Commentary From the Edge: A Dissident American Voice

20 December 2001

Somalia: Next target in Bush's War on Terrorism?
by Eduardo Cohen

In the post-September 11th environment of frenzied flag waving and dangerously unquestioning nationalism, it is increasingly difficult if not dangerous to raise seriously critical questions about US foreign policy and its possible motives. Nonetheless, when our foreign policy effects the lives and deaths of thousands of people around the globe, it may be our moral and ethical responsibility to do so. And US foreign and military policy could soon affect the lives and the deaths of hundreds if not thousands in the African nation of Somalia.

Ever since serving in the Vietnam War in 1966, after volunteering for service as an Army paratrooper, I have been skeptical of official government explanations concerning the motives of US foreign and military policy. It was clear to me within weeks of my arrival in Vietnam, where US forces were protecting the dictatorial regime of General Nguyen Cao Ky, that the stated purpose of our mission, defending democracy, had no connection with reality.

My skepticism was further reinforced over the course of eight years spent in Latin America where, in Bolivia in 1973, I was shown a silenced sub-machine gun provided to the right-wing dictatorship of General Hugo Banzer Suarez by the United States Agency for International DevelopmentÂąs ÂŚPublic Safety ProgramÂą, and where, in 1985, I interviewed mercenaries in Costa RicaÂąs La Reforma prison who had been arrested for smuggling arms and explosives into Nicaragua. They had been working for the Central Intelligence Agency to secretly arm the US supported Contra guerrillas in President ReaganÂąs proxy war against Nicaragua, an operation that had been prohibited by the American Congress and was officially denied by the Reagan Administration.

And in 1990, shortly after we were told by the first President Bush that the United States would reluctantly go to war to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the wake of the brutal and unexpected Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, I had seen hard evidence that, on the eve of that invasion, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been given a clear green light for the invasion by at least three official representatives of the United States government. Of course that evidence indicated that the Persian Gulf War was a conflict that the Bush Administration actually wanted, helped to create and that facilitated expansion of US geo-political control in the region.

So in 1992 when American military forces were dispatched by President Clinton to carry out humanitarian intervention in Somalia out of American concern for starving famine stricken Africans, I couldnÂąt help but view those events with some level of skepticism also. After all, I wondered, when had concern for starving Africans ever been a significant factor in the formulation of American foreign and military policy in that part of the world before?

Then, when the United States became involved in an attempt to build a stable and assuredly pro-American government there, something we euphemistically call ÂŚnation-buildingÂą, an assignment far exceeding the stated purpose of providing humanitarian assistance, we were told that American Forces in Somalia were suffering from something called ÂŚmission creepÂą. We went into Somalia do this but somehow we wound up doing that. My curiosity and skepticism deepened.

So I just scratched my head and wondered... until January 18th, 1993. It was on that day that I saw an article in the Los Angeles times that allowed me to stop scratching my head.

The story explained that four American oil giants had negotiated oil concessions with the previous government in Somalia, effectively dividing up more than two-thirds of the land area of Somalia into four giant oil concessions. Geologists had told the oil companies that a subterranean structure, from which oil was already being extracted in Yemen, extended in a sweeping arc beneath the Gulf of Aden and much of the Somali desert.

But in order to gain access to those oil deposits, the four companies, Chevron, Amoco, Conoco and Phillips Petroleum needed a stable government in Somalia that would honor the agreements they had negotiated with a previous regime.

Though the story was made available to the national news media over the LA Times news wire, this critically important piece of information was systematically ignored by the mainstream American news media

Given the history of US foreign and military policy in the Middle East and Northern Africa, it would be politically naive to believe that the interests of these major oil companies were a mere coincidence and that US foreign and military policy was being driven simply by an unprecedented concern for starving Africans.

But American operations, apparently to control local militias and install a friendly government, were cut short when 18 American soldiers, members of an Army Ranger team, were killed in a failed attempt to kidnap the leader of one of the most powerful Somali militias.

The American public had not been prepared for a significant loss of American lives. The number of soldiers killed, along with the graphic footage of the corpse of a US soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, created a sharp political backlash resulting in the rapid withdrawal of US forces from Somalia.

In recent months, the US military machine has been unleashed against Afghanistan in what the Bush administration describes as an international war against terrorism that will not be limited to Afghanistan. The careful efforts of the Bush Administration to prepare the American public in advance to expect and accept American casualties in the war on Afghanistan indicates that the lesson of the debacle in Somalia was not lost on the Bush Administration.

In the wake of what has the appearance of a successful military campaign in Afghanistan, there is much speculation as to who and where the next target

of BushÂąs war on terrorism will be. A handful of nations have been

mentioned as either rogue states, nations in which terrorist groups exist and operate or states that support or sponsor terrorist groups. The list of potential targets includes North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and the Philippines.

The United States is already deeply involved in supporting the Philippine government in military campaigns against Muslim separatist militias on the island of Mindanao - at least one of which, Abu Sayyaf, has alleged ties to Osama bin Laden - and a stronger but less publicized insurgency in the Central Philippines led by the Marxist New PeopleÂąs Army. The Bush Administration has already sent over 100 million dollars of military aid as well as a number of military advisers to assist the Philippine Army.

There is good reason for growing concerns that the country of Iraq, already devastated by a decade of bombing and economic sanctions, may be the next military target in BushÂąs ÂŚwar on terrorismÂą. There have been concerted efforts by many of WashingtonÂąs influential military and foreign policy hawks to garner support for a renewed military campaign against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. That campaign is led by Defense Department policy adviser Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, President of the right wing Center for Security Policy, former UNSCOM director Richard Butler and Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz among others. Still, more powerful forces may be at play.

The oil deposits in Somalia are still there. The four American oil giants, now reduced to three as the result of the recent merger of Conoco and Phillips Petroleum, would predictably like to gain access to the oil they believe is waiting for them. It is that American corporate interest in Somali oil deposits, estimated to be worth billions of dollars, that may push Somalia next into the cross hairs of the US military and the ÂŚWar on TerrorismÂą.

Al-Qaeda, the network which weÂąre told was formed by Saudi militant Osama bin Laden to carry out terrorism against American targets throughout the world, is reportedly the main target of the American campaign in Afghanistan. Now we are told by senior American officials that parts of the al-Qaeda network continue to function in Somalia - a claim that might be difficult to substantiate at best.

And shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush Administration designated ÂŚal-ItihaadÂą, a Somali Islamic organization, as a terrorist group and also ordered the freezing of assets belonging to al- Barakat, a Somali bank which they accused of funding Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

As the military campaign against Afghanistan was beginning, American officials claimed that al-Qaeda had sent some of its lieutenants to Somalia to help Somali forces plan the now famous ambush that brought down two American Blackhawk helicopters and killed 18 American Rangers in 1993.

But why would armed Somali militias, with years of wartime experience under their belts, need al-Qaeda advisers to tell them how to carry out an ambush.. It just didnÂąt make any sense... unless, of course, the Bush Administration was laying the groundwork for another US military intervention in Somalia.

Ever since hearing those claims, I have been concerned that President Bush might be preparing to send military forces into Somalia to finish the mission they were sent there to carry out in 1992. Now, there are growing indications that a second intervention in Somalia is on the drawing board and that it may soon be attempted.

According to reports in three British newspapers, a senior German official who was briefed by US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when Rumsfeld met in Europe with NATO officials last week, spoke with the press about some of Rumsfeld¹s comments. He quoted Rumsfeld as saying that ³Somalia could become the next target of US action, in an attempt to shut down boltholes for al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan.² The German official also said that US action against Somalia was not a question of "if" but "how and when".

These comments were confirmed by General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who attempted to downplay the imminence of a military attack by explaining that military action was only one of several options the United States might consider in going after alleged terrorist groups in Somalia.

According to a report in the Financial Times, Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of state for Africa, said last week that the United States had evidence of links between the Somali Islamic organization

al-Itihaad and al-Qaeda. He also expressed his belief that the Somali

group influenced the interim government of Somalia.

The interim government, headed by Abdiqasim Salat Hassan and known as the Transitional National Government or TNG, is opposed by several Somali political and paramilitary factions backed by neighboring Ethiopia under the umbrella of the Somali Restoration and Reconciliation Council (SRRC). This is not unlike pre-war conditions in Afghanistan where the partially ruling Taliban involuntary shared part of the country with the Northern Alliance, an umbrella of anti-government para-military organizations also supported by a neighboring state, Uzbekistan.

According to reports in the British and African press, the Transitional National Government, through a long and arduous process of reconciliation and peace negotiations, has made tremendous progress in uniting previously warring factions and pushing Somalia steadily towards national elections this Spring and possible disarmament of factional paramilitary forces under the supervision of the United Nations. But the United States is apparently choosing to work with opposing factions, supported by Ethiopia, which would like to sabotage the peace process and consolidate their own power.

According to reports in several British papers, a team of nine Americans were seen earlier this month in the Central Somali town of Baidoa meeting with leaders of at least two of the opposing factions. Representatives of one of those groups, the Rahanwein Resistance Army, recently claimed that they had been providing information to the United States about possible terrorist ÂŚtargetsÂą inside Somalia.

Even before the recent indications of a possible American attack, the TNG had stated its willingness to cooperate with the United States in its war on terrorism.

And recently, amidst growing fears of such an attack, Somali Transport Minister Abdi Guled Mohamed told the Independent: "We have said since 11 September that we want to help. If the Americans say there are terrorists in Somalia, they should tell us how they know this. If there are terrorists here, then we will put them in prison, put them where they belong. We will work with the Americans to fight terrorists."

These statements seem to have little effect on the Bush Administration though. According to a report in The Guardian, US regional envoy Glen Warren said this week that the United States does not recognize "any government or regional government or any other sort of administration in Somalia". Such comments can only heighten fears in Somalia of some kind of imminent American action.

Those fears can only be heightened further by recent reports from Kenya. Alex Duval, South African based correspondent for The Independent, recently reported widespread concern in Kenya that the US is pressuring the government there to use that nation as a base for air attacks on Somalia.

If those suspicions are true, they tell us not only of the Bush AdministrationÂąs intent to attack Somali targets but also something about the probable scope and intensity of those attacks.

The United States could launch air attacks against Somalia from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean. But intense air campaigns, such as the campaign now winding down in Afghanistan, require heavier bombers than those able to operate from aircraft carriers. Heavier bombers such as the B-1Âąs and B-52Âąs have been operating from bases in Europe and on the island of Diego Garcia in the southern Indian Ocean.

Heavier bombers could reach Somalia from Diego Garcia also. But using land bases in Kenya, next door to Somalia, the U. S. Air Force could fly four or five times the number of missions in the same period of time. That could indicate that the Bush Administration is anticipating an extremely intensive air campaign against Somalia.

The commander of American military forces in Afghanistan recently admitted that covert operations are already underway outside Afghanistan in the Bush

AdministrationÂąs ÂŚWar on TerrorismÂą. And bloody inter-factional fighting

broke out in a part of Somalia recently visited by American agents.

Even more recent reports from Africa Online and other sources have described movements of German military forces to Djibouti and British Naval Forces off the Somali coast to join with American Forces in actions against Somalia.

Unlike the case of Iraq, where an American military campaign would provoke broad opposition from Arab and European nations, many of them US allies, Somalia, with a marginally functioning government at best, would provide a much easier and less problematic target.

Of course, if there is a new military campaign in Somalia, the American public will almost certainly be prepared in advance to accept American casualties. Judging from the first intervention, civilian casualties among the Somali population could be horrendously high.. And of course weÂąll be told that the purpose of the campaign will be to root out terrorism.

If the American news media function as poorly and as uncritically as they did during the first US intervention in Somalia, the American people will have little reason to believe otherwise.

Coincidentally, a Hollywood movie, Blackhawk Down, presenting a dramatic and predictably pro-American interpretation of the Somali ambush of 1993, is scheduled for holiday release. The filmÂąs director and producers wanted the film to make the political statement that the American withdrawal from Somalia was a sign of weakness by the United States that led to tragedies in Rwanda, Kenya, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as to the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center on September 11th.

The film apparently shows graphic representations of the deaths of American soldiers while avoiding any acknowledgment of the estimated five to ten thousand Somalis killed by American Forces in Somalia or the major American oil interests that may have motivated US policy. It will certainly help create American desire for revenge and make US intervention in Somalia an even easier sell for the Bush Administration.

Should the questions be raised, IÂąm sure weÂąll be assured by the Bush Administration that it is mere coincidence that there are oil reserves in Somalia with an estimated worth in the billions of dollars, that three powerful American oil giants have been coveting those oil deposits for nearly a decade or more and that no fewer than five high ranking officials in the Bush Administration, including the National Security Adviser, the vice-president and the President himself, are former oil industry employees.

 

And like those in the first US military operation there, as well as my fellow soldiers in the Vietnam War, the American soldiers asked to kill or be killed in that far off place may be the only people in Somalia who wonÂąt know why theyÂąre actually there.

# # #

About Eduardo Cohen:

Eduardo Cohen served in a combat unit in Vietnam (173rd Airborne Brigade,

USAR) where he first noticed sharp contrasts between what he saw on the ground and what was being reported in American newspapers. After two months in a ground combat unit he was assigned to the 173rdÂąs Press Information Office where he refused orders to make up stories to be given to US news media.

He later lived seven years in Latin America where he once again saw deep disparities between the impact of US policy and what was being reported in the United States. In Bolivia, National Guard officers showed him silenced 9mm submachine guns supplied to them through the US Agency for International DevelopmentÂąs ÂŚPublic Safety ProgramÂą.

He studied Anthropology and Communications at UC Santa Barbara from 1980 to 1984. While at UCSB he created ÂŚThe Other AmericasÂą radio program at KCSB in Santa Barbara in 1981. It aired on several California radio stations until 1995 including seven years on KPFA in Berkeley.

ÂŚThe Other AmericasÂą used the world press, human rights experts, government officials and other primary sources, to examine discrepancies between the impact of US foreign policy in Latin America and the Caribbean and what was being reported here by the US news media. ÂŚThe Other AmericasÂą later expanded its coverage to include Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Eduardo Cohen was one of the first journalists in the United States to expose the first practice invasion of Grenada, carried out on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques in 1981, and the creation and training of the Nicaraguan Contras by the CIA in Honduras.

Cohen exposed the covert funding of banned CIA operations in Costa Rica and Nicaragua - an operation that would later be known as a component of the Iran-Contra scandal - after interviewing mercenaries imprisoned by Costa Rican authorities in 1985 for smuggling arms and explosives.

In 1990 he was sponsored by the Bay Area American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to participate in a delegation that traveled to the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War.

In 1991, Cohen produced 'Israel, Palestine and the Requisites of PeaceÂą, a slide presentation on the Palestinian-Israeli crisis from interviews and photographs taken during three weeks of travels in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

He has lectured on: Media Distortion of US Foreign Policy; Propaganda and Racism in News and Popular Culture; and How Anti-Arab Racism Distorts American Perception of Middle East conflict.

He has lectured on these topics at numerous universities conflict.

He has lectured on these topics at numerous universities