I’ve highlighted al-Shabaab as a pretty clear example of what happens when U.S. skittishness over Islamism provokes the kind of overreaction that makes things worse. Prior to the U.S. backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006, al-Shabaab was part of the relatively moderate (compared to Al-Shabaab) Islamic Courts Union. Post-invasion, the moderate elements of the ICU are now part of the weak Transitional Federal Government, and al-Shabaab has been increasing its control over the country. The TFG also ultimately implemented to a Sharia-based system anyway. So instead of just Sharia, we got Sharia and a brutal insurgency being waged by an al-Qaeda affiliated group that has shown an unprecedented ability to recruit American citizens.
There’s hardly a clearer example of military intervention in the war on terror backfiring, but in the aftermath of al-Shabaab’s attack on Uganda, the Washington Post did a bit of saber rattling, referring to al-Shabaab as “al-Qaeda’s Somali branch.” Acknowledging that the U.S. is already providing support to the TFG, the editorial says:
The Somali government and army need more help, and ideally, more foreign forces; more should be done to stop the flow of weapons into the country. More U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Shabab leaders should be undertaken. The situation in Somalia, Mr. Wetangula told the Associated Press, is “very, very dire.” It is time for the United States to recognize that — and to respond before al-Shabab can.
This is pretty euphemistic, but the bombings in Uganda weren’t simply a “foreign strike” in the sense that al-Qaeda just looks for an opportunity to kill civilians whenever it can. It was an attack on a country that maintains a military presence in Somalia as part of the African Union peacekeeping force supporting the TFG. Al-Shabaab does have some ideological affinity and personnel links to al-Qaeda, but most experts say AQ doesn’t possess any degree of operational control that would justify al-Shabaab being referred to as a subsidiary group. Thus far, al-Shabaab’s goals and interests remain regional, and the Uganda bombing doesn’t suggest otherwise.
Leah Farrall writes that “While the attacks could have been targets of opportunity, to my mind it is starting to look like a formal AQ-al-Shabab merger could be on the way.” The Post doesn’t really get too specific, but given the history and outcome of prior U.S. efforts in the area, it’s worth thinking about whether a more heavy-handed response might actually accelerate that process, and whether there’s an alternative route worth pursuing.
