprio ultimatum agli Emirati, intimando il ritiro delle loro forze dallo Yemen meridionale e la cessazione del sostegno al STC.

Il STC, a sua volta, si è allineato, annunciando la fine delle relazioni con Abu Dhabi, ordinando il ritiro delle forze emiratine entro 24 ore e imponendo un blocco delle frontiere per 72 ore nelle aree sotto il proprio controllo, con la sola eccezione delle rotte autorizzate da Riyad. La strategia israelo-emiratina appare quindi sempre più inceppata, procedendo anch’essa “a tre cilindri”. L’escalation tra Abu Dhabi e Riyad, che segnala oggi la disponibilità di questi due attori a colpirsi anche direttamente, coinvolge inevitabilmente altri protagonisti regionali – compresi alcuni finora rimasti sullo sfondo – e con ogni probabilità produrrà nuove recrudescenze in tutto il quadrante che va dai Grandi Laghi alla Valle del Nilo, dal Corno d’Africa alla Penisola Arabica. Per questa ragione, Somalia-Somaliland, Yemen e Sudan rappresentano le prime, ma non le uniche, pietre angolari su cui è oggi più che mai necessario concentrare l’attenzione.

L’attivista e capo del Comitato di aiuto agli ebrei Hermann Fuernberg descrisse per la prima volta la proposta in un opuscolo del 1943, sottolineando perché il territorio di Harrar sarebbe stato perfetto:

“Questo territorio è abbastanza vasto… [e] abitato da una piccola popolazione agricola, che non dovrebbe creare grandi difficoltà. Tuttavia, sarà necessario ricordare le lezioni apprese dall’esperienza palestinese, ovvero impedire che il territorio venga invaso da persone provenienti da altre parti dell’Etiopia e tenere lontani gli agitatori stranieri”. Da qui si capisce tutto.

Mai e poi mai

A tal proposito, la reazione internazionale è stata durissima.

Il ministero degli Esteri cinese ha diffuso lunedì una dichiarazione di condanna nei confronti del riconoscimento, da parte di Israele, della Repubblica separatista del Somaliland, dopo che Taiwan è divenuta il primo soggetto statale a sostenere la decisione di Tel Aviv. Pechino ha espresso la propria opposizione al riconoscimento israeliano del Somaliland come “Stato sovrano e indipendente” e all’instaurazione di relazioni diplomatiche con esso, come dichiarato dal portavoce del ministero degli Esteri Lin Jian. “Nessun Paese dovrebbe incoraggiare o sostenere movimenti separatisti interni ad altri Stati per perseguire interessi egoistici”, ha affermato, esortando al contempo la Somalia a porre fine “alle attività separatiste e alla collusione con forze esterne”. La Cina, ha concluso, “sostiene fermamente la sovranità, l’unità e l’integrità territoriale della Somalia e si oppone a qualsiasi iniziativa che ne comprometta l’integrità territoriale”.

Ovviamente l’Iran, assieme ad altri Paesi islamici come Arabia Saudita, Egitto, Turchia, Gibuti, Iraq, Giordania, Pakistan, ha rigettato e condannato l’iniziativa di Netanyahu, il quale in una intervista con Fox News ha parlato di voler stabilizzare gli “stati islamici democratici”, sul modello di quanto avvenuto in Siria, ovvero posizionare dei terroristi come leader fantoccio, in modo da tenere sotto scacco intere aree del Paese.

Che dire della Somalia? Migliaia di cittadini somali sono scesi in piazza in diverse città del Paese per protestare contro il riconoscimento israeliano del Somaliland, denunciando la decisione come una violazione del diritto internazionale e una minaccia alla stabilità regionale. Le manifestazioni si sono svolte a Mogadiscio, Baaydhabo, Hobyo e Guriceel, dove i dimostranti hanno sfilato esibendo bandiere somale e palestinesi e cartelli di condanna contro la scelta di Israele di riconoscere il Somaliland come Stato indipendente.

Il Consiglio Consultivo Nazionale della Somalia — che comprende il presidente Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, il primo ministro Hamza Abdi Barre, i leader degli Stati federati e i governatori — ha definito il riconoscimento israeliano un “atto illegale” capace di compromettere la pace e la stabilità in un’area che si estende “dal Mar Rosso al Golfo di Aden”. Anche Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, leader del movimento di resistenza yemenita Ansarullah, ha condannato la decisione domenica, avvertendo che qualsiasi presenza israeliana in Somaliland sarà considerata una minaccia militare diretta dalla resistenza.

L’Unione Africana ha ribadito il proprio sostegno all’unità della Somalia, respingendo ogni ipotesi di riconoscimento del Somaliland, mentre la Lega Araba ha definito l’iniziativa israeliana una palese violazione del diritto internazionale.

Anche l’Organizzazione della Cooperazione Islamica (OIC) ha espresso una ferma condanna, sottolineando come la decisione crei un precedente estremamente pericoloso.

In modo analogo, l’Unione Europea ha ribadito il proprio rispetto per i confini somali internazionalmente riconosciuti. Nel corso della riunione di lunedì del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, tutti i Paesi membri — con la sola eccezione degli Stati Uniti — hanno criticato la decisione di Israele, avvertendo che essa rischia di destabilizzare ulteriormente la Somalia e gli Stati limitrofi. Washington si è astenuta dal condannare formalmente il riconoscimento israeliano della regione secessionista, precisando tuttavia che la posizione statunitense sul Somaliland non ha subito cambiamenti.

L’ambasciatore somalo presso le Nazioni Unite, Abu Bakr Dahir Osman, ha accusato Israele di promuovere deliberatamente la frammentazione del Paese, esprimendo inoltre il timore che tale decisione possa favorire un trasferimento forzato di palestinesi nel nord-ovest della Somalia. “Questo disprezzo per la legge e per la morale deve essere fermato”, ha dichiarato.

La volontà di Israele, però, è chiara: quella zona geografica del Golfo di Aden segna l’accesso al Mar Rosso, quindi al Canale di Suez. Una rotta indispensabile per gli affari di Israele e dell’Europa in generale, Stati Uniti compresi. Da lì passano i commerci militari, quelli del crude oil e anche molte merci del settore terziario. Israele ha investito nel corridoio IMEC garantendo il passaggio da Suez e Haifa, quindi il controllo totale del traffico nel Mar Rosso è una prerogativa irrinunciabile. Ma Israele è altrettanto consapevole che quel canale è sotto l’influenza strategica degli Houthi e, quindi, di tutta l’Asse della Resistenza, che non lascerà scampo alle mire dell’entità sionista.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Dangerous geographies

In 1944, while war raged in Europe and Asia, and four years before the creation of the State of Israel, a group claiming to represent Jewish refugees during the war approached the Ethiopian government to request refuge in the eastern Ethiopian province of Harrar and in the western part of British Somalia.

The confidential proposal, copied to the US State Department, suggested that the territory “be reserved for the immigration of European Jews and placed under an autonomous regime administered by the refugees themselves.”

Expressing great personal sympathy for the plight of European Jews, Emperor Haile Selassie rejected the proposal, stating that Ethiopia’s “sincere desire” to “help the victims of aggression is in no way consistent with the request that the nation itself reserve an entire province for any group of refugees.”

Somaliland, understood as the only regions of the former British Somalia now under the control of the Isaaq clan, eastern Sudan, in particular Darfur and Kordofan, governed by the RSF’s “Peace and Unity” administration, and southern Yemen, dominated by the STC, in which al-Hirak represents the main but not exclusive component, heir to the 1994 secessionist movement and, further upstream, to the clan aggregations that merged into the former Yemeni Socialist Party of the RPDY, constitute the three main crypto-states that the Israeli-Emirati strategic convergence aims to transform into fully sovereign entities through the recognition of their separation from Mogadishu, Khartoum, and Sana’a.

As noted by Africa expert Filippo Bovo, although these entities do not enjoy any recognition under international law, these secessions have in fact existed for some time. However, this cannot be taken as justification for accrediting them politically, thereby legitimizing the civil and fratricidal conflicts that form their basis. The Isaaq’s aspirations for independence are fueled by the subordination and outright “capture” of other clans within a state run as if it were a private possession. Hemedti’s RSF project to proclaim a state in eastern Sudan is steeped in the blood of ethnic cleansing operations carried out against local non-Arab or non-Arabic-speaking populations, following patterns that directly recall the Janjaweed DNA of this militia. Similarly, the revival of South Yemeni independence evokes the experience of a state that was already structurally unstable (like the other two), in which violent and continuous clan compromises were hidden behind the facade of supposed real socialism, with power conquered or preserved through bloodshed.

In all cases, these are historical identities that Israel and the United Arab Emirates, following their own ‘geopolitical rationale’, exploit and instrumentalise to dismantle unitary states, leveraging local allies and intermediaries. These include countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Chad, Libya, Rwanda, and Uganda, as well as a constellation of non-state actors such as al-Shabaab, IS-Somalia, STC, RSF, M23, JNIM, ISWAP, along with various clan and tribal factions willing to cooperate. The area concerned stretches from the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa, from the Nile Valley to the Great Lakes, from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

The goal is to ensure the security of strategic routes of primary importance, as well as to preserve highly profitable forms of neocolonial extraction—from gold to critical minerals—while containing or neutralizing those states that, in their geopolitical doctrine, are perceived as significant strategic rivals in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Eritrea. To use an automotive metaphor, this strategy of destabilization between Africa and the Middle East, after an already problematic start in Somaliland, now seems to be running on ‘three cylinders’ in southern Yemen: it would be more prudent to stop at the repair shop than to risk continuing the journey.

In an attempt to avoid a head-on collision with Saudi Arabia—which will not release hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the US economy until Washington ends Emirati support for RSF, STC, and Somaliland—the US has notified Israel, the Emirates, and Ethiopia that it will not recognize Hargeisa’s independence. For Addis Ababa, which was aiming to reactivate the agreements with the Isaaqs provided for in the January 2024 Memorandum of Understanding (recognition of Somaliland in exchange for Ethiopian port and naval access, financed by Abu Dhabi), this was a significant blow. At the same time, Washington is increasingly at odds with the Ethiopian government, both over this issue and over its support for the RSF in Sudan, in coordination with the Emirates, as well as over the pressure exerted on Eritrea regarding the port of Assab.

Subsequently, Riyadh struck a shipment of weapons destined for the STC and coming from the Emirates in Mukalla, southern Yemen. The deterioration in relations between Saudi Arabia and the Emirates is becoming increasingly evident, and this attack is an unequivocal sign of this: the cargo, originating in the Emirates, was destined for an ally of Abu Dhabi but an enemy of Riyadh, in a port—Mukalla—where the Emirates have a presence, control, and investments. The message was also directed at Israel, which operates more discreetly in the same area. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia issued a veritable ultimatum to the Emirates, demanding the withdrawal of their forces from southern Yemen and the cessation of support for the STC.

The STC, in turn, fell into line, announcing the end of relations with Abu Dhabi, ordering the withdrawal of Emirati forces within 24 hours, and imposing a 72-hour border blockade in areas under its control, with the sole exception of routes authorized by Riyadh. The Israeli-Emirati strategy therefore appears increasingly jammed, also proceeding ‘on three cylinders’. The escalation between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, which today signals the willingness of these two actors to strike each other directly, inevitably involves other regional players—including some that have remained in the background until now—and will in all likelihood produce new flare-ups throughout the region stretching from the Great Lakes to the Nile Valley, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula. For this reason, Somalia-Somaliland, Yemen, and Sudan are the first, but not the only, cornerstones on which it is now more necessary than ever to focus attention.

Activist and head of the Jewish Aid Committee Hermann Fuernberg first described the proposal in a 1943 pamphlet, emphasizing why the territory of Harrar would be perfect:

“This territory is large enough… [and] inhabited by a small agricultural population, which should not create great difficulties. However, it will be necessary to remember the lessons learned from the Palestinian experience, namely to prevent the territory from being invaded by people from other parts of Ethiopia and to keep foreign agitators away.” From this, everything becomes clear.

Never ever

In this regard, the international reaction has been very harsh.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Monday condemning Israel’s recognition of the breakaway Republic of Somaliland, after Taiwan became the first state to support Tel Aviv’s decision. Beijing expressed its opposition to Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a “sovereign and independent state” and to the establishment of diplomatic relations with it, as stated by Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian. “No country should encourage or support separatist movements within other states to pursue selfish interests,” he said, while urging Somalia to end “separatist activities and collusion with external forces.” China, he concluded, “firmly supports the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Somalia and opposes any initiative that compromises its territorial integrity.”

Obviously, Iran, along with other Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan, rejected and condemned Netanyahu’s initiative. In an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu spoke of wanting to stabilize “democratic Islamic states” based on the model of what happened in Syria, i.e., placing terrorists as puppet leaders in order to keep entire areas of the country in check.

What about Somalia? Thousands of Somali citizens took to the streets in various cities across the country to protest against Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, denouncing the decision as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. Demonstrations took place in Mogadishu, Baaydhabo, Hobyo, and Guriceel, where protesters marched carrying Somali and Palestinian flags and signs condemning Israel’s decision to recognize Somaliland as an independent state.

Somalia’s National Consultative Council — which includes President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre, federal state leaders, and governors — called Israel’s recognition an “illegal act” that could undermine peace and stability in an area stretching “from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.” Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, leader of the Yemeni resistance movement Ansarullah, also condemned the decision on Sunday, warning that any Israeli presence in Somaliland would be considered a direct military threat by the resistance.

The African Union reiterated its support for the unity of Somalia, rejecting any possibility of recognizing Somaliland, while the Arab League called the Israeli initiative a clear violation of international law.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also expressed strong condemnation, stressing that the decision sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Similarly, the European Union reiterated its respect for Somalia’s internationally recognized borders. During Monday’s meeting of the UN Security Council, all member countries — with the sole exception of the United States — criticized Israel’s decision, warning that it risks further destabilizing Somalia and neighboring states. Washington refrained from formally condemning Israel’s recognition of the secessionist region, but made it clear that the US position on Somaliland remains unchanged.

Somalia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Abu Bakr Dahir Osman, accused Israel of deliberately promoting the fragmentation of the country, expressing concern that the decision could encourage the forced transfer of Palestinians to northwestern Somalia. “This disregard for law and morality must be stopped,” he said.

Israel’s intention, however, is clear: this geographical area of the Gulf of Aden marks the access to the Red Sea and therefore to the Suez Canal. It is an indispensable route for the business interests of Israel and Europe in general, including the United States. Military trade, crude oil, and many goods from the service sector pass through there. Israel has invested in the IMEC corridor, guaranteeing passage from Suez and Haifa, so total control of traffic in the Red Sea is an indispensable prerogative. But Israel is equally aware that this channel is under the strategic influence of the Houthis and, therefore, of the entire Axis of Resistance, which will leave no escape for the Zionist entity’s ambitions.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Hardly reported in the Western media is the blitzkrieg being conducted by the Trump administration on Somalia, the easternmost country on the African continent, and one of the world’s poorest.

Donald Trump began his presidency in January 2025, declaring himself a peacemaker to end all U.S. overseas wars. He even thinks he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize despite ordering a massive aerial bombardment of Iran earlier this year and launching the ongoing aggression against Venezuela, including blowing up dozens of civilian boats off the Latin American coast.

But perhaps the biggest anomaly in Trump’s peace posturing is the U.S. airstrikes in Somalia. Last week, the country was bombed for the 90th time this year, according to reporting in antiwar.com. Trump’s secret war in Somalia is not being reported by the mainstream media. No surprise there, given the Western media’s longtime shameful role of covering up for U.S. illegal aggression. Nor is the Pentagon providing any data on casualties.

To put the scale of this military involvement into perspective, 90 bombing raids on Somalia during 10 months of Trump’s second presidency compare with a total of 51 airstrikes on Somalia under Biden in four years and 48 under Obama in eight years. (Of course, a separate question is: what gives any U.S. president the right to bomb the impoverished African country in the first place?)

The only other country bombed as intensively is Yemen, the Arabian Peninsula nation located north of Somalia, across the Gulf of Aden. In two months during Trump’s second presidency, the number of Yemenis killed by U.S. airstrikes – over 200 – was almost as many as had been recorded in the previous 20 years of American bombardment, according to an airwars.org study. Trump’s bombing of Yemen stopped after a ceasefire was called in June 2025. (Separately, a U.S.-backed Saudi war on Yemen from 2015 killed tens of thousands.)

Somalia and Yemen – 19 and 42 million population, respectively – are ranked among the poorest 10 countries on Earth.

The strategic location of the two countries explains why the United States is so keen to deploy its military force. Both nations are among the least developed, but they also have large untapped oil and gas reserves.

Somalia and Yemen straddle the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea shipping route, one of the world’s busiest cargo chokepoints. The strategic significance of the location is demonstrated by the way the Yemenis have successfully restricted Israel-bound container vessels in support of Gaza, which is no doubt why Trump called a halt to U.S. airstrikes on Yemen in June.

The northeastern tip of Somalia is the highest point on the Horn of Africa. The Puntland, as it is known, is a semi-autonomous region within Somalia whose federal government is located further south in Mogadishu. Somalia has the longest coastline on the continent of Africa, and Puntland offers a vantage point overlooking the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

The United States is providing military air support to the government in Mogadishu and the administration in Puntland, ostensibly to fight Islamist militants. The bombing raids ordered by Trump are purportedly targeting Al Qaeda-affiliated militants.

Somalia and Yemen are believed to be part of the same geological formation, having been contiguous land territory until 18 million years ago, before the continental rift split the Horn of Africa from Arabia. The two countries are reckoned to share the same rich oil and gas deposits, both onshore and offshore.

Since 2012, the Puntland regional authorities have granted the U.S. oil firm Range Resources drilling concessions. Other American oil companies with interests in Somalia are Conoco and Chevron. Two areas in particular have promising commercial potential: the Nugaal Valley and the Dharoor Valley. However, the unrecognized breakaway country of Somaliland, a former British colony to the west of Puntland, sent military forces to occupy the Nugaal Valley, claiming historic ownership. That territorial dispute has put the U.S. oil and gas exploration in jeopardy, or at least introduced complications.

The energy mining interests are one reason explaining the U.S. military deployment in Somalia. The official rationale of combating Islamist militants serves as a pretext. Washington’s relationship with Jihadists is notoriously mercurial and self-serving. The so-called “war on terror” has been a useful ploy for U.S. intervention in foreign nations for ulterior objectives, such as control of natural resources or projecting military power. This week saw the former head of Al Qaeda in Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, hosted by President Trump in the White House. The group that supposedly carried out 9/11 and the killing of 3,000 Americans in 2001 is now honored in the White House.

The Al Qaeda-affiliated militants in Somalia are a useful enemy, giving Washington a public rationale for bombing that country. The real purpose is to consolidate a U.S. foothold in the Horn of Africa to exploit its natural resources. Such a foothold also gives the U.S. an option in the future to increase offensive force against Yemen for the goal of subjugating that country for its oil and gas potential.

With both sides of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden under its eventual command, the United States gains control over a critical shipping route and an important advantage over geopolitical rivals China and Russia, whose supply chains can be severed.

Trump’s peace declarations on taking office and his promises to end overseas wars by focusing on building up “America First” seem to be a cynical con, or as he might put it, the “art of the deal”. The 47th president of the U.S. is continuing with gusto the imperial agenda of bombing and making war. But warmongering Trump is not simply American capitalist business-as-usual. It’s shaping up to be even more criminal and out of control.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent weeks, Somaliland has drawn unprecedented attention from western media. As Israeli and US officials scramble to find a destination to forcibly relocate Gaza’s population, the globally unrecognized breakaway territory is increasingly floated as a potential solution.

Multiple mainstream reports suggest Tel Aviv and Washington are making quiet overtures to Hargeisa. On 14 March, the Financial Times revealed:

“A US official briefed on Washington’s initial contacts with Somaliland’s presidency said discussions had begun about a possible deal to recognize the de facto state in return for the establishment of a military base near the port of Berbera on the Red Sea coast.”

Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi has made international recognition his central foreign policy objective. Since the territory declared independence in 1991, no country has recognized it as a sovereign state. But late last year, before entering the White House, US President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement that he intended to officially recognize Somaliland, which would make Washington the first foreign capital to do so.

For the internationally isolated statelet, the prospect of a permanent US military footprint, which would shield the East African statelet from Somalia’s endemic instability, is no doubt enormously appealing, especially as it would be attached to official recognition of statehood by a major global power.

Search for a new ‘Nakba’ 

From Washington’s perspective, the deal would yield far more than just a convenient dumping ground for displaced Palestinians, evicted to make way for Trump’s fantasized “Gaza-Lago.” Somaliland’s strategic location on the Red Sea makes it an ideal staging post for operations against Yemen.

Such a move would grant the US a critical new foothold in the Horn of Africa at a time when American and French forces are being ejected from countries across the continent at breakneck speed.

It could also serve as a counterweight to China and Russia’s expanding presence in northern Africa. Beijing established its first overseas military base in neighbouring Djibouti in 2017, and has since emerged as an aggressive critic of western policies in the region – while also welcoming Iranian naval vessels at its ports.

The strategic utility of recognizing Somaliland is not lost on Washington’s foreign policy architects. Project 2025 – a sprawling, right-wing policy blueprint by the Heritage Foundation, intended as a roadmap for Trump’s second term—explicitly advocates “[countering] malign Chinese activity” in Africa. It specifically recommended “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the US’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”

Another neocolonial outpost

Keep in mind that Trump’s interest in the territory was made public well before Somaliland was floated as a relocation site for Gaza’s 2.4 million Palestinians. In November 2024, former British defence secretary Gavin Williamson announced he had held “really good meetings” with Trump’s “policy leads” on the matter, expressing confidence that recognition was on the horizon.

Williamson has long been an ardent advocate of Somaliland’s independence, regularly undertaking all-expenses-paid trips to the breakaway territory, and receiving honorary citizenship for his lobbying efforts.

Williamson’s interest exposes a rarely acknowledged truth: Somaliland is, in practice, a modern British colony. Though it claimed independence from Somalia in 1991 and was formally granted independence by Britain in 1960, the territory remains under London’s shadow.

Should Palestinians be forcefully relocated there, they would be trapped in yet another open-air prison – under the watchful eye of British-trained security forces with a long history of violent repression.

‘ASI Management’

In April 2019, British government contractor Aktis Strategy abruptly declared bankruptcy, leaving staff unpaid and suppliers out of pocket, despite having secured tens of millions of pounds from the UK’s Foreign Office for “development” programs across Africa and West Asia.

The Somaliland Chronicle published a detailed exposé on the company’s collapse, which came while it was overseeing a “justice and security sector reform project” in the statelet.

Official records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, London allocated over £18 million (around $23.5 million) to that project alone. It was one of many UK-financed schemes in the breakaway region that placed Somaliland’s state architecture – government, military, judiciary, prisons, police, intelligence – under effective British management.

Internal files reviewed by The Cradle lay bare the extent of this control.

One document details how notorious British intelligence cutout Adam Smith International (ASI) provided “ongoing training and mentoring” to Somaliland’s National Intelligence Agency and Rapid Response Unit, while managing the territory’s forensics services, border surveillance, and even prosecution procedures via the Attorney General’s Office. The British-created Counter-Terrorism Unit was established in 2012 with Foreign Office funds – “under ASI management.”

Elsewhere, ASI boasts of its “proven history of establishing close professional relationships” with senior government, armed forces, police, “security sector,” and Ministry of Defense officials. One file notes the contractor “deployed ex-UK military advisers” to train Somaliland’s army and coastguard intelligence units, “[mentoring] senior officers in leadership, management, and military doctrine,” and even drafted legislation later adopted as law.

Meanwhile, British contractor Albany Associates focused on teaching Somaliland’s leaders the mechanics of propaganda and information warfare. Its mission: to train ministers and senior officials to generate a “steady flow of information” and proactively manage the media, in order to counter independent outlets.

It was noted that “unsatisfied public demand for information” from the government “on nationally significant events” gave independent information sources significant influence locally, which was to be countered at all costs.

In Somaliland, public distrust of their government was fueled by frequent arrests of journalists and media shutdowns, so Albany’s role was to consolidate state control over information – ensuring one narrative, “one voice,” no dissent.

A prison camp in waiting 

While ASI touted its reforms, documents from another contractor – Coffey International – presented a more candid picture. Somaliland’s military, the files noted, was “the largest and most costly institution of state,” yet evaded oversight, with its funds likely diverted for opaque ends. Accountability for military abuses was virtually nonexistent.

The police, meanwhile, had “a history of applying disproportionate force,” and no “dedicated public order unit.” Coffey proposed creating one within the Special Protection Unit – a paramilitary force protecting foreign organizations and their staff. At the time, the unit had no mandate for crowd control or responding to peaceful protests.

That July 2015 document recommended Somaliland police be trained in the UK by the National Police, covering human rights, crowd engagement, and first aid. The aim: instill “proportionality, lawfulness, [and] accountability” throughout Somaliland’s police forces. Yet if this training occurred, it had no visible impact.

In late 2022, mass protests erupted in the contested city of Las Anod. Somaliland forces responded with lethal force, killing dozens. The crackdown escalated, and in 2023, Somaliland’s military indiscriminately shelled the city. Amnesty International described the attack as “indiscriminate,” targeting schools, hospitals, and mosques, displacing hundreds of thousands and killing scores.

This is the context in which Somaliland appeals to Israel and its western patrons: a brutal, British-run security apparatus capable of extinguishing any form of dissent – ergo, the perfect dumping ground for Gazan refugees. If Washington establishes a base to launch strikes on Yemen, Palestinians could also be held hostage – literal human shields – to deter reprisals from the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces.

One can only hope this depraved plan collapses as swiftly as earlier US–Israeli schemes to expel Gazans to Egypt or Jordan.

The real question now is whether Somaliland’s leaders are desperate enough for international recognition to trade their 34 years of independence for total US–UK–Israeli military, political, and security hegemony.

Original article: thecradle.co

By Nick TURSE

❗️Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK .

By Ann GARRISON and Jamal ABDULAHI

On April 27, the House voted 101-321 against Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s resolution to remove all US troops from Somalia, even as all signs point to escalation in the fight with Al-Shabaab. AFRICOM, the US Africa Command, and Somalia’s president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, are both asking for more US presence, more funds, more weapons, more drones, and fewer restrictions on how they’re used.

The resolution did not call for an end to the drone bombing, only for the withdrawal of US troops.

Gaetz had no expectation that it would pass, but he forced all 435 members of the House to go on record for or against another costly US “forever war.” Conceivably they’ll have to answer for their votes in 2024, perhaps to the US’s tiny antiwar community, but more likely to the “America First” political movement that Gaetz shares with Donald Trump.

The vote ensures that the US will maintain a military presence in Somalia until at least after the next election cycle. At least 900 US troops have been stationed in Somalia, playing an advisory role while the national army they train takes heavy casualties on the battlefield against the Islamist al-Shabaab forces.

Located in the strategically significant Horn of Africa, Somalia not only has the longest coastline in Africa, but perhaps the world’s largest untapped coastal oil reserves. In 2021, the Somali government signed a $7 million oil exploration deal with the Houston, Texas-based company, Coastline.

Though congressional hawks justify the US military presence in Somalia in terms of “freedom” and counter-terrorism, the country’s geography and potentially massive oil wealth make it a key strategic prize for Washington.

Gaetz and the co-sponsors of the resolution to withdraw from Somalia were all Republicans. Fifty-two Republicans and 50 Democrats voted in favor of a pullout, while 165 Republicans and 156 Democrats voted no. (12 House members did not vote). The vote closely resembled the results on Gaetz’s failed resolution to withdraw from Syria, which brought together a left-right coalition in support while the bipartisan pro-war majority expressed vehement opposition.

In his press release, Gaetz wrote, “When the House debated my resolution to withdraw troops from Syria, both Republicans and Democrats argued the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Afghanistan serves as a global permission slip for every neocon fantasy. They will argue the same for Somalia.” As they did, although some said it should be revisited and rewritten with a narrower scope.

JUST NOW: @RepMattGaetz Calls for Urgent Removal of U.S. Troops from #Somalia, Supports War Powers Resolution.

Gaetz, a member of House Armed Services Committee, argued that the presence of American troops in Somalia is not only ineffective in achieving its goals, but also… pic.twitter.com/cBG99xnXWT

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) April 27, 2023

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is all in

Most reports are likening Gaetz’s resolution to withdraw from Somalia to the effort he previously led to force a US military pullout from Syria. But there is a key distinction between the two situations.

In Syria, US troops are violating international law because they are not welcomed by the government in Damascus. They are an occupying force violating Syrian sovereignty.

In Somalia, however, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is all in with US drones in the air and troops on the ground, tweeting his thanks to Joe Biden. His only complaint has been that he’s not getting enough air support.

The US shoehorned Mohamud into power in May 2022 by using the IMF to batter Somalia into holding a corrupt, clan-based election. They now have a willing collaborator whom many Somalis consider to be their puppet.

Moreover, anti-American sentiment is widespread, and the US presence serves as a recruiting tool for Al-Shabaab. On the same day the House voted not to withdraw troops, Brown University’s Costs of War Project reported, “The United States says its goals in Somalia are to eliminate Al-Shabaab and promote peace. The paper documents how U.S. counterterrorism policies are having the opposite effect and ensuring that the conflict continues in perpetuity.” It concluded that Al-Shabaab is still on the rise 16 years after its emergence, and noted, “The U.S. spends more on counterterrorism in Somalia each year than the Federal Somali Government earns in tax revenue.”

Al-Shabaab arose in response to the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, when Ethiopia was led by a longtime US client, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). The TPLF overthrew Somalia’s Islamic Courts Union and occupied the country from 2006 to 2009, while Al-Shabaab flourished in an atmosphere of national resistance. Thus, as TJ Coles documented for The Grayzone, the US is now fighting the very ‘terrorists’ it created.

Al-Shabaab took an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda, but its connection is more ideological than operational.

Mission creep

President Donald Trump increased drone bombing but withdrew nearly all 700 US Special Forces in Somalia at the end of his term, in December 2020.

On May 16, 2022, the day after President Hassan Sheikh Mohammed was re-elected, President Joe Biden signed off on a Pentagon proposal to reintroduce troops and establish a “small persistent presence.” “We’re working now to evaluate local conditions, including those following the Somali presidential election yesterday,” said Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby in a Defense Department press release. “And we’re engaging partners in the region, including the Somali government, to determine the best way forward.”

On the same day, the New York Times reported that the decision would “revive an open-ended American counterterrorism operation that has amounted to a slow-burn war through three administrations.” The Times also reported that “people familiar with the matter” said the number of troops would be capped at 450.

Now, roughly a year later, during the April 27 debate about the resolution to withdraw troops from Somalia, Gaetz and Congressman Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, each stated that there are about 900 US troops in Somalia. Gaetz serves on the House Armed Services Committee, Zinke on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, an Appropriations Subcommittee, so they would be perfectly positioned to know.

Zinke, a former Navy Seal, argued for further escalation by invoking the Hollywood action blockbuster, Black Hawk Down, which dramatized the botched and bloody US military-humanitarian intervention in Mogadishu in 1993.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. But I agree with my distinguished colleagues from Florida that Congress has an obligation to review it. Congress should not abrogate our responsibility. We should ask the tough questions. And ultimately, we should provide the funding necessary and the resources to win. That’s our job. 

“And I agree with you 100%. But as a commander, they are doing more than just guarding an embassy. A force structure of 900 may seem like a large footprint. But those of us who remember Black Hawk Down would suggest otherwise. A force requires medi-vac. Those medi-vac require people that service those aircraft.

“In case we get in trouble, we need a quick reaction force, a force large enough to defend our troops. Because I, unlike my colleagues, know that if you were to put any American servicemen in harm’s way, we want to ensure we have the adequate force to make sure they’re recovered safely. 

“They also have to be fed. Communications. In order to have an effective force, you need a footprint that can do its mission. . . . “

When service members with the skill sets that Zinke listed are added to the 900 US Special Forces figure, the total number of troops could be in the thousands.

The Special Forces are already supported by a fleet of US Navy ships off Somalia’s coast, in the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean, and additional troops at the US military base in neighboring Djibouti.

Support for Somaliland secessionists

The Biden administration has been tacitly supporting the secessionist movement in Somalia’s northern Somaliland State, seemingly in exchange for a military base site in the coastal city of Berbera. The plan to work directly with Somaliland—bypassing the Somali government—to establish the base in Berbera is outlined in the 2023 National Defense Appropriation Act (NDAA).

The plan, however, suffered a major setback when a brutal war broke out between Somaliland secessionists and unionists in the city of Las Anod and the surrounding region of Sool, Sanaag, and Cayn (SSC). Many died, many more were injured, and more than 200,000 may be displaced in the ongoing conflict.

The secessionist militias are on the outskirts of Las Anod, periodically shelling the city with artillery, and residents anticipate more violence after a Ramadan lull.

US and EU officials asked Somaliland officials to withdraw from the SSC Region, but merely expressed “disappointment” when they did not.

US props up unpopular president

As the US promotes the division of Somalia, it is propping up the corrupt and nominally functioning national government of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, which has no popular support inside or outside the capital of Mogadishu. US Brigadier General Peter Bailey issued a revealing set of comments to NBC, stating  that Somalis “need democratic reform to make sure the government is recognized as being legitimate.”

Shortly after returning to power, Mohamud “declared total war” on Al-Shabaab, bidding for a new influx of support from the US and promising a quick victory.

However, nearly a year later, Al-Shabaab still controls large swathes of land, mostly in central and southern Somalia, through a combination of brute force, racketeering, and sheer terror. Control of contested areas seesaws with dizzying frequency.

One of Mohamud’s key strategies proved to be a spectacular failure. He armed clan militias in central Somalia, claiming to empower local resistance. Some then set up roadblocks to collect illegal taxes in Middle Shabelle, while others converged on Mogadishu to challenge his own authority. He responded, comically, that he would ban machine guns mounted on vehicles and rocket propelled grenades—weapons that he had distributed—in the streets of Mogadishu.

The strategy of infusing clan politics into the Somali National Army (SNA) led to high casualties and low morale. Many were killed after being lured into remote towns and running out of ammunition.

Among the high-profile casualties was the commander of Danab, meaning “Lightning,” an elite, US-trained commando brigade. The US has spent 80 million dollars to train, equip, feed and pay salaries for Danab. Bancroft Global, a private contractor for the State Department, vets and recruits its members.

The casualty rate is much higher in other branches of the SNA. Many deserted at a faster rate than they can be replaced.

Casualties and desertion have made the SNA a largely spent force.

The Danab, an elite Somali commando brigade in the war against Al-Shabaab. They are recruited and vetted by private military contractor Bancroft Global and trained by US troops at Baledogle Airfield.

US takes direct control of Somalia’s operations

Washington insists that Somalia is leading the war against Al-Shabaab, while the US is simply training and assisting its armed forces. However, a series of recent events demonstrate that the US is fully in charge of operations.

Ambassador Larry André, a foreign service veteran, orchestrates from within Mogadishu’s Halane, a sprawling and heavily fortified compound like the Green Zone in Iraq. In February, André arranged public relations offensives by embedding New York Times and NBC reporters with US Special Forces to produce pieces about the conflict.

The New York Times confirmed that Somali forces have been taking heavy casualties in recent months. Times correspondent Eric Schmitt described a graduation ceremony for new recruits of Danab, which was shrouded in sadness because the brigade had sustained heavy losses. “Many of the recruits will be rushed to the frontlines to backfill two Danab battalions decimated by an Al-Shabaab attack last month that left more than 100 soldiers dead or injured.”

While public relations led by the US Embassy in Mogadishu was kicking into high gear, the State Department convened a meeting in Washington, DC that included the UK, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey. The meeting took place on February 28, 2023. Among the agenda items was America’s request that its partners shoulder some of the financial burden of the prolonged war.

Also, on February 28, 2023, the US Embassy announced that it was sending 60 tons of new weapons and ammunition to Baledogle—in a pair of C-17 Globemaster cargo planes—to be used against Al-Shabaab.

On March 1, 2023, President Mohamud’s National Security Advisor, Hussein Sheikh-Ali, announced that Ethiopia and Kenya would be sending 30,000 more troops to help Somalia fight Al-Shabaab.

On March 29, 2023, President Joe Biden nominated Richard H. Riley to replace Larry André. Riley has served in significant positions in Pakistan, Norway, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, and Iraq.

All these recent developments promise escalation and the likelihood of more US boots on Somali soil.

thegrayzone.com

The truth is that it’s the lowest hanging fruit and there is almost no impetus either on the ground or from media bosses to check facts. But what will these journalists do when the truth gets out after the war ends in Ukraine, when they become the focus of opprobrium?

The biggest secret which no journalist ever wants to tell even his own mother is that war reporting is absurdly easy and can actually be carried out by the most stupid numpty in the office who struggles to even operate the photocopier. Sure, the psychological trauma weighs heavily, often after the event and it takes a certain amount of courage and selfishness to put yourself in a conflict zone (selfish if you have a family back home) but in terms of the actual mechanisms of the job, war reporting really is not at all challenging. The day to day events in a conflict are so horrific that really all the reporter needs to do is get to where the action is and take the shots, roll the camera or get the quotes. The stories practically write themselves for the simple reason that many of the normal requisites of reporting don’t apply in conflict zones. The consumer has an unlimited appetite for the same story over and over again. Blood and gore really does stun viewers, particularly in broadcast news, into a sense of shock and morbid curiosity which then metamorphosises into an addiction, an adrenalin rush which the reporters on the front line themselves also fall victim to.

But if you have the courage or are driven by your own sense of self-importance and can put out of your mind your loved ones, the a-b-c of reporting couldn’t be simpler or more rudimentary. The stories literally present themselves packaged and ready to go, with no annoying questions by editors who want to slow down the process by painful fact checking and due diligence.

You never forget the first time a gun is pointed at you. For me it was in the summer of 1992 in Mogadishu, Somalia where the country was being torn apart by a civil war and its capital resembled a hell which not even Ridley Scott could capture in Black Hawk Down. It was a security guard in a compound who wanted me to leave. I resisted and argued with him in Swahili until I heard the definitive click of the hammer on a Colt 45 1911 being pulled back and the muzzle pointed at me. “D’toka sai yee” (get out now) was all he had to say as my heart thumped so hard I was convinced it was jump completely out of its rib cage.

Getting the builders in

You also never forget the first time you hear the distinctive faint whistle noise of a 7.62mm round as it passes your ears. And you defiantly never forget the awkwardness of not knowing what to do when people are actually firing at you which also happened to me in Mogadishu a couple of days later where I was naively confused by parts of the wall next to me exploding. I stupidly thought that the summer heat was making the cement crack or that perhaps workman were drilling it from the other side. What an idiot. Well, I was in my mid 20s.

Somalia was my first conflict. Others followed in East Africa including Rwanda and Southern Sudan in ’94 and then later the former Yugoslavia in ’97 and ’98, Lebanon ’06, Afghanistan ’08. In all those times, I lost count of the whistling bullet noises of the number of times militias pointed guns in my face and how the sight of dead bodies shocks and yet intrigues at the same time. In 1994 in Southern Sudan I was specifically sent to a region which was being bombed by the Khartoum regime from Anthonovs which were barely visible at 18,000 feet. I was sent there to be bombed on and film it which I dutifully did for what is now APTN news in London. The idea today that AP, which is barely a shadow of itself compared to those days, would send a freelance journalist on such a suicide mission is unthinkable.

In all that time though I was aware how the strength of the story more or less dictates your role to document, film, replicate the events for history. What I was to imagine would be the diligence of journalism wasn’t required. There wasn’t really any fact checking as, on a practical level, it was more or less impossible. When you arrived at a site of a massacre, you’re more or less hostage to the anguish and horror and the people who are there to fill in the gaps and put the story together. It’s absurdly easy, a child could do it. One of the things I learnt in all of those places was that the victims, even though they didn’t need to lie, did just that. Even when a massacre happened and it was pretty obvious who did it, there were still plenty of people who survived who sexed up the story when it was so sexed up already that it hardly needed it. The temptation is too much for those who are the victims, but also for the governments, regular armies and aid organisations when a journalist is there on the scene and he has shown that speed is of the essence to get the story processed and sent back. I wonder whether the Marioupol theatre bombing is one of these stories as the facts as they are presented leave more questions than answers and residents claiming that they had been told days beforehand by right wing groups sympathetic to Zelensky that they were going to bomb it themselves as an amoral ruse to draw NATO into the war. We saw exactly this ploy by Muslim groups in Sarajevo in the Yugoslav war who figured that they could bomb their own civilians and western media would point the fingers at the demonized Serbs in the hills – which became the basis of NATO airstrikes against Milosevic.

In the nineties, we relied very heavily on our editors in London to provide a layer of fact checking as we weren’t hooked up to the internet (certainly not in my Africa and Yugoslavia period).

A generation who knew right from wrong

You chose a side. Usually the one which is first of all the more practical to get to; and secondly the one which is going to give you the instantly vivid and horrific pictures. And mostly journalists, certainly not today, ever cross the line between where they are to the group which was the aggressor. I tried to do this in ’92 in Somalia in its capital which was divided by a north-south line and very nearly got shot by Aideed’s thugs who chased after me in the south. I literally ran for my life carrying bulky video equipment which would be in a museum today, it was so heavy. My friend Dan Eldon was not so lucky. Later on in 1993 he rushed to a scene of an attack by a U.S. helicopter and was beaten to death by angry women who made the connection between his pale skin and western imperialism which robbed them of their children.

We were part of a generation of journalist who knew that it was not right just inserting yourself into the mayhem of war with civilians being bombed each day, without reaching out to the other side to at least offer a comment, a response to the news we were producing. But on the ground it often wasn’t possible; only when returning to your home country where calls can be made.

In those days there was more honour amongst all those practicing, whether they be journalists, government officials, defence ministries or even khat-chewing militias. It has taken the Yugoslavian war for all of these groups to wake up to taking advantage of the tricky position journalists find themselves in when covering war. They have seen that the speed to get the gory pictures and file the story with the ghastly details of death caused by modern warfare eclipses the need for due diligence. The ‘embedding’ of journalists, which really started in 1991 with the Gulf War, more or less creates a hostage situation between the powerful army and its facilities and the journalists who are happy to sign up the Stockholm Syndrome type reporting – which, in a nutshell, is a sort of stenography of what generals say at press conferences and a tacit agreement to report on the staged scenes which the army takes you to cover. And it’s the same with militias. Journalists who went to Norther Syria to cover the Syrian war soon found themselves embedded with ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates who would protect them while taking them to scenes which they wanted covered. There is a certain amount of obligation from the journalist to not do their due diligence and reach out – via telephone and internet – to fact check what they’re being shown as tangible news material as such an act would be considered discourteous to the hosts. And so in this set up, fake news thrives as the incumbents who hold the journalists can barely resist the opportunity to spin stories. They have the journalists as a hostage and he/she is under pressure to write stories each day.

Staged chemical attacks in Syria

And so ‘embedding’ comes in many forms and it merely encourages the polarised set up which all wars now have, which we saw in Yugoslavia and other places. In Syria, we saw the same story where so many big title journalists even succumbed to writing reports based on finding sources on social media in places being bombed. The reporting became so jaded, the process so corrupted that it led, in many cases, false reporting on Assad using chemicals on his own people. In at least one case, there is overwhelming evidence now, for those who wish to examine in on line, to prove without any doubt that one such attack was staged entirely by Al Qaeda affiliates, with local Syrian actors being requested to stage a minor performance for the cameras – video footage shamefully used by the BBC to support a narrative which ticked a box for them and their journalists camped in Beirut.

Journalists these days in war zones don’t cross the line, even on a technical level with their smartphones such is the new ‘standard’ which all media giants are operating by – which has merely encouraged a new all time low of pseudo journalism from other journalists struggling to make their way up. It reminds me of a CNN producer who, so unable to cope with her assignment in Morocco, had decided on the beginning, middle and end of her report before she even got on the plane to carry out the ‘King clinging on to power’ story which was entirely wrong and planted in her head by her Emirati lover in Washington. The media giants who sent their big named journalists to Ukraine had already decided the story, the narrative that all must abide to which is that Zelensky is some sort of Ce Gevara figure and squeaky clean, that the war is not at all the west’s fault and so no responsibility shall be placed on its leaders since the early 90s and that all Ukrainians are angels and that we should all adopt one, like adorable Labradors. They’ve even invented the perfect explanation how they can carry out this extreme partisan news reporting, which is, conveniently that “Putin is mad”. Or perhaps intel agencies helped them out with this folly.

Journalists became the combatants

What iconic journalists from the UK who hail from a once esteemed investigative news outfit like BBC Panorama won’t be investigating is the worryingly high level of Ukrainians who supported far right fanatical groups there for decades which were funded by the CIA and the State department. The odious John Sweeny will not go against the grain of the newsroom indoctrination and present Zelensky as corrupt, if not more corrupt, than the leader he ousted in his anti corruption campaign which installed him as president. Sweeney, who claims to be an investigative journalist and who shouldn’t be judged on his mental meltdown while filming a doc about scientologists in the U.S. will no doubt do his reporting on the gore which is in front of his eyes but not look to hard for reasons behind it. A German journalist sent to Dresden during the second world war to film the antihalation of the RAF bombers on women and children might take a similar line by not blaming Hitler for invading Poland in 1939.

We should not expect much from Mr Sweeney or the BBC Panorama team who I have actually worked for briefly and know only too well how their own personal careers come before anything which remotely whiffs of raw, vociferous journalism. In 2017, I found Britain’s most wanted gangster who fled the UK in the 1990s after an FBI sting to net him failed. The individual, who was hiding in Greece, was prepared to tell Panorama the names and addresses of the top twenty heroine importers in the UK. I failed to convince the producer, who only wanted her idea of him spilling the beans on UK customs agents’ corruption, to repair a previous poor report she had made have more gravitas. Britain’s biggest ever double agent (heroine importer and paid super grass by the UK government who was protected by Jack Straw) was let go due to personal ambitions, office politics and rank stupidity. So much for BBC Panorama being an investigation team digging deep and finding great stories which set the media agenda. Just politics. People’s own greed and self fulfilment. Corruption.

I have stopped watching TV news from the Ukraine as I can see the A-B-C of how the sloppiest war reporting is carried out without the slightest effort for any western journalists to at least look beyond the bodies and twisted limbs for nuance, which has become the collateral damage of all journalism these days. Recently a number of western journalists have been killed in Ukraine which saddens me of course. But if you begin to understand how journalists have crossed a line and become combatants when they either embed themselves with the governments, armies or even the victims they are writing about, then it’s easier to understand why they have become targets themselves. I once used to feel guilty about not helping people who were suffering. The photo by the South African photojournalist Kevin Carter of the vulture looming over the almost dead infant left on the ground in Southern Sudan by a mother fleeing an attack in 1994 haunts me to this day, as I was there in the same year. But when time has passed and in years to come the truth comes out and we see a more complexed nuanced story about the Ukraine war, the big gun journalists today in Ukraine will feel a shame which will eclipse mine tenfold for being partisan to a over-simplified presentation of a story which will show we have much more blood on our hands in the west than most humble people realise. Western journalists in the Ukraine don’t understand the iconic photograph of the vulture and the dying child in Sudan which Carter took and which gave him nightmares all his life which finally led him to taking his own life in 1993. They wouldn’t miss a heartbeat to stop and help as they have already decided what the story is and their tawdry role in reporting it.

By TJ COLES

This July, the Biden administration picked up where Trump left off and began bombing Somalia, a country with a gross domestic product of less than $6 billion and a poverty rate of 70 percent. But why?

The official reason provided by the Pentagon was that the Somali National Army needed air support in its operations to counter al-Shabaab. But the actual reason was that Somalia is geo-strategically important to US empire.

Successive US administrations have cycled through a myriad of excuses to either bomb the country or to arm its dictators: Cold War politics, “humanitarian intervention,” anti-piracy, and more recently counterterrorism.

As we shall see, in the mid-2000s, a fragile coalition of soft and hard Islamists – explicitly not allied to al-Qaeda at the time – brought some measure of peace to the areas of Somalia it controlled. With help from Britain and neighboring Ethiopia, the US smashed the coalition and pushed more right-wing elements like al-Shabaab over the edge into militancy.

And of course, the global superpower bombing one of the poorest countries on Earth in the name of national security is not terrorism.

Let’s take a look at the broader context and specific chronology.

A US imperial bulwark is born in Africa

The Pentagon has divided the world into self-appointed Areas of Responsibility (AORs). The Southern Command deems itself “responsible” for operations in Central and South America, regardless of what the people of the region think.

The Central Command (CENTCOM) covers much of the Middle East and Central Asia: the key intersections of energy fields and pipelines that enable the US to influence the global economy at the expense of competitors, notably Russia and China.

The Africa Command (AFRICOM) was founded in 2007 by the George W. Bush administration and is based in Stuttgart, Germany. President Barack Obama vastly expanded its operations.

AFRICOM’s current AOR covers 53 of the continent’s 54 states, with Egypt in the northeast already under the AOR of CENTCOM due to its strategic value (more below).

AFRICOM recently bragged about how it helped coordinate with Somali “partners,” meaning elements of the regime imposed on the country by the West, to organize the Biden-led bombing of al-Shabaab.

AFRICOM says: “The command’s initial assessment is that no civilians were injured or killed given the remote nature of where this engagement occurred.” But who knows?

US commanders operating in the African theater have tended to dismiss the notion that civilian deaths should be tallied at all. In 1995, for example, the US wound down its “assistance” to the UN mission in Somalia, but ended up in a shooting war in which several Somalis died.

The US commander, Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, said at the time, “I’m not counting bodies… I’m not interested.”

Somalia’s geopolitical importance to US empire

In the Africa-Middle East regions, three seas are of strategic importance to the big powers: the Mediterranean, the Red Sea (connected by Egypt’s Suez Canal), and the Gulf of Aden, which is shared by Somalia in Africa and Yemen in the Middle East.

Through these seas and routes travel the shipping containers of the world, carrying oil, gas, and consumer products. They are essential for the strategic deployment of troops and naval destroyers.

Somalia was occupied by Britain and Italy during the “Scramble for Africa,” the continent-wide resource-grab by Western colonial powers that began in the late-19. Ethiopia continues to occupy Somalia’s Ogaden region.

A 1950s’ British Colonial Office report described the Gulf of Aden as “an important base from which naval, military and air forces can protect British interests in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.” “British” interests, like “US” interests today, means elite interests.

A George W. Bush-era report by the US Army War College notes that, “Even before the Suez Canal came into being, the [Red] Sea had been of importance as an international waterway. It served as a bridge between the richest areas of Europe and the Far East.” The report emphasizes that the “geopolitical position of the Red Sea is of a special importance.”

AFRICOM was founded with a grand imperial ambition: to make the four of the five countries on Africa’s Red Sea coast – Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan – comply with US elite interests, and to keep the Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Suez Canal open for business and strategic deployment.

As noted before, CENTCOM covers Egypt. During the Arab Spring a decade ago, US strategists feared, like their British predecessors, that losing the Suez Canal to a democratic government in Egypt “would damage U.S. capabilities to mobilize forces to contain Iran and would weaken the overall U.S. defense strategy in the Middle East,” home of much of the world’s accessible oil.

International interference drives Somalia’s civil conflict

Somalia declared independence in 1960. Its British and Italian areas merged into a single nation led by President Aden Abdullah Osman and Prime Minister Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, who later became president. Most political parties merged with the Somali Youth League to create a de facto single-party state.

Backed by the West, Ethiopia blocked Somalia’s diplomatic efforts to reclaim the Ogaden region. As president, Abdirashid took millions of dollars in Soviet military assistance and was subsequently assassinated by one “Said Orfano,” a young police-trained man posing as a cop and erroneously referred to in contemporary sources as a “bodyguard.”

Major General Siad Barre took over in 1969 and ruled until his overthrow in 1991. An early-1970s CIA intelligence memo refers to Russian-Somali relations as “largely a liaison of convenience,” marred by “mutual” “distrust.”

After Barre’s failed war with Ethiopia over Ogaden and his explicit rejection of Soviet money and ideology, the US saw him as a client. In 1977, senior US policymakers highlighted Somalia’s “break with the Soviets.” From then until 1989, the US gave nearly $600 million in military aid to Barre’s regime to nudge it further from the Soviet sphere of influence.

The Barre regime used the newly augmented military – from 3,000 to 120,000 personnel – to crush the rival Somali National Movement, killing tens of thousands of civilians and driving a million people from their homes.

But the coalition that deposed Barre in 1991 fell apart and the rival factions fought a civil war that triggered famine and killed an additional 300,000 people within the first couple of years.

The United Nations intervened to deliver food to civilians. The US saw the move as an opportunity to test the new doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” in the form of Operation Restore Hope. President George H.W. Bush said that the objective was to “save thousands of innocents from death.”

But a master’s thesis by Major Vance J. Nannini of the US Army’s Fort Leavenworth provides a version of events much closer to the truth: “Throughout our involvement with Somalia, our overriding strategic objective was simply to acquire and maintain the capability to respond to any military contingency that could threaten U.S. interests in the Middle East, Northeast Africa and the Red Sea area.”

Restore Hope ended in a fiasco for the US, exemplified by the famous Black Hawk Down incident, and thousands of Somali deaths – “I’m not counting bodies,” as Commander Zinni said of a later mission.

A convenient target in the “war on terror”

In Djibouti in 1999, a Transitional National Government (TNG) was formed in exile and came to power in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, in 2001.

At the same time, a broad umbrella of Sufis and Salafists – the “left” and “right” of Islam – known as the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) was gaining political and territorial ground.

The TNG collapsed in 2004 and was replaced with a Transitional Federal Government founded in Kenya and backed by the Ethiopian proxy Abdullahi Yusuf, a man harbored by Britain and even given a liver transplant in the UK. (The liver allegedly came from an Irish Republican Army member. “Now I am a real killer,” joked Abdullahi.)

Abdullahi was found liable for damages in a UK court over the killing of a British citizen in Somalia in 2002 by his bodyguards.

Under the post-9/11 rubric of fighting a “war on terror,” the CIA added to the chaos throughout the period by covertly funding non-Islamist “warlords,” including those the US previously fought in the 1990s. The aim was to kill and capture ICU members and other Islamists.

In addition, the Pentagon’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) engaged in covert operations. Estimates of the number of JSOC personnel on the ground in Somalia range from three to 100.

US Special Forces set up a network of operations and surveillance in the country, supposedly to counter al-Qaeda.

In 2003, for instance, US agents kidnapped an innocent man, Suleiman Abdullah Salim, from a Mogadishu hospital. Claiming that he was an “al-Qaeda” operative, the US had Suleiman tortured at a number of “rendition” sites before releasing him. (The operatives who grabbed him were tipped off by the “warlord” Mohammed Dheere, who was paid by the CIA.)

But one of the Arabic meanings of “al-Qaeda” is “the database,” referring to the computer file with information on the tens of thousands of mujahideen and their acolytes trained, armed, organized, and funded by the US and Britain throughout the 1980s to fight the Soviets (Operation Cyclone).

There are more direct links between the US and al-Shabaab. In his younger days, ICU secretary and later al-Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdi Godane joined the only major terrorist group in Somalia in the 1990s, Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI, “Islamic Union”). The AIAI fighters trained with “al-Qaeda” in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when the US and Britain were training “al-Qaeda.” (See citation no. 7.)

Killing Somalia’s hope

By the mid-2000s, with the rise of the ICU, the hope of stability came to Somalia – but it was not to last. In 2003, the US Combined Joint Tasks Force Horn of Africa initiated training of Ethiopia’s military in tactics, logistics, and maintenance. The US backing later came in handy fighting the ICU.

The ICU was rapidly and widely painted as an extremist organization. However, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes that it was “well received by the people in the areas the Courts controlled,” particularly as it provided social services.

Western propaganda spun the ICU’s shutting down of cinemas as proof of its Islamo-fascism. But the CRS report says that such measures were undertaken at the request of parents because children were skipping school, “not because of the Courts’ alleged jihadist and extremist ideology… There is no evidence to support the allegation that women were prohibited from working.”

As Western vessels continue to deplete starving Somalia’s fish stocks to sell to comparatively privileged consumers, propaganda denounces Somali “piracy” against Euro-American ships. However, a report by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (the British think tank also known as Chatham House), says: “The only period during which piracy virtually vanished around Somalia was during the six months of rule by the Islamic Courts Union in the second half of 2006.”

A World Bank report from 2006 notes that the ICU “brought a measure of law and order to the large areas of South-Central Somalia” it controlled. The US State Department, meanwhile, was hosting an international conference in a bid to remove the ICU and bolster the Transitional Federal Government (TFG).

With US and British training, including logistical support, Ethiopia invaded Somalia in late-2006 to install Abdullahi as President of the TFG.

The US and Britain worked hard to set up a new regime in a war so brutal that over 1 million people fled their homes. In addition, tens of thousands crossed the Gulf of Aden to Yemen in hazardous small boats sailed by traffickers. Hundreds of thousands ended up in dire refugee camps in Ethiopia and Kenya, where women and girls were raped.

A US- and UK-backed regime terrorizes Somalia’s people

The Transitional Federal Government terrorized the Somali population. One of the few British journalists to report on this at the time, the Kenya-born Aidan Hartley, wrote: “several Somali leaders who have been linked to allegations of war crimes against countless civilians are living double lives in Britain.”

General Mohamed Darwish, head of the TFG’s National Security Agency, was “given British citizenship, state benefits and a subsidised home.”

The taxpayer-funded privatization unit the Department for International Development (DFID, now part of the Foreign Office) paid TFG politicians’ salaries, as well as buying police radios and vehicles.

Human Rights Watch says that the Commissioner of the Somali Police Force, Brig. Gen. Abdi Hasan Awale Qaybdib, was “a former warlord who has been implicated in serious human rights abuses that predate his tenure as commissioner.”

A House of Commons Library report confirms that the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the World Food Program (WFP) were used as unwitting conduits: “DFID has pledged over £20 million in new commitments for Somalia, including £12 million to the WFP. No money goes directly to the TFG. It is channelled through the UNDP.”

By 2011, this included training 3,000 police in Somaliland and hiring mercenaries formerly of the UK Special Boat Service, who were promised up to £1,500 a day.

The consequences for Somali civilians were devastating. In addition to the refugees noted above, the instability caused by the war triggered another famine by jeopardizing aid and driving people from areas near food distribution centers.

The US has survived shocks like 9/11 because it is a robust nation. Fragile countries like Somalia cannot withstand major political disruptions.

Transforming Somalia into an extremist haven

President George W. Bush bombed “al-Qaeda” targets in Somalia in January 2007. Al-Shabaab, then led by the hard-line Godane, survived the collapse of the ICU in the same year.

The UN Security Council then authorized the African Union (AU) to occupy Somalia with “peacekeepers,” with AMISON being the US support mission.

The British-backed TFG President Abdullahi resigned in 2008 and was replaced by the former ICU leader, the more moderate Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. Sharif met with Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, who pledged US support to the TFG in its fight against its former armed wing, al-Shabaab.

A West Point study notes that, using sharia, al-Shabaab had by 2009 “succeeded in bringing about a period of relative stability in much of the territory it controlled,” just like the ICU before it. Shabaab was also comparatively moderate: the “leadership pursued a pragmatic approach toward clan politics and drew its leadership and rank-and-file from a relatively diverse array of clans and sub-clans, unlike many of Somalia’s other armed factions.”

But the group made tactical errors, such as the Ramadan Offensives (2009-1010) against the TFG and AMISON forces in Mogadishu. With Shabaab weakened, Godane merged the group with “al-Qaeda” in 2011.

British-backed terrorists poured into Somalia to join Godane. By the time it allied with al-Qaeda, a quarter of Shabaab’s fighters hailed from the UK. Many had been radicalized by Abu Qatada, a man once described as Bin Laden’s “right-hand man in Europe” and a protected asset of Britain’s internal MI5 Security Service.

Via an entity called al-Muhajiroun (the Emigrants), MI5 informant Omar Bakri Mohammed and an alleged double-agent for Britain’s external security force (MI6), Haroon Rashid Aswat, also radicalized young Muslims to fight in Somalia.

The Nigeria-born Michael Adebolajo, who was charged in the UK with murder, had previously attempted to recruit for Shabaab in Kenya. He maintains that MI5 attempted to recruit him.

A time-tested recipe for destabilization and disaster

Since merging with “al-Qaeda,” al-Shabaab has extended its reach, reportedly sending suicide bombers into neighboring countries, including Kenya.

One could say that the Biden administration has learned no lessons after decades of interference in Somalia. But this would be inaccurate. Successive US administrations understand perfectly that stirring the pot of extremism and relying on propaganda to report the result, not the process, gives them endless excuses to occupy other countries.

The Pentagon is committed to global domination, Somalia is a strategic chokepoint, and the Department of Defense needs reasons to maintain its presence in the country.

The US created al-Shabaab in several ways. First, it escalated Islamist vs. non-Islamist tensions by backing secular “warlords” as a proxy against the ICU in the mid-2000s. This alienated the moderate factions of the ICU and empowered the right-wing Islamists.

Second, and most importantly, Washington backed Ethiopia’s invasion in late 2006, triggering a catastrophe for the civilian population, many of whom welcomed hard-line Muslims because they imposed a degree of law and order.

Third, by painting the nomadic and Sufi Islamist nation of Somalia as a hub of right-wing Salafi extremism, Western policymakers and media propagandists created a self-fulfilling prophesy in which Muslim fundamentalists eventually joined the terror groups they were already accused of being part of.

Fourth, for a country supposedly concerned with international terrorism, the US has done nothing to rein in one its closest allies, the UK, whose successive governments have sheltered a number of Islamic extremists that recruited for Somalia.

Even if we look at Somalia’s crisis through a liberal lens that ignores titanic imperial crimes, such as triggering famines, and focus on the lesser but still serious crimes of suicide bombings, it is hard not to conclude that Somalia’s pot of extremism was stirred by Western interference.

thegrayzone.com