Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT/Reuters: U.S. Moves Diplomat Critical of Somali Warlord Aid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:02 AM
Original message
NYT/Reuters: U.S. Moves Diplomat Critical of Somali Warlord Aid
U.S. Moves Diplomat Critical of Somali Warlord Aid
By REUTERS
Published: May 30, 2006

NAIROBI (Reuters) - A top U.S. official handling Somalia has been transferred from his job after criticising payments to warlords that are said to be fuelling some of Mogadishu's worst-ever fighting, diplomats said on Tuesday.

Fellow analysts in the close-knit community of Somalia- watchers in Nairobi said the State Department transferred Michael Zorick, formerly Somali political affairs officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, to the Chad embassy after he spoke out.

The move exposes a rift inside the U.S. government on how to handle Somalia -- whether efforts to build peace should come before counter-terrorism -- and the effect Washington's perceived role has had in inflaming fighting there....

***

Various other diplomats involved with Somalia, including those from Washington's allies, have expressed frustration at U.S. aid to warlords which they say has undermined Somalia's weak interim government, seen as the best hope for peace there....

***

Analysts say Washington's widely believed links with the warlords have had the contrary effect of rallying Islamist groups and increasing support for them among Somalis, who are not usually strong supporters of radical Islam....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-security-somalia.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. These are the bad choices that come up in a hard war.
Edited on Tue May-30-06 10:27 AM by Kagemusha
I mean, truth be told, I personally am a lot more comfortable with paying warlords to fight than sending US troops to fight instead. It's more honest. It may be unprincipled, but really, it's just prioritizing rather than spiting the warlords to avoid shooting ourselves in the face. Granted, this indeed rallies Islamist group support, but that's not really the point in and of itself. Backing the warlords looks smart if they win. It looks really stupid if they kick up a fight that they will lose.

But these Islamists are not pacifists, and simply choosing not to engage them is not going to stop them by itself. This isn't Care Bears. You can't stop jihadists with a hug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC