• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Somalia: will it finally become stable?

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
488
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Eithiopia has always been the butt of many jokes about africa and somalia has been the turd. Somalia has been notorious for being a failed state and a breeding ground for al queda. In the 60s, british somaliland and italian somaliland became independent and joined forming somalia. It was a very successful democracy marking the first time in africa where a leader peacefully stepped down after his term was finished. Unfortunately, this was not to last; in the 70s, there was a military coup and the country was a regime until the early 90s when the people got tired and rebelled. The US actually helped the rebels overthrow the government and in the aftermath, the umbrella of rebel groups broke apart as different groups claimed parts of the country. The clinton administration tried to lead a peacekeeping operation in mogadishu, the capital, with no avail. In the very late 90s, al shabaab, part of al queda, swooped through somalia claiming much of it. The parts which weren't belonged to the regions of puntland and somaliland, the latter trying to form an independent state. In 2006, eithiopia decided to get rid of al shabaab and create a transitional government as seen in the pic with green being al shabaa, blue puntland, yellow somaliland, and grey eithiopia
800px-Icu_somalia_map.jpg
Al shabaab was ousted from mogadishu in 2009 and in august 2012, a paermanent government was established. The country continues to be plagued by terrorism but it is making progress as seen in this map with grey being shabaab and red being government:
Somali_Civil_War_(2009-present).svg.jpg
 
Masterhawk said:
Eithiopia has always been the butt of many jokes about africa and somalia has been the turd. Somalia has been notorious for being a failed state and a breeding ground for al queda. In the 60s, british somaliland and italian somaliland became independent and joined forming somalia. It was a very successful democracy marking the first time in africa where a leader peacefully stepped down after his term was finished. Unfortunately, this was not to last; in the 70s, there was a military coup and the country was a regime until the early 90s when the people got tired and rebelled. The US actually helped the rebels overthrow the government and in the aftermath, the umbrella of rebel groups broke apart as different groups claimed parts of the country. The clinton administration tried to lead a peacekeeping operation in mogadishu, the capital, with no avail. In the very late 90s, al shabaab, part of al queda, swooped through somalia claiming much of it. The parts which weren't belonged to the regions of puntland and somaliland, the latter trying to form an independent state. In 2006, eithiopia decided to get rid of al shabaab and create a transitional government as seen in the pic with green being al shabaa, blue puntland, yellow somaliland, and grey eithiopia
View attachment 67201070
Al shabaab was ousted from mogadishu in 2009 and in august 2012, a paermanent government was established. The country continues to be plagued by terrorism but it is making progress as seen in this map with grey being shabaab and red being government:
View attachment 67201071
Click to expand...

Again a country that would require an international force to protect the population, stabilize the situation and maintain civil peace till a political system promising durable security for the citizens could be expected to survive.
 
joG said:
Again a country that would require an international force to protect the population, stabilize the situation and maintain civil peace till a political system promising durable security for the citizens could be expected to survive.
Click to expand...

" PROMISING " being the operative word. Most promise the world to gain power, and once that power is in their hand, then out come the usual tribal differences and the blood begins to flow all over again.

As a contractor I spend 3 weeks there hunting down a bad guy someone wanted "back home". Almost 100% of the places we went were occupied by starving people living in fear just wanting to be left alone. It was completely pathetic. One of the biggest bitches I heard from the people on the coast was how the large fishing factory ships would suck up every fish in the water and leave nothing for them to make a living from.

That is why a few saw piracy as a viable option.
 
In answer to the OP title - no, Somalia will need a whole lot more time and bloodshed before it can become stable. A from-the-roots state has to arise rather than be imposed now.

Masterhawk said:
~ In the 60s, british somaliland and italian somaliland became independent and joined forming somalia. It was a very successful democracy marking the first time in africa where a leader peacefully stepped down after his term was finished. Unfortunately, this was not to last; in the 70s, there was a military coup and the country
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Muhammad Siad Barre#s backing from the USSR caused the problems as part of the extended cold war. The region had become a model for what other states should have done however his socialist / communist policies ran the country bare.

RetiredNSmilin said:
~ As a contractor I spend 3 weeks there hunting down a bad guy someone wanted "back home". Almost 100% of the places we went were occupied by starving people living in fear just wanting to be left alone. It was completely pathetic. One of the biggest bitches I heard from the people on the coast was how the large fishing factory ships would suck up every fish in the water and leave nothing for them to make a living from.

That is why a few saw piracy as a viable option.
Click to expand...

You should have been on this forum a few years ago, a muslim poster from the region used to take a pounding from other posters when she tried to explain why the only option for the locals was piracy. I think many posters felt they should go and get regular jobs (in industries which just didn't exist)
 
Infinite Chaos said:
In answer to the OP title - no, Somalia will need a whole lot more time and bloodshed before it can become stable. A from-the-roots state has to arise rather than be imposed now.



Unfortunately Muhammad Siad Barre#s backing from the USSR caused the problems as part of the extended cold war. The region had become a model for what other states should have done however his socialist / communist policies ran the country bare.



You should have been on this forum a few years ago, a muslim poster from the region used to take a pounding from other posters when she tried to explain why the only option for the locals was piracy. I think many posters felt they should go and get regular jobs (in industries which just didn't exist)
Click to expand...

...and I bet they cussed her with a full belly, in a secure home, with the next meal as far away as the refrigerator.

These locals knew the waters, knew the shipping lanes, and knew they had families to feed.

Seeing your children starve makes people do things they would never think of otherwise.

Yes, Piracy is wrong, but so is sucking up all the fish in the area just so people 10,000 miles away can have a McFish burger....then throw away half of it uneaten.
 
joG said:
Again a country that would require an international force to protect the population, stabilize the situation and maintain civil peace till a political system promising durable security for the citizens could be expected to survive.
Click to expand...

that's kind of what's happening now. The international force is the african union
 
Masterhawk said:
that's kind of what's happening now. The international force is the african union
Click to expand...

Yes. Such a force is usually required over a long period of at least three or four election cacles to guarantee that a stable situation can form.
 
joG said:
Yes. Such a force is usually required over a long period of at least three or four election cacles to guarantee that a stable situation can form.
Click to expand...

I don't see Somalia becoming a state capable of governing its own borders and territory for longer than that - not while al-shabab and other versions of such groups have such easy access to new troops.

It's classed as a fragile state - but could easily go back in a heartbeat or an explosion in the wrong place.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I don't see Somalia becoming a state capable of governing its own borders and territory for longer than that - not while al-shabab and other versions of such groups have such easy access to new troops.

It's classed as a fragile state - but could easily go back in a heartbeat or an explosion in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

That is about my take. To stabilize the country would most probably call for a more extended period of stationing than usual.
 
joG said:
That is about my take. To stabilize the country would most probably call for a more extended period of stationing than usual.
Click to expand...

Agreed, relatively cheap to pay the African Union to put troops in locally; something the West should have considered when acting in Iraq or Libya.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Agreed, relatively cheap to pay the African Union to put troops in locally; something the West should have considered when acting in Iraq or Libya.
Click to expand...

That is again just about my thinking.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I don't see Somalia becoming a state capable of governing its own borders and territory for longer than that - not while al-shabab and other versions of such groups have such easy access to new troops.

It's classed as a fragile state - but could easily go back in a heartbeat or an explosion in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

If al shabaab is defeated and somaliland does not become a nation, I believe that somalia could become a very stable country
 
Masterhawk said:
If al shabaab is defeated and somaliland does not become a nation, I believe that somalia could become a very stable country
Click to expand...

Al-Shabaab can be defeated militarily but the political and religious reasons for it's continued survival means that won't happen for a long while. The break-up of the region into smaller countries will help settle problems and historic tribal enmities but sometimes western govts think keeping states as created under colonial conditions makes sense.

Iraq proves otherwise.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Al-Shabaab can be defeated militarily but the political and religious reasons for it's continued survival means that won't happen for a long while. The break-up of the region into smaller countries will help settle problems and historic tribal enmities but sometimes western govts think keeping states as created under colonial conditions makes sense.

Iraq proves otherwise.
Click to expand...

If al shabaab is defeated ans the somalia government achieves stability, somaliland's chance for independence will be lost preventing a domino effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom