Thanks for the update A&T.

Eebe ha u naxariisto dhalinyaradaas, eheladoodina samar iyo iimaan. Ps. Those using this sad news for 'propaganda' purposes are sad. Wacdaraha you should be ashamed of your self.

Post Nr.4 Meiji, You have started your reply with the following statement, and all that followed was built around that: The struggle in Somalia is not about whether one applies violent or non-violent means to achieve ones political goals. That’s a tactical question, and should only be looked at after solving the strategic question and more importantly after scrutinizing the ideological goal of a particular political faction. You have also made another valid point when you said: we should not compare different undesirable paths to each other but should put our energy in devising an alternative developmental path which succeeds in presenting a future for the Somali people that all can identify with and will readily embrace it. We have experienced 18 years of immense suffering, and we should not be satisfied with another long period under more severe conditions than the previous 18 years. Judging from our past, we deserve a future that gives us better living standards than we have experienced so far. These two quotes form the core of your argument and I don't disagree with them, however in the context of this debate I believe although they are valid points they do not apply at this stage. I am not looking at this situation from my ideal prospective of how I believe things should be. I am trying to explain how things are and how the situation can develop. The ideology of the party does not matter in the current situation. All the parties we have at the moment are either in an armed struggle vying for power or they are irrelevant and mere spectators. The party that wins the war whether its a clan warlord that outwits all other players in the field or an armed Islamist movement, the outcome will be the same, a dictatorship. The shades of the dictatorship might differ but a dictatorship it will be as I argued in my previous post. We can look into the nuances of different dictatorships (i.e. benevolent despot etc.) in another post. Now let us go back and look at the implications of your argument: we should not compare different undesirable paths to each other but should put our energy in devising an alternative developmental path which succeeds in presenting a future for the Somali people that all can identify with and will readily embrace it. Lets assume we do that and an alternative way is found, for convenience sake lets call this the third way. In the current situation of anarchy in order for this third way to be a viable alternative it has to become a reality on the ground. And for this to happen the third way has to either; -Conquer its own territory, -Find a host that's accommodating, -Or it has to be an idea that lives among a certain section of the population (i.e. the intelligentsia, the civil societies, the youth etc.). Conquer its own territory Lets again assume that the third way finds a territory that's suitable. This territory will of course not be a vacuum that the party that is propagating the third way can step into. All the playgrounds are occupied by certain players or they are contested. For the third way to claim a territory it has to project power. It would be insanity to compete with an armed opposition when you are unarmed, lest you are a martyr. By doing this the third way becomes a party to the violence and thus a party of violence. Already we see this party becoming yet another participant of the war in our country. Instead of stopping the bloodshed it will become a contributor of it. Civilians will die, the 'neutrals' will condemn it, and the supporters of the third way will call it collateral damage and they will argue that their ideal is worth it. They will say that few may die now but in the long run they will safe many more. Hmmm...does this sound familiar? Isn't that the argument that the Islamists are using at the moment? Find a host that's accommodating If the party that's propagating the third way finds an accommodating host it will go through the same motions as when it would conquer its own territory. At first it would have to defend the territories it occupies and later on it would have to try to expand its territories by force or by other means at its disposal until it has outmaneuvered, outplayed and outgunned all its opponents and when we get there, there would be no democracy. We would get a dictatorship of the third way, just as I explained in my earlier post. The party that's propagating the third way has just won the war and is imposing its will on the nation. It has a party program it wants to implement and a vision for the nation. So why would it make matters complicated for itself? Why would it hold free and fair elections where its former opponents can part take in? Where rival ideologies can erode the power the party has won by fighting for so long? An idea that lives among a certain section of the population This idea will remain just an idea in the current situation. An example of an idea that lives among many sections of the Somali population is Somalinimo. You will find this ideal everywhere, many Somalis support this idea yet we can see in the current situation that we will not get a government who supports the Somalinimo agenda. The closest ideology in the current situation is the Islamist ideology and we all know how far apart those two are. The reason why this noble idea of Somalinmo is sidelined at the moment is because it has no militia, no territory, no power base and because of that in the current climate it is irrelevant. It could be that this idea of Somalinimo can become a contender when there is more stability in the country. But at the moment Somalinimo will remain on the background just as it has in the past 30 something years. Conclusion Whichever party that may come to represent the third way will have to choose between an armed struggle or a non-violent struggle. If it chooses for the armed struggle its chances are no better then other actors participating in the war, the dice can roll any way and it will lead to dictatorship. Furthermore regional powers will not accept any party that defends the true interest of the Somali people and the attitude of the International Community will depend on whatever foreign policy goals they have in place. If the party that supports the third way adopts a non-violent posture and plays for the long term and rather then the short term it has a better chance to achieve its aim of a strong, independent, prosperous Somalia with strong democratic institutions that guarantees basic freedoms to its citizens. Instead of having yet another armed faction in Somalia, our country needs an ideological movement. One that prepares for the post war Somalia and deals with the questions of how we should organize our society in order to guarantee the survival of our nation. This means that an armed party will win the war and establish a dictatorship. At the backdrop of this dictatorship is where the party that proposes the third way will have to operate. Finally there are two questions we can ask ourselves. 1. Can we go from our current state of anarchy to a democracy or do we first have to go through an authoritarian stage? 2. Which party is today in the best position to establish this authoritarian regime? And how will this affect the third way?

RR, I retract my question. It will take allot time and its not that important. So in the future, do not make accusations that you can not back. It puts you in the same category of those that you accuse of being biased.

RR, Give it one more try to explain or at least prove you accusation. We cannot have it that you make an accusation that you can not back. It is interesting that you accuse Somali Mirror of being biased without any evidence. Stop being vague and come up with the evidence.

Bravo that you are against news sites that don't report the truth. That is one thing we have in common. So tell me which news site does report the truth? Other then Dayniile and Gedoweb?

^Like Dayniile right? It is interesting that you accuse Somali Mirror of being biased without any evidence. Stop being vague and come up with the evidence. At least make a coherent argument for why you believe that they are an al shabab mouthpiece. Maybe you can compare it with Dayniile.

Originally posted by Recovering-Romantics : quote:Originally posted by me: ^On what evidence do you base that accusation RR? Look at their story-line and leanings. It is like saying FNN is not a Republican mouthpiece. Everyone knows FNN is a republican mouthpiece Ok let's see. 1. I think that we can assume that you are allergic to al shabab. 2. Because Somali mirrors article is damaging to the enemies of al shabab you accuse it of being an al Shabab mouthpiece. You are more or less saying that they don't report objectively and that they are biased. Could it be that it is you that is biased, because you don't like their reporting, you accuse them of being biased. So who is biased here? and who is objective?

^On what evidence do you base that accusation RR?

Two important issues discussed in the report above are. 1. Ahlu Sunnah is supported by Ethiopia and Ethiopian troops fight alongside them. 2. Ahlu Sunnah is on the offensive. They are not bunch of Sufi's dikrinaya who are defending their territories. If this report is true then it is an interesting development.

Dagaal ka Dhacay Gobolka Galguduud By Somalimirror on 23 May, 2009 9:34 PM in Main, Wararka Galinkii danbe ee maanta ayaa waxaa deegaanka loo yaqaano Dac oo ka mid ah degmada Ceel-buur ee Gobolka Galguduud dagaal ku dhex maray Dhaq-dhaqaaqa Alshabaab iyo Xoogag hubaysan oo isku magacaabay Ahlu-sunna Wal-Jameeca . Dagaalka ayaa la sheegay in uu yimid ka dib markii Xoogagga hubaysan ee Isku magacaabay Ahlu-sunna ay weerar ku tageen deegaanka Dac oo ay ku sugnaayeen dhaqdhaqaaqa Alshabaab. Dagaalka ayaa joogsaday gelinkii danbe ee maanta lamana garanayo cidda ilaa iyo hadda ku sugan goobta dagaalku ka dhacay iyo khasaraha soo kala gaaray Xoogaggii dirirtu dhex martay. Gobolka G/guuduud ayaa waxaa dhawaanahan ka soconayay dagaalo u dhaxeeyay Dhaqdhaqaaqa Alshabaab iyo Xoogagga isku magacaabay Ahlu-sunna Wal-jameeca oo ay hub iyo saanadba si joogta ah u siiso Itoobiya oo ciidamadeedu ay kala qayb qaateen dhawr dagaal oo ka dhacay Magaalada Guriceel oo ah goobtii ugu horaysay ee ay ka hawl bilaabeen.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^Che adeer: First of all Sharif is not a abd guy, a simple one mind you but not a grave digger like some. As for boots on the ground, well he is being protected by AU troops as we speak, thus boots on the ground. What do you mean Dukey?

^Just don't burst out into singing the Ethiopian anthem.

^Ooh sorry, I didn’t see you were making a statement. The question mark mislead me into believing you were asking a question.

General Duke, The simple answer is no I think. Mogz needs to be cleaned up first before the cleaning crew hit the pirates nest. Why leave behind a real thread in Mogz? The march north can only start when Mogz is cleaned up.

Before I start with how the struggle shapes the party I will address whether we can compare the current state in Somalia, with the situations faced by the different liberation fronts described in my second post of this thread. If we look at liberation struggles past and present we will see that no matter the setting, the age or the strategy there are always constants. These constants are: -There is a party, -There is a goal, -And there is an adversary. The aim of the party is to reach its goal by applying various strategies that defeat the adversary, the adversary in turn will try to deploy other strategies to make sure that the party does not reach its objective and is defeated. Von Clausewitz defined war (the struggle) as: War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. The liberation fronts described in my earlier post wanted to compel their opponent to fulfill their will. Their aim was liberation, their adversary was capable, the nature of the struggle and the outcomes of the duels shaped their countries. How does the struggle shape the party? If we look at the situation in Somalia. We have clan groups vying for power, we have warlords for hire, we have mafiosi/pirates out for a quick buck, we have a puppet paper government, we have clan fiefdoms posing as States and we have different religious movements competing for power. We also have regional powers intent on seeing the Somali people forever suffering and in war. These regional states fuel the conflict in Somalia and fight any party that looks like a threat to the status quo. Furthermore Somalia is the setting of proxy wars between various states and ideologies. In short Somalia is in anarchy. So the party that wants to bring peace, order, stability and defend Somalia's sovereignty will have to deploy the whole tool box, and use political as well as military means. There is no way you can reason with a warlord other then to defeat him in battle, there is no way you can convince the mafiosi/pirates to give up their lucrative trades other then to punish them, there is no way that the rulers of clan fiefdoms will give up their golden goose peacefully. Any party that attempts to clean up the mess in Somalia today will have to wage war sooner or later. There is no other way out. Negotiations have not solved anything in the past 20 years and they will not solve anything even if we try for another 200 years. And when the party that attempts the clean up looks promising, regional states and other actors who have vested interests in the Somali anarchy will intervene as we saw in 2006. At first warlords were armed, then when the warlords proved incapable an invasion was mounted and an occupation followed. From the Somali experience and other past experiences we can see that the resistance the party faces from its adversary shapes the nature of the struggle. Imagine if we could go to a voting boot and change our constitution from anarchy to lets say liberal democracy. Would there be a need to fight against Qanyare, Qaybdiid, Suudi Yalaxow? and what if we could take Ethiopia to the world court so that it would stop violating Somalia's sovereignty? would there be a need for an armed resistance? So it is the nature of the struggle that determines the shape that the party will take. The party has only goals, the means towards that goal are chosen to fit the circumstances. Imagine that there is a maths teacher in Baladweyne and everyday he sees Ethiopians crossing the border. He sees the Ethiopian soldiers murder, kidnap, rape and loot. What options does he have to stop injustice like that? a) Write a complaint letter to Meles Zenawi b) Protest in the towns square c) Organize a sit in, maybe a hunger strike What if he does all of the above and still the injustices continue, everyday worse and worse. He writes more and more letters, he organizes bigger and bigger demonstrations, Meles Zenawi gets annoyed by his letters. Zenawi doesn't like the tone of this teacher. He order that he should be held for questioning. He gets tortured, after the torture session he gets shot. That was the story of the maths teacher. In the same school as the maths teacher there worked a history teacher. This history teacher read up on the tyrant Meles Zenawi and knew that he was a rebel that fought the Red terror of Mingistu. The history teacher did not organize sit ins nor did he write complaint letters. He fought the soldiers who were killing his pupils. He knew that each problem had its solution and that since the TPLF had contempt for human life its injustices could only be stopped by an armed struggle. Now my question to you is, is there a non violent way out?

Originally posted by Recovering-Romantics : quote:Originally posted by me: Meiji, I await the arrival of the Al Shabab – Xiz Islam supporters and their answers to your questions. On the question of receiving foreign help to defeat an occupation let us look at history. 1. In the American War of Independence the revolutionaries received arms, funding, training, and event officers from France. France wanted to diminish the British role in the American colonies. Lafayette . The American interests and the French interests were aligned. 2. The Cuban war of independence. The US helped Cuba against Spain. 3. Vietnam received support from China during the Vietnam War. Should Vietnam have said no no thanks, we will just use sticks and stones to liberate our country or was it morally justified to accept help? I can name another 50 examples of countries under occupation accepting foreign help to liberate them selves from tyranny. Somalia’s case is no different. We should understand that Ethiopian occupation and Ethiopian meddling is the reason why Somalia accepts outside help. If Ethiopia was not attacking Somalia there would be no need for Eritrean help. It is morally justified to accept help when threatened by mortal danger. Somalia’s acceptance of Eritrean help is justified. Going by the same reasoning, then you should have no problem with the Somalia government asking AU and the Ethiopians to dislodge the anarchists. See how simplistic and narrow-minded your views really are? 1. There is no legitimate Somali government. It is like the Vichy regime asking the Nazi's for help against the French resistance. 2. Ethiopia was meddling with Somali affairs long before there was even a country called Eritrea. Ethiopia has armed, trained and supplied rebel groups and warlords for the past 30 years. Ethiopia created the TFG, so how can you compare a puppet asking its master for help with an independent movement fighting for the liberation of its homeland? Fighting Ethiopia and fighting the TFG is the same thing. Waa kab iyo xaarkeed.

As Nomad Meiji pointed out, the main argument in the original post was: Either the Somali people will loose the Independence to exercise their sovereignty as a nation or they loose their individual political freedoms depending on who wins the war between the TFG and Al Shabab - Xiz Islam. Both these scenarios are undesirable outcomes for the average Somali. The saying between the devil (TFG) and the deep blue sea (Al Shabab - Xiz islam) comes to mind when looking at this situation. Now let us ask ourselves since both outcomes are undesirable is there a third option? is there a way out. Can we go from our current state of anarchy to a fully functioning democratic state? In a world full of strive we should have plenty of historical precedents. Many countries have had liberation and anti occupation struggles. Each case is unique in its own way but there are general lessons we can learn from them. The lesson today is the liberation struggle determines the post war government type. In Vietnam (Viet Mihn) and Algeria (FLN) we had Armed Anti colonial Front Movements who were successful in defeating the colonial powers in their countries militarily. In post war Vietnam and Algeria we saw one party rule. The FLN held power from 1962 to 1989, the Viet Minh in its different manifestations still holds the power in Vietnam. In India (INC) and South Africa (ANC) we had a different type of front movements. These movements had concentrated their energies on fighting the political front rather then military front. This was due to the overwhelming strength of the opponent they faced, the costs and the sacrifices that had to be made to dislodge the adversary. In post liberation India and South Africa we saw a democratic system established but we also saw de facto one party rule. Indian National Congress was in power from 1948 until 1977. The African National Congress rules from 1994 until now. The majority of countries in Africa won their self governance due to low level anti colonial struggle. Somalia, Ghana and many other countries can be placed into this category. If we look carefully the colonial power was not given a deal it couldn't refuse by either Somalia or Ghana. The colonial just left, he left so fast that there was no time to think about the type of government, state ideology etc etc of the post 'liberation' nation. One day there was a colonial governor, the next day after a simple ceremony there was an African president. But what really changed? One day its the governors house, the next day its the presidents palace, but what really changed? The answer is nothing. I shall not go any deeper into these cases, as they are not relevant for my main argument at the moment. Conclusion The liberation struggle shapes the party and determines the nature of the post war government. Armed Anti colonial Front Movements If the liberation struggle is exceedingly bloody and dear only a ruthless party will come out on top and win. As you can imagine the colonial and occupying force have dealt with all the soft parties and eliminated them. Only a ruthless and exceptionally well lead party can survive the punishment from the colonial / occupying force. This party due to its nature and experiences will impose a one party system on the country. The real power of the party lies with the armed group within the party. This group usually takes control of the political process and imposes its will on the country. The armed faction like in any army is organized in a hierarchical manner and as such organizes the society it took control over. Ask yourself why should they organize elections and bother with democracy if they already won and control all they wanted? And the fact that they liberated the country provides the legitimacy they need. "Peaceful" Anti colonial Front Movements If the liberation struggle is concentrated on the political front like in India and South Africa the aim of the party is to gain critical mass in order to make the country unrulable by the colonial / occupying force. Leaving the occupying force with only one way out, to relinquish power. For the party to reach this critical mass it has to engage with the population, create alliances and work with different actors within the society. The party has to reach out to student groups, labour movements, religious communities and as such gain grass root support for its ideals. After the liberation the party usually creates a democratic system for the country. Democracy is not alien to the party because it represented different groups within the society. During the struggle the party developed a mechanism to negotiate the different interests within the party. The party also has broad support in the country and does not fear democracy, it is confident that it will win the elections. How does this all apply to today's Somalia? Well that question is for tomorrow......to be continued.

^That many savages?

Meiji, I await the arrival of the Al Shabab – Xiz Islam supporters and their answers to your questions. On the question of receiving foreign help to defeat an occupation let us look at history. 1. In the American War of Independence the revolutionaries received arms, funding, training, and even officers from France. France wanted to diminish the British role in the American colonies. Look at the role of Lafayette. The American interests and the French interests were aligned. 2. The Cuban war of independence. The US helped Cuba against Spain. 3. Vietnam received support from China during the Vietnam War. Should Vietnam have said no no thanks, we will just use sticks and stones to liberate our country or was it morally justified to accept help? I can name another 50 examples of countries under occupation accepting foreign help to liberate them selves from tyranny. Somalia’s case is no different. We should understand that Ethiopian occupation and Ethiopian meddling is the reason why Somalia accepts outside help. If Ethiopia was not attacking Somalia there would be no need for Eritrean help. It is morally justified to accept help when threatened by mortal danger. Somalia’s acceptance of Eritrean help is justified.

RR, The Somali people are fighting for their right to live peacefully and free in their corner of the world. We are where we are because of foreign meddling. Foreign actors have been trying to manipulate the situation in Somalia for a while now. The Ethiopia that you are trying to defend in this thread has armed and trained the warlords (death merchants) that have thrown the Somali people in anarchy for 20 years. These warlords have inflicted countless pains on the Somali people. That same Ethiopia is today supplying and arming a shady group called Ahlu Sunnah an amalgamation of ex-warlords, clannist groups and religious pretenders. Freedom, peace and unity are not Arab ideas nor Eritrean goals. They are human ideals that all men should strive for. The Somali people are today fighting for their right to live free and peacefully in their corner in the world and Eritreas help is more then welcome. Since you have admitted that you have no alternatives for the Somali people, that you have no ideas to share and no plans to bring peace then why are you trying to stand in the way of those that have a vision and that can make that vision a reality?

General Duke, You mean a model against seperatists/secessio nists.

Originally posted by Recovering-Romantics : quote:Originally posted by me: RR, Since my lack of logic has come to light. Why don't you explain to us how you see the way out of this mess? I am willing to listen to your ideas. So go ahead and share with us what you think is the way out. In the short-term, give the Somali people the right of self-determination. Let them chart their own destinies. In the long-run, disband these religious-gangs and anarchists and work towards a peaceful,democratic Somali that is free from all outside influence and manipulation whether from Ethiopia, Erirea, or the Arabian world. A goal without a plan is just a wish. Antoine de Saint-Exupery So how do you see this happening? what is the path towards a peacefull democratic Somalia free from outside influence.

Originally posted by Recovering-Romantics : quote:Originally posted by me: Are you implying that Soviet occupation was better then accepting help from a third party? And if we expand on your thought does this mean that you rather had that Ethiopian occupied Somalia then Eritrea helping Somalia? At what cost? Foreign interventions are never good and the blow-back effects are not only dangerous in the sense they led to perpetual conflict and anarchy, but because they pose an existential threat to the victim country. When the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, the Afghani people became victims of religious-gangs who’s only intention was to suck the lifeline of the innocent peopleIt is interesting how you use the word ‘intervension’ and not occupation which is the correct term for what happened when Ethiopia attacked Somalia. I did not ask you to tell me about the effects and side effects of invsaions so why don’t you answer my question directly. Are you saying that the Soviet occupation should not have been resisted?

RR, Since my lack of logic has come to light. Why don't you explain to us how you see the way out of this mess? I am willing to listen to your ideas. So go ahead and share with us what you think is the way out.