Uncle Sam is preoccupied with Iraq as civil war in Mogadishu, Somalia takes a turn for the worse. For more than ten years, Mogadishu has been divided and ruled by ruthless warlords from rival clans and freelance gunmen after the fall of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in January, 1991. During that time, civil war has only escalated and the U.N. report for this year found at least ten countries were in some way involved in the Somalian conflict, pointing to its strategic importance in the region. Ethiopia, Kenya, and a U.S. offshore fleet have converged forces to eradicate Islamist targets near Afmadow in southern Somalia as well as in Ras Kamboni, the Somali peninsula bordering Kenya. These Islamists are being punished nominally for providing asylum to three Al-Qaeda men who were responsible for the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and for 2002 attacks directed at Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya. The most recent American air strike in the region occurred January 9th, two weeks after U.S. ally Ethiopia helped install Somalia’s transitional government. This transitional government is a major turning point for Somalia as the country’s first potentially viable government since 1991.

The United States’ relationship with Somalia has resembled both that of concerned parent as well as harsh disciplinarian. Although Somalia has received aid from both the U.N. and U.S. in the past decade, the Somali Islamist sector continues to harbor hatred towards the U.S., its alliance with Ethiopia, and its Zionist policy. Every U.S. policy in Mogadishu has failed disastrously. The most infamous incident that may ring a bell is the “Black hawk down” raid in 1993, in which 18 U.S. troops were killed attempting to subdue militia fighting in Mogadishu. American policy at the time, led by President Clinton, chose to cut U.S. losses and withdrew its troops from Somalia.

The present U.S. policy in Somalia receives criticism on two fronts. Although no one can fault the U.S. for punishing Somali Islamists who harbored Al Qaeda terrorists, the disproportionately strong American forces have now cornered the weaker Islamist army. Many in the international community find America’s behavior adolescent and alarming. According to the Economist, “the American action raises uncomfortable questions. Taken together, the attacks claimed dozens, possibly hundreds of lives [including those of] women and children.” The second critique towards current U.S. policy in Mogadishu stems from past U.S. conduct towards Somalia. Last May, after the Islamist Court Union (ICU) took over Mogadishu, the U.S. collaborated with tribal warlords to form the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT). However, this agreement was a direct violation of U.N. protocol, breaching the organization’s a weapons embargo on Somalia, though the embargo has since been lifted. This violation only reinforced the notion that to the U.S., rules apply to everyone else but not themselves. Due to this type of underhanded, manipulative policy, the distrust between America and Somalia continues to grow. Though the ICU used force rather than fair and democratic elections to gain control over Somalia, it is no excuse for the U.S. to respond in a less than diplomatic manner.

To what extent should the U.S. reduce the level of its force against Somalian Islamists who obviously carry the interests of Al Qaeda in top priority and will stop at nothing to protect the terrorist organization? As we are well aware, Al Qaeda operates via intricate and ubiquitous networks, creating an especially difficult challenge for its enemies, a challenge that in turn can provoke adversaries like the U.S. to act more foolhardy than usual. In this light, perhaps a violation of U.N. protocol is justified after all. By deciding to join forces with the ARPCT rather than the even more detested Ethiopian army, the U.S. may have been trying to utilize the lesser of two evils by allying with this sector of Somali society to fight the ICU. In the end, American strategy failed, allowing Ethiopia to implement the Western-supported transitional government currently in place.

The whole world is carefully monitoring U.S. action towards Somalia, especially in light of past precedent. As of yet, no effective alternative solutions have arisen. The international community needs to reevaluate their harsh critique of American policy in Mogadishu and take into account that political decisions that have to be made are not necessarily “good” or “bad.” One must instead decide between bombing a wide region or letting a target get away for fear of risking innocent people’s lives. As for U.S. manipulation of the ARPCT, it is perhaps better to ignore a U.N. rule if the ends justify the means. In the end, effective policies for Somalia would have to satisfy all of the dilemmas presented. Until these are negotiated, U.S. trial and error may just have to be the way to go, however unfortunate the results.