Is it just me or is the Los Angeles Times becoming the newspaper of conscience in the United States? It raises the question of past American policies, namely under the Bush administration’s war on terror agenda — which justified foreign interventions in the name of security.

Somalia is all over the headlines lately for the prominent piracy of late. One such act resulted in a dramatic shootout and heroic rescue of a U.S. captain. Despite tough words from Obama and the presence of international naval forces, Somali piracy continues to pick up these past few days.

The piracy is backed by an enormous economic industry, some argue, and that makes it a non-starter in terms of military action — especially given the context of Somalia as a non-state.

When they editorialized about the militant religious extremists overrunning Somalia, the actually cited past US policies as contributing to the current crisis in statehood — just months after the Ethiopian occupation it backed ended:

Al Shabab probably would not exist were it not for the disastrous failure of U.S. policies in Somalia. In other words, we are the authors of our own undoing.

When the coalition of Islamist groups known as the Islamic Courts Union became the first chance at a central government in more than a decade in 2006, the Bush administration engineered a foreign invasion to overthrow their leaders — because they were concerned about its possible ties to Al Qaeda. The ICU, by the way, effectively halted the piracy (like the Taliban did to drug production in Afghanistan).

Since Somalia has lacked a central government, its waters have been run amok by western pirates — the kind who dump and over-fish illegally simply because there is no sheriff to enforce any law. American policy has only further precluded Somali non-failed statehood.

By sacrificing current stability for the risk of future attacks, the United States’s actions then invited the crisis now. Was it worth it? Well given that the next dominant Somali movement, Al Shabaab, is more closely related to Al Qaeda and even more fanatical, I think we can chalk this off to another Bush blunder.

But given that Obama is in power now, we should think twice before sending in the guns. According to a Jeremy Scahill piece,

As one “pirate” said, “The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now.” Another added, “As long as there is no just government in Somalia, we will still be the coast guard… If we get an American, we will take revenge.”

While Obama may be tempted to play to red meat Americans and sharpen his national security bona fides by attacks in Somalia, military action is highly unlikely to bring about the results that enhanced Somali sovereignty and governance would. In this economy, foreign development will not fly. Dropping bombs will be the quick and popular solution. But it will only make things worse.

Related posts:

1. Update Somalia
2. Ethiopia Enters the Somalia Conflict
3. Somalia: From Bad to Worse?
4. Islamic Militants Unite Shattered Somalia
5. Where’s the Booty At?