As the battle for Islamic Somalia continues, the Youth Islamic Movement have released a fresh report that details a multi-pronged operation that they carried out in Mogadishu, with some attacks in the Bakara market that mainstream media claims is “returning to normal” and also in the city of Afgooye.
If mainstream press does reports attacks, it is always presented as against ”civilians” which is of course a blantant lie as the Mujahideen never target civilians and will abort missions in order to preserve innocent loss of lives. While the Youth Islamic Movement carried out some of their recent attacks at the largest open air market in Mogadishu, it was against the checkpoints manned by collaborators and the US-backed regime and not against “civilians”.
In addition, the YIM also reported attacks in Afgooye, 50 km from the capital. Here is their report, published uncut and uncensored, as translated by JUS.
Youth Islamic Movement Report Fiercest Attacks In The Past Two Months
All praise be to Allah, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds. Peace and prayer be upon our prophet, Muhammad, his family, and his companions.
This is the harvest of the Jihad in Somalia for July 18 – 19, 2007 corresponding to 4 - 5 Rajab, 1428.
The Mujahideen from The Youth Islamic Movement carried out their fiercest attacks in the last two months on the puppet army and police, the allies of the occupation. The attack began on Wednesday night, 4 Rajab 1428 corresponding to July 18, 2007 at around 1.15 am after midnight, Makkah time.
The operation was carried out at different places in the capital of Mogadishu:
• Inside the Bakara market
• Intersection of Bakara
• Intersection of Halodagh
• Intersection of Adam Adi
• Jaid Jael area (the tree of love)
These points are considered checkpoints of the apostate police.
In this operation, various light and medium-sized weapons were used and the Mujahideen fought heroically. The operation continued until very late at night until the apostates fled leaving their posts. The Mujahideen were not able to determine the exact amount of loss they caused to the enemy.
This blessed operation come after the recent increase in the cross worshipper forces in the capital under the guise of security in the capital and especially in the Bakara market, which is the main place that local people to meet their daily needs.
It is worth mentioning that the enemies are trying to tighten their grip on the helpless civilians and are working day and night to cut the sustenance of these poor people but Allah is the Sustainer, the All Powerful.
These blessed attacks also came just a few hours before the so-called Reconciliation Conference (that is really the conference of conspiracy), after it had been postponed due to the bomb attacks by the Mujahideen at the conference location.
On Thursday morning 5 Rajab 1428 corresponding to July 19, 2007 the Mujahideen carried out an attack against an apostate police checkpoint, striking it with six hand grenades.
In addition, the Mujahideen in the city of Afgooye, approximately 50 km from the capital, torched a jeep belonging to the apostate police that burnt all those on board and to Allah is all praise and thanks.
And your brothers of the Youth Mujahideen Movement are on their way, going forth in Jihad against the occupiers and disbelievers so that the word of Allah is the highest and there is no more fitnah on earth and the religion is solely for Allah.
Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!
The rough beast that is George W. Bush's Terror War replicates itself with remarkable fidelity. Each new monstrosity it brings forth exhibits the same markings, the same structure: a weak, corrupt client regime maintained in office by the occupation army of a foreign power, in brutal conflict with an ever-growing opposition led by -- but not limited to -- religious sectarians. And each replication produces the same results: chaos, ruin, atrocity, suffering, repression and the spread of violent, virulent extremism.
This has been the pattern in all four of the Terror War's "regime change" operations: the two direct U.S. interventions, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the two proxy wars, in Palestine and Somalia.
There was a slight mutation in the Palestine caper, of course; Bush and his Israeli allies relentlessly fomented a civil war in order to overthrow the elected Hamas government, but their Fatah proxies lost the battle in Gaza. It didn't matter in the end, however: the defeat gave the Fatah client regime an excuse to declare a new, unelected "emergency government," one entirely dependent on largess from America and Israel to survive.
But in Somalia, Bush's proxies -- the brutal dictatorship of Ethiopia and a faction of Somali warlords in the pay of the CIA -- were more successful. Under their assault -- with the assistance of American airpower and Special Forces units -- the coalition government of the Islamic Courts Council, which had brought the first measure of stability to Somalia after 15 years of violent anarchy, was swept away earlier this year. The consolidation of this Terror War "victory" was brutal: hundreds of thousands of Somalis were driven from their homes, sent out on the harsh refugee road -- where dozens were killed by American air attacks, and hundreds (at least) were captured, often with the help of American agents, and "renditioned" into Ethiopia's notorious torture chambers.
Then there were the black ops of "Task Force 88, a very secret American special-operations unit," described in a laudatory article in Esquire this spring. "The 88's job was simple," wrote Esquire: the unit was to be helicoptered into areas hit by American airstrikes in Somalia, then "kill anyone still alive and leave no unidentified bodies behind." (Your tax dollars at work.)
So where does Somalia stand today in the wake of the Terror War operation? Why, in chaos, in ruins, in lamentation for vast suffering, in the grip of growing repression and the spread of violent, virulent extremism. It has rapidly become an Iraq in miniature. The International Red Cross reports that the chaos spawned by the Bush-backed conquest means that "no really effective [humanitarian] action is possible, whether with regard to protection or detention." In other words, just as in Iraq, the ordinary people of Somalia are being left to wither and die.
As just as in Iraq, the Terror War has spawned a broad-based insurgency dominated by religious factions that have been increasingly radicalized by the assault. And as in Iraq, the continued presence of foreign troops has made any political solution impossible. The resistance -- both religious and secular -- will not treat with a government it considers illegitimate due to its installation by foreign invasion. The shaky, unpopular government cannot survive without the military power of the foreign invaders. And so the insurgency will continue, and grow, as long as the occupation goes on.
[To see a striking parallel with the situation in Iraq, read the remarkable stories in today's Guardian: an unprecedented interview with the political leaders of the Iraqi insurgency, who make two notable points: there will be no political solution in Iraq as long as the occupation continues; and they will deal swiftly with "al Qaeda in Iraq" once the Americans are gone.]
This week in Somalia, the "Transitional Federal Government" backed by America and Ethiopia convened a long-promised "National Reconciliation Conference" that seems guaranteed to -- indeed, designed to -- prevent any genuine political reconciliation in the war-ravaged land. Instead, it aims to sow new discord and internal conflict among the resistance to the invasion, and to keep the TFG's CIA employees and their cronies in power. The terms of the Conference specifically preclude a political settlement, concentrating instead on stirring the hornet's nest of clan and tribal conflict that has brought so much anguish to the land. Washington and its European allies have acquiesced in this farce, and handed over millions of dollars to the TFG for a process pre-doomed to failure.
Power and Interest News Report (PINR) has produced a detailed, thorough -- and devastating -- study on ''Somalia's Compromised National Reconciliation Conference'' and the larger context of ruin and collapse in which it is taking place. Written by Professor Michael Weinstein of Purdue University, the report is well worth reading in full for anyone interested in the devastation and suffering wrought by the Bush Regime's brutal attempt to bring Somalia into the "Arc of Domination" it is seeking to extend over the strategic center and the tactical peripheries of the world's oil heartlands.
Excerpts of Weinstein's report: From ''Somalia's Compromised National Reconciliation Conference'' (PINR):
"On the ground, violent attacks on Ethiopian forces and T.F.G. militias, including mortar fire, targeted assassinations of officials, roadside bombings, shoot-outs and grenade assaults, have been a daily occurrence. In response, the Ethiopian and T.F.G. forces have engaged in indiscriminate return fire, imposition of a curfew, intensive weapons searches, arrests of suspected insurgents and their supporters, and raids on media houses, civil society organizations, mosques, businesses and schools -- all in an attempt to secure Mogadishu ahead of the N.R.C. On the political front, the T.F.G.'s opponents have continued their process of coalescing into a bloc and have refused to participate in the National Reconciliation Conference (N.R.C.) through their clans.
The run-up to the N.R.C. and its truncated opening confirm PINR's consistent assessment since the Ethiopian intervention that Somalia has entered a devolutionary cycle marked by regional, local and clan fragmentation, with the addition of political and ideological divisions, and a revolutionary Islamist insurgency...
The most incisive analysis of the country's political situation during the past month appeared in an interview published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) with the head of its delegation for Somalia, Pascal Hundt, who reported that the country is so insecure that "no really effective [humanitarian] action is possible, whether with regard to protection or detention."
....Put in the bluntest terms -- and they are justified -- the N.R.C. is a nuanced yet simple power play by the T.F.G. executive to maintain its position by keeping international financial, military and diplomatic support; keeping the Ethiopian occupation in place barring the deployment of an adequate African Union (A.U.) or preferably U.N. peacekeeping force; and controlling the electoral process that is supposed to result in a permanent government and is mandated to take place in 2009. It is in the T.F.G.'s interest to ride out the remainder of the transition period and to prolong itself into any permanent arrangement. Part of staying in the saddle is to frame the reconciliation process to accord with its interests, which it has done for the time being, and to drag it out, attempting to use clan negotiations to build support and, if necessary, to divide and rule...
The oppositions to the T.F.G. represent a diverse array of groups and positions that are incipiently strained and have coalesced around resistance to the Ethiopian occupation and the transitional institutions, which they consider to be Addis Ababa's illegitimate pawns...
Beyond their points of agreement, the political oppositions diverge on their aims and strategies, with the I.C.C. remaining committed to an Islamist formula, the nationalists to an ethnic-Somali state and the S.D.N. to a reconciliation process in which the T.F.G. has no control over the selection process and does not host the conference, and which would lead to a "legitimate unity government that would prepare the way for democratic elections in 2009."
Although the nationalists would prefer a unified opposition movement, the I.C.C. is insistent on maintaining its organizational independence, rendering the oppositions a coalition rather than an incipient party. Nevertheless, on July 12, the oppositions made their decisive break with the N.R.C. by announcing that they would hold their own "constituent congress" on September 1 with the aim of "liberating Somalia from the yoke of the Ethiopian occupation."
...On July 14, McClatchy Newspapers published parts of a recent U.S. intelligence briefing on Somalia, to which it had gained access. The report stated that the T.F.G. is perceived by Somalis as "little more than a pawn of Ethiopia, yet its continued survival, certainly in Mogadishu, remains dependent on the support of the Ethiopian military." Under those conditions, the report goes on, extremists are able to "regain their footing and heighten inter-state tensions."
On July 13, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, Roland Marchal of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris, commented that Somalia's conflicts are not rooted in clans, but in political and military divisions... He continued that there would be no cease-fire in the absence of "politically inclusive talks," offering that "alternatively you can pretend to have won, like it was done in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Somalia’s Stability Depends Heavily
On Complex Web of Global Players
Thus far, Somalia has avoided major fighting between the Islamic clerics who now rule wide swaths of the country and a transitional government with no power but international backing. But that tenuous stability depends perhaps as much on the actions of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya as on the Islamic clerics who have imposed a strict brand of Islam on the traditionally modern Somalis over the past several months.
Each of these African nations has a stake in Somalia’s political future, as does the United States, which has eyed Somalia more warily than ever since radical Islamists routed U.S.-backed secular warlords in early June and assumed control of the country.All of these competing interests, loyalties and history make Somalia one of the most compelling—and complex—interna-tional political puzzles on the planet.
“It is the most complicated political situation I’ve seen in 50 years of studying politics,” said Michael Weinstein, a political science professor at Purdue University and a senior contributor to the Washington-based Power and Interest News Report.
The warlords who previously controlled a lawless Somalia reportedly received CIA funding and billed themselves as a “counter-terrorist” group, but Horn of Africa analysts say that name was more semantic than substantial. Beset by fierce infighting, the warlords imposed their own form of terror in Somalia and were more interested in preserving power than battling conservative dogma, according to experts.
Ted Dagne, an Africa analyst for the Congressional Research Service, told the Council on Foreign Relations this summer that the warlords’ “counter-terrorist” name is a façade. “The fact that these guys came up with that alliance name five years after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and considering their past and current brutal acts against their own people, should tell you something,” Dagne told the New York-based think tank.
Under the new Islamic rule in Somalia, however, a different brand of oppression has emerged. Movie houses are closed, people have been flogged for smoking marijuana or watching World Cup soccer matches on television, and all commercial activity is banned during prayer times.
Despite the hard-line stance on civic activity, the clerics—who came to power in Somalia from a loose confederation of Islamic courts—have agreed to form a unified national security force with the interim government, which was established at a summit in Kenya two years ago.
The two sides had planned to meet this month to talk about political power sharing, but those talks may be moot following the takeover of the southern town of Kismayo by hundreds of Islamic militiamen—one of the last seaports that had been outside their control in Somalia. In response, Somalia’s interim prime minister called on the United Nations to partially lift an arms embargo on his country to allow for the deployment of African peacekeepers, which he said are necessary to stop the advance of Islamic radicals.
Some experts say, however, that many moderate Somali Muslims are relieved by the stability the clerics have instilled in the country, which has not had an effective central government since 1991. But the United States seems extremely uncomfortable with the arrangement.
Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, told a July meeting of the International Somalia Contact Group in Brussels that America will not stand by and allow Islamic radicals to breed new terrorists and foment anti-Western hostilities in Somalia.
“Somalia cannot continue to serve as a safe haven for terrorists,” Frazer said. “We have called upon the leaders within the Islamic courts to render foreign terrorist operatives currently in Somalia to justice. Such affirmative steps would demonstrate the intentions of the Islamic courts and indicate a show of good faith to the international community.
“The United States remains cognizant of the challenges we face in Somalia,” Frazer continued. “Foreign terrorists can currently exploit the absence of governance, finding a safe haven in Somalia, while arms and criminals continue to flow in and out of the country, threatening the security of the entire Horn.
“In conclusion, we recognize that there are no easy answers to the challenges we face,” Frazer said.
Washington has remained vexed by how to deal with Somalia ever since it lost 18 Special Operations forces and two Blackhawk helicopters in October 1993 in an ultimately successful mission to overthrow two violent warlords. As a result, the United States severed all ties with the anarchic nation.
However, the U.S. government can no longer afford to ignore Somalia because its coastline provides easy access for militants posing a threat to U.S. interests and looking for a gateway into East Africa. In mid-September, about 50 jihadist leaders from Pakistan headed to Somalia to take advantage of what they hoped would be a pro-al-Qaeda regime now installed in Mogadishu, according to Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst and former adviser on counter-terrorism to the French prime minister.
Weinstein said the United States might also be making a mistake by being so determined to oust the current clerical rule because the result could be even more chaos. He said Kenya, which is housing many Somali refugees, as well as Ethiopia and even tiny Eritrea have more ability to influence Somalia’s immediate future than the most powerful country on earth. “Washington is completely devoid of influence—completely pushed out of the scene there right now,” Weinstein said.
In fact, the potential for a broader regional conflict that could engulf these neighboring states remains an ongoing threat. The African Union has agreed to deploy about 8,000 peacekeeping troops into Somalia by the end of the month. That alone could trigger a massive conflict, and the clerics have vowed to invade Ethiopia, which is majority Christian, if that happens.
The ruling Islamists in Somalia routinely accuse Ethiopia of aggression and incursion. Ethiopia in turn worries that the ruling Islamic faction in Somalia could incite its own Muslim population to extremism, and it has vigorously backed the notion of African Union peacekeepers in Somalia.
Somalia’s Islamist militia also accuse the transitional government of bolstering its defenses with forces supplied by Ethiopia, and on the flip side, the interim government accuses the Islamist clerics of using military backing from Ethiopia’s rival, Eritrea.
An editorial in the Economist hinted that Addis Ababa could be itching for a fight against militant Islam, not for the stated goal of regional stability but more for a political alignment with the United States that could result in financial aid and diplomatic support.
According to Weinstein, there are many Ethiopians who would also like to see parts of Somalia under its control again. “Ethiopia is very much against the [Islamic] courts because there are elements in the country that want to revive a greater Somalia,” he said.
Meanwhile, Eritrea, a former Ethiopian province, has its own rich history of conflict with Ethiopia—most recently a 20-year war that ended in 1998, five years after Eritrea declared its independence in 1993. During the last week of July, an unmarked cargo plane from Eritrea made two deliveries to the Mogadishu airport in Somalia, delivering what appeared to be weapons for the Islamic regime.
Weinstein and other analysts have argued that Eritrea is helping to fund the Islamic movement in Somalia. “Anything they can do to hurt Ethiopia, they will do,” Weinstein said, noting that Eritrea’s bellicose statements toward the United States remind him of North Korea’s own stance against the Western superpower. “Eritrea and now Djibouti and the Arabs want a strong Somalia that is unified to fend off Ethiopia,” Weinstein argued.
Kenya, meanwhile, is trying to foster goodwill among the countries involved in the multilateral conflict, but is having a difficult time keeping its policy of “equidistance.”
As international efforts to resolve the Somali conflict have crumbled, Kenya has been forced to take a diplomatic lead. The country has already led one diplomatic delegation to Mogadishu to negotiate with the “disputing parties.”
Aside from perhaps Ethiopia, Kenya could have the most at stake in Somalia’s political outcome. The northern section of Kenya is home to many ethnic Somalis and hosts some 134,000 refugees from Somalia in its northeastern camps, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Nairobi had preferred not to inject itself directly into the conflict, but Addis Ababa forced its hand by mounting incursions into Somalia. “Kenya stated its shift toward the Ethiopian position as the courts began to gain momentum,” Weinstein said. “They reached a conclusion that the Somali Kenyans weren’t going to rebel against them.” And Nairobi might be the only player left that could head off an armed confrontation between the Islamic courts and Addis Ababa.
Tom Casey, deputy spokesman for the U.S. State Department, said in June that it will take a concerted effort by many different regional and international players to stabilize Somalia in a way that everyone can accept.
“The United States reiterates its support for the establishment of a functioning government that incorporates all elements of Somali society,” Casey said. “The United States stresses that this objective can only be achieved through broad-based dialogue that includes all key stakeholders in Somalia, such as civil society, women’s groups, business leaders, clan leaders, in addition to the Islamic courts and Transitional Federal Institutions [the interim government].”
The world is watching to see if Somalia and the rest of the Horn of Africa can heed the State Department’s call for peace.
Why is the Bush administration worried about terrorism in Somalia?
Because Somalia is a chaotic, poor, battle-weary Muslim country with no central government. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, “terrorist activity might find some fertile ground there, and we don’t want that to happen.” Moreover, U.S. government officials say that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network supported Somali radical Islamists, organized training camps in Somalia, and threatened American troops in Somalia who were there on a U.N. humanitarian mission in the early 1990s.
Could Osama bin Laden or other al-Qaeda leaders hide in Somalia?
Conceivably. But they would have to get there first. And Somalia differs from Afghanistan in several key respects, experts say. First, while Somalia is about as big as Afghanistan, its landscape lacks Afghanistan's many natural hiding places. Second, Somalia is a more secular society where Taliban-style fundamentalism is unfamiliar. Third, Somalia’s pragmatic, secular local authorities are well aware of the multimillion-dollar U.S. bounty on the heads of al-Qaeda leaders.
But according to the State Department, it is Somalia’s “lack of functioning central government, protracted state of violent instability, long unguarded coastline, porous borders, and proximity to Arabian peninsula” which still make it a potential site for terrorists seeking refuge.
What is the United States doing about the terrorist threat in Somalia?
Investigating, planning, and talking tough—so far. U.S. Navy planes based in Oman have been flying reconnaissance missions over Somalia, and an international fleet is monitoring sea traffic. Meanwhile, U.S. military officials have been meeting with Somali clan leaders and officials in neighboring Ethiopia. And senior Bush administration officials often mention Somalia as a possible future stage in the war on terrorism.
Does al-Qaeda have a significant presence in Somalia?
Maybe. The Bush administration suspects that al-Qaeda has links to local radical Islamists in Somalia, but we don’t know how strong those links are. Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia specialist at Davidson College, writes, “there are at this time no terrorist bases and training camps in Somalia,” but with the post-September 11 attention, they may be lying low.
How many al-Qaeda members are in Somalia?
We don’t know. Somalia-watchers estimate there might be a few dozen al-Qaeda members or sympathizers in the country. The U.S.government, which has not released an estimate of the al-Qaeda membership there, is concerned that al-Qaeda operatives who fled Afghanistan will seek refuge in Somalia.
Has America intervened in Somalia before?
Yes. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush sent U.S. troops there to spearhead a U.N.-backed humanitarian mission to relieve famine. But the United States has kept its distance from Somalia since an October 1993 operation in pursuit of the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid left eighteen U.S. soldiers dead—an episode dramatized in the recent movie Black Hawk Down. The death toll and graphic TV images of an American soldier being dragged through the Somali capital, Mogadishu, led the Clinton administration to withdraw U.S. forces.
Commentary continues...........
