Somali journalist: US troops fight in Somalia

This video from the USA is called Thousands of Somalis Protest Deadly US Air Strike.

Reuters reports:

Somali journalist says U.S. troops seen in south

January 21, 2007

NAIROBI – A freelance journalist said on Sunday he had seen U.S. troops on the ground in south Somalia working with Ethiopian forces hunting fugitive Islamists.

“They were Americans, I have no doubt,” the journalist said, referring to helicopters he saw overhead and personnel he bumped into with Ethiopian soldiers at a military base.

Rumors have swirled for days that U.S. personnel were inside Somalia since a January 8 air strike aimed at al Qaeda suspects believed to be among the Islamists.

The strike was Washington’s first overt military engagement in Somalia since 1994.

But there has been no official confirmation of a U.S. ground presence, which would be sure to inflame political passions in Somalia and the Horn of Africa region where Muslims complain of heightened discrimination in the name of the “war on terror.”

Africans oppose Bush’s war in Somalia: here.

4 thoughts on “Somali journalist: US troops fight in Somalia

  1. Carl Bloice

    (Black Commentator)

    More Blood for Oil

    Forget about all that stuff about Ethiopia having a ‘tacit’ o.k. from Washington to invade Somalia. The decision was made at the White House and the attack had military support from the Pentagon. The governments are too much in sync and the Ethiopians too dependent on the U.S. to think otherwise.

    And, it didn’t just suddenly happen. Ethiopian troops, trained and equipped by the U.S. began infiltrating into Somali territory last summer as part of a plan that began to evolve the previous June when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the government. In November, the head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid (until last week he ran the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) was in Addis Ababa. After that, Ghanaian journalist Cameron Duodu has written, Ethiopia ‘moved from proving the Somali government with ‘military advice’ to open armed intervention.’

    And not without help. U.S Supplied satellite surveillance data aided in the bombardment of the Somali capital, Mogadishu and pinpointing the location of UIC forces resulting, in the words of New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, in ‘a string of back-to- back military loses in which more than 1,000 fighters, mostly teenage boys, were quickly mowed down by the better-trained and equipped Ethiopian-backed forces.’

    As with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the immediate question is why was this proxy attack undertaken, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter? And again, there is the official line, the excuse and the underlying impetus. The official line from Addis Ababa is that it was a defensive act in the face of a threat of attack from Somalia. There’s nothing to support the claim and a lot of evidence to the contrary. As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, it was a chance to strike back at ‘Islamists’ as part of the on-going ‘war on terror.’ For progressive observers in the region and much of the media outside the U.S., the conflict smells of petroleum.

    ‘As with Iraq in 2003, the United States has cast this as a war to curtail terrorism, but its real goal is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region by establishing a client regime there.,’ wrote Salim Lone, spokesperson for the United Nation mission in Iraq in 2003, and now a columnist for The Daily Nation in Kenya. ‘The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.’

    In a television interview broadcast on the day of the full-fledged Ethiopian assault, Marine General James Jones (who ironically, like Abizaid, recently lost his position), then-Nato’s military commander and head of the US military’s European army, expressed his concern that the size of the U.S. army in Europe had ‘perhaps gone too low.’ Jones went on to tell the CSpan interviewer the US needed troops in Europe partly so that they could be quickly deployed in trouble-spots in Africa and elsewhere.

    ‘I think the emergence of Africa as a strategic reality is inevitable and we’re going to need forward-based troops, special operations, marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors to be in the right proportion,’ said Jones.

    ‘Pentagon to train sharper eye on Africa,’ read the headline over a January 5 report by Richard Whittle in the Christian Science Monitor. ‘Strife, oil, and Al Qaeda are leading the US to create a new Africa Command.’

    ‘Africa, long beset by war, famine, disease, and ethnic tensions, has generally taken a backseat in Pentagon planning – but US officials say that is about to change,’ wrote Whittle, who went on to report that one of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s last acts before being dismissed from that position was to convince President Bush to create a new Africa military Africa command, something the White House is expected to announce later this year. The creation of the new body, he quoted one expert as saying, reflects the Administration concern about ‘Al Qaeda’s known presence in Africa,’ China’s developing relations with the continent with regards to oil supplies and the fact that ‘Islamists took over Somalia last June and ruled until this week, when Ethiopian troops drove them out of power.’

    Currently, the US gets about 10 percent of its oil from Africa, but, the Monitor story said but ‘some experts say it may need to rely on the continent for as much as 25 percent by 2010.’ Reportedly, nearly two-thirds of Somalia’s oil fields were allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips before Somalia’s pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in January, 1991.

    Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said the division for African military operations “causes some difficulty in trying to … execute a more streamlined and comprehensive strategy when it comes to Africa.” According to the plan, the Central Command will retain responsibility for the Horn of Africa for about 18 months while the Africa Command gets set up. The Pentagon’s present Horn of Africa joint task force, headquartered in Djibouti, includes about 1,500 troops.

    African countries won’t see much difference in the US military presence on the ground under the new command, Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of State for African affairs under the first President Bush, is quoted as saying. “They’re already getting a lot of attention from the US military.’ The Defense Intelligence Agency “has built up its offices throughout Africa in US embassies. Right after the cold war, they reduced a lot, but they’ve built back up.”

    “When the Cold War ended, so too did the interest of the USA in Africa…for a while. Particularly following September 11, 2001, the interest of the Bush administration in Africa increased several fold,’ says Bill Fletcher, Jr., visiting professor at Brooklyn College-CUNY, former president of TransAfrica Forum. ‘Their interest was, first, in direct relationship to the amount of oil in the ground. Second, it was in relationship to a country’s attitude toward the so- called “war against terrorism.” Irrespective of the character of a regime, if they were prepared to provide the USA with oil and/or support the war against terrorism, the USA would turn a blind eye toward any practices going on.’

    “The second piece of this puzzle, however, is that the new interest in Africa was accompanied by a new military approach toward Africa,’ says Fletcher. ‘This included both the development of the so-called Trans Sahel project, which supposedly concerns training countries to fight terrorism, as well as the deployment of military bases and personnel to Africa. Specifically, and beginning around the time of the initiation of the Iraq war, US military planners began discussing relocating US forces from Europe into Africa, and specifically into the Gulf of Guinea region, a region rich in oil reserves.

    “It is clear, once again, that in all of this, the character of any regime is secondary to the regime’s compliance with the interests of the Bush administration and their economic/strategic priorities. The net effect of this could be the introduction of US military personnel into extremely complicated internal struggles not only in the Gulf of Guinea region, but in other locations, e.g., Somalia, allegedly in the interest of fighting terrorism and protecting strategic oil reserves.”

    Describing the Trans Sahel project, which covers a swath of North Africa, Foreign Policy in Focus commentator Conn Hallinan wrote recently, ‘The Bush Administration claims the target of this program, called the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative is the growing presence of al-Qaeda influenced organizations in the region. Critics, however, charge that the enterprise has more to do with oil than with Osama bin Laden, and that stepped up military aid to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia will most likely end up being used against internal opposition groups in those countries, not ‘terrorists’ hiding out in the desert.’

    An apt example of how the charge of terrorism becomes cover for suppression of local democratic or leftist dissent is Nigeria. A major focus of U.S. oil interest is in that country and the Gulf of Guinea region. There, activists reflecting popular demand for retaining more oil revenues for local development and an end to environmental chaos, have been labeled ‘terrorist’ and are being brutally suppressed by a U.S. trained and equipped military.

    Southern Africa scholar George Wright observes that the development of military ties to government and ‘rebel’ groups in Africa, in pursuit of U.S. geo-strategic objectives, is long standing but has accelerating over recent years. Between 1990 and 2000, military arrangements were concluded between governments or opposition groups in 39 countries on the continent. These involved weapons supplies, military training, shared intelligence and surveillance. The aim, he says, has always been to secure neo-colonial relations with African countries. However, since 9/11, Wright says, the process has been accelerated and taken on an increasingly militarist character ‘under the guise of fighting terrorism.’

    Fighting proxy war is credible as long as there is a chance of holding sway but history has repeatedly demonstrated when that doesn’t work out, the end is often direct involvement. That explains why the 2007 U.S. military sets funding for Special Forces to increase by 15 percent. According to the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, these Special Forces ‘will have the capacity to operate in dozens of countries simultaneously – relying on a combination of direct (visible) and indirect (clandestine) approaches.’

    The Ethiopian government has said it does not have the resources for an extended stay in Somalia even though the projection is that it will take many months to ‘stabilize’ the situation in the invaded country. As of this writing, the Bush Administration was having difficulty raising troops from nearby cooperative states to take over the job. Only Uganda seemed a sure bet. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Africa, Ms Jendayi Frazer, told journalists: “Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni promised U.S. President George Bush in a recent phone call that he could supply between 1,000-2,000 troops to protect Somalia’s transitional government and train its troops. We hope to have the Ugandans deployed before the end of January.’

    Shortly after the invasion, Frazer told reporters there had been no request for U.S. troops or military assistance so far, but she did not rule out that it could be requested and supplied later if necessary. Later came quickly. On Sunday, U.S. AC-130 gunships began bombarding sites within Somalia and Hawkeye reconnaissance planes took to the air pinpointing locations for attacks by jet aircraft. Although the announced purpose of the bombing was alleged al-Qaeda personnel, media reports indicated the target were ‘Islamic fighters’, meaning troops of the UIC government. “The US has sided with one Somali faction against another, this could be the beginning of a new civil war … I fear once again they have gone for a quick fix based on false information, one ‘highly respected regional analyst’ told the Times of London. ‘If they pull it off, however, it could be a turning point. The stakes are very high indeed, now. I fear they are repeating the mistakes of the past, not only in Somalia but in Afghanistan and Iraq and will end up creating a new insurgency which could destabilize this entire region.’

    BC Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union.


  2. Fifty years of AAPSO
    For all the National Committees
    and Friends of AAPSO

    Dear Friends,

    In this year 2007, Afro-Asian Peoples¹ Solidarity Organization enters the 50th year of its founding. It was in 1957 December that AAPSO was formally inaugurated in a convention of a very representative international gathering in Cairo. Most of those veterans who participated in this gathering are no more with us, but their sustained effort and spirit still remains in the movement providing enormous strength to move forward in the 21st century.

    Looking back 50 years ago was a different world. Although most of the Asian countries attained their independence, in Africa except for very few countries the continent remained under colonial rule. The resurgent new independent nations in Asia were making efforts to consolidate their freedom by forging solidarity among them. Actually it was at the height of the independence struggle of India in 1947 that Sri Javharlal Nehru called Asian relations conference in March as the first step in the direction of Asian solidarity in future. This was followed after the independence of other Asian countries in the convening of the first Colombo conference of five nations – India, SriLanka (Ceylon), Burma (Mynmar), Pakistan and Indonesia in 1954. By this time imperialism was receding in Asia with the Victory of liberation of Chinese peoples in 1949, and new China had become an inspiration to the rest of the continent. Korean war had ended without a final settlement and the patriotic Vietnamese were inflicting huge defeat to the imperialist forces, and the final assault on the French forces in the battle of Dian Bien Phu in 1954 sealed the French aggression to be their ³Waterloo² in Vietnam. After the Paris Conference in 1954 France withdrew from Indo-China. But only paving the way for the U.S. to subjugate Indo-China with gradually increasing to a massive U.S. force. Vietnam struggle under Ho Chi Minh had provided a charismatic inspiration to all anti-imperialist forces in the world. Vietnam was a household word and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) was a shinning star eager to emulate by others.

    The Colombo powers in its conference decided to convene the conference of Asian and African Leaders in 1955 in Bandung-Indonesia. By that time India and China had become close friends with the signing of Nehru-Chou Enlai agreement came to be known a panchseela or the five principles of inter state relations. On Nehru¹s initiative Chou En Lai was invited to the Bandung conference and both along with Gamal Abdul Nassar played a significant role in forging of the solidarity between Africa and Asia. The Bandung spirit provided the inspiration for the people of Asia and Africa for enhancing the liberation movements specially in Africa which led to the convening of the international conference in Cairo in 1957 December for the formation of AAPSO.

    In fact it was the initiative of Indian organization of solidarity led by Srimathi Rameswari Nehru who visited with a delegation to Cairo and met with President Gamel Abdul Nasser and agreed on the formation of AAPSO with the Head Office in Cairo. Bandung spirit did not stop in the formation of AAPSO. It went farther and in 1961 in the first Belgrade conference of governments of developing countries, a new force was built under the name of Non-Aligned Movement.

    The establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 was a great step forward for the people of Asia and Africa. Although the non-aligned movement became an organization of the governments of the developing countries, nevertheless, the role played by peoples movements such as AAPSO in its formation cannot be overlooked. It was in recognition of this factor that AAPSO was accepted as an observer by NAM countries. Accordingly AAPSO remains one among three or four non-governmental Organizations to be accorded observer status in NAM and invited to participate in all its ministerial and summit conferences.

    AAPSO¹s contribution to the peoples¹ movements in Africa and Asia had a positive dimension in educating the people of these two continents for a way forwards in creating a new world. While upholding the Charter of the United Nations, AAPSO continued to disseminate the leading role of the world body with other like minded movements. It campaigned in the field of disarmament, development, empowering women, protection of environment, eradication of poverty and diseases. United nations faced formidable obstacles by powerful countries including withholding funding. But NAM and the peoples movements stood firmly to strengthen the world body in the international conferences organised by the U.N. and other agencies, AAPSO played its role. Similarly it also made all efforts to pressurise NAM countries for an independent economic development, protecting the sovereignty of the countries. In this sphere it did not hesitate to criticise the NAM countries about their human rights violation and departing from the democratic norms.

    Non-aligned movement played a formidable role in the U.N. and even today it is the biggest group. Nevertheless after 1970¹s its charishma began to deteriorate mostly owing to the failure of NAM countries. This tendency also affected and weakened the position and the role of AAPSO. On the one hand NAM became more bureaucratic and over the years changed the rules thereby participation of peoples organizations was restricted. This weakness had a negative effect both in the NAM and also in AAPSO.

    Today AAPSO despite its enormous constraints has been able to provide positive thinking among the people of Asia and Africa. The situation today is not similar to what it was fifty years ago. But the issues facing the people of both continents are same. If it was neo-colonialism that confronted the people of developing countries; today it is ³economic hegemonism² that strongly affect the people. This new tendency is more formidable than the neo-conlonialist period because the technicalities of operation is sophisticated and not directly seen by the people. With scientific and technological revolution, the strongest economies are able to dictate terms to the weak. This can overcome only by forging a formidable movement. We hope that our national committees and friends to be more alert to this situation and close ranks to build a strong Afro-Asian Peoples¹ Organization to face these new challenges.

    In this year of the 50th anniversary, the Permanent Secretariat is planning to organize series of events in different centers, culminating in the representative gathering in Cairo. It will also prepare a publication depicting the fifty years of AAPSO¹s history.

    The Permanent Secretariat


  3. Pingback: Saudi Arabia deports journalist to Somalia | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: War, hunger, kill Ethiopians | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.