by ZACH ROSENBERG

Sam Abrams, War Is Boring contributor and SAIS Review editor, managed to get some of the most influential in military thought together for this conference. As WIB‘s substitute editor while David Axe is out having adventures, I’m definitely ducking out of work early for this. Washington-area readers, see you there.

by DAVID AXE

3rd Squadron’s got a PR problem. In Baraki Barak district, the locals are cooperating with U.S. forces and the district government. Reconstruction money is flowing in. State Department and U.S. AID reps are arriving to boost agriculture and governance. People who had fled the district during the bad years are coming back by the thousands. How does the Army know this? It’s been monitoring traffic at the public toilets.

Point is, Baraki Barak is benefiting from its cooperation with coalition forces. So how do you spread that news to the districts that, so far, aren’t cooperating? How do you create what squadron commander Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Gukeisen calls “dislocated envy”?

Parachute day-laborers, is one way. Able Troop, in Baraki Barak, invites locals to apply for jobs working on U.S. outposts in (uncooperative) neighboring districts. They’re flown by helicopter to the outlying bases for brief stints doing menial tasks.

The workers, who usually show up for their job interviews in business suits, not only perform necessary functions on the U.S. outposts — taking out the garbage, cleaning the bathrooms, building new huts — they also, unwittingly, advance the American information strategy.

For when the workers are done for the day, the Americans release them into the surrounding towns, so they can buy their dinner, shop and relax with a cup of chai. “They talk to the locals [saying,] ‘Why don’t you guys want to work?” explains Able Troop commander Captain Paul Shepard, pictured.

The idea is that Afghans are more convincing evangelists than Americans, when it comes to spreading the gospel of coalition-led reconstruction.

(Photo: David Axe)

Related:
How to Bomb Nice
Cargo Jam!
Afghan Pirate Radio Defies Morale Crackdown
Special Delivery
Chopper-Bombing Drone-Killer
Saving Razia
Birds, Beware
Rescuers Re-Rescue the Rescued
Tale of Three Districts
Chicken & Egg
With Friends Like These
Interpreting Pashtunwali
Rocketman
Farmers’ Powwow
Op Donkey Haul

by ZACH ROSENBERG

In 2006, during the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was hunted and captured by Ethiopia, with help from the U.S. This February he received a standing ovation in Addis Ababa, and last month spoke in Washington.

Ahmed was a teacher in Mogadishu before joining an Islamic court, working to foster the rule of Sharia law in a chaotic place where the lack of central government, complex clan system and constant fighting. His court eventually united with similar courts to form the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which, for a short time, brought something resembling stability to large swaths of Somalia.Then Ethiopia invaded with American backing, which apparently consisted of training, intelligence and (it’s been alleged) weapons. Certainly there were U.S. airstrikes during the period, including by two scary-as-hell AC-130s, and special forces raids, but these were all said to have been aimed at Al-Qaeda figures in the country. Ethiopian troops captured Ahmed, and he his questioning was reportedly visited by Americans.

Apparently they saw something they liked, because Ahmed soon became a major figure in the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), put in place by Ethiopians to govern Somalia.

After the invasion the ICU splintered into factions, including what became al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, two hardline Islamic groups who, though they together succeeded in taking over large parts of southern Somalia, are now fighting each other.

The TFG has been locked in combat against Al Shabab, and though the TFG was pledged huge amounts of international support, little of it has gotten through to Somalia. Late last month Ahmed spoke at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, then went to Washington, D.C. to speak with policymakers. During his time in Washington he spoke to a standing-room-only crowd at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on K Street. The thrust of his speech, given in Arabic, was that the U.S. government had a “special responsibility” to help Somalia, and that on this, they were failing.

Ahmed came to ask for weapons and training, for wages for his government and military, for food aid and infrastructure help. Whether he gets it or not is the big question, but another equally large question is, can any amount of assistance help Ahmed to bring government to Somalia?

(Photo: Nazret.com)

By ZACH ROSENBERG

One day after a shootout closed the U.S.-Mexico border crossing at San Ysidro, two days after Mexican troops raided a house and discovered $5 million in bribes organized into “police” and “press,” less than a week after grenades and assault rifles were used to attack a drug rehabilitation clinic in Ciudad Juarez (only the latest in a series), comes the latest Mexico report from the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report is full of interesting statistics, including that a full third of Mexicans would move to the U.S. given the means, and that half again of those would do so illegally. That means Americans could expect roughly 18 million more potential illegal immigrants from Mexico alone, and keep in mind that Mexico has fared relatively well during the economic crisis. Though a reporter from Germany’s Der Spiegel wrote a short but fascinating profile, it’s only the latest illustration doesn’t contain much that those following Mexico don’t already know.

As critics point out, the violence is largely an American problem — the guns are smuggled from the U.S., where they’re easy to obtain, and bought using proceeds from American drug users — but many Americans are either unaware or simply don’t care. Drug traffic and violence are oft-discussed in the abstract, but so long as they are both remain contained among certain areas and demographics, the general public is happy enough to stay away from specifics.

In the meantime, people are seriously discussing the possibility of Mexico as a failed state. While jumping to that conclusion seems a bit hasty, stories from northern Mexico almost make Colombia sound like a pretty nice place to be.

(Photo: Flickr user Manoso)

by ZACH ROSENBERG

The New York Times is reporting that the Yemeni government has successfully repulsed a “major offensive” by insurgents. News organizations report at least 140 insurgents killed in a battle all over the northern province of Saada, including urban fighting in the area’s major city.

The conflict in Yemen, though often ignored by major media outlets, is a full-on entrenched insurgency. Northern Yemen is considered an active war zone, home to a conflict that has killed thousands and displaced at least 100,000 people. There are indications that the Yemen conflict is proxy war: the Zaidi are Shiites fighting the U.S.- and Saudi-backed Yemen government, making them a tempting policy tool for the Iranians. The U.S. has maintained a not-so-quiet presence there for years.

While few experts believe the Zaidi to be an existential threat to the government in Saana, the Yemeni government — weak, unpopular and poor — is in no position to effectively end the insurgency through either force or negotiation. The big question is how much support outside parties are willing to give. U.S. intelligence and special forces could give the Yemenis a decisive edge (ala Ethiopia), but is the U.S. willing to risk the anger and publicity that such support would bring? Are the benefits worth the costs?

(Photo: Los Angeles Times)

As the USS

With Kearsage on the way to Haiti, it might be helpful to delve a bit into the situation there.

The country has been suffering from extreme poverty and instability for quite some time. In 2004, a military coup ousted President Aristide (for the second time), prompting the deployment of a force comprised of U.S. Marines, as well as Canadian and French soldiers. They served as peacekeepers until the U.N. put together MINUSTAH (the U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti).

MINUSTAH, comprised mostly of Brazilian troops, has faced several challenges. While many peacekeepers around the world complain there is no peace to keep, MINUSTAH actually was deployed without any peace agreement to enforce. Their mission was to deal with the rampant gang-related violence in Haiti’s urban center that disrupted development, aid and trade.

Though some human rights groups have criticized MINUSTAH, the peacekeepers have effectively put a lid on the gang problem. Unfortunately, lulls in violence have not been accompanied by influxes of aid or investment. This lack of progress has continually resulted in violent riots (like the recent food riots) that MINUSTAH and the Haitian National Police have to put down. This exacerbated by the chaos brought by tropical storms.

In many ways, U.N. strategy in Haiti is the opposite of that in Africa. Darfuris in Chad are being bombarded with aid (and making Chadians bitter), while an under-equipped peacekeeping force in Darfur is tasked with protecting people from government militias and bandit minded rebels. Meanwhile in Haiti, a very well equipped force is keeping the peace, but is unable to get the development resources that could sustain it.

I know the folks at MINUSTAH will be thrilled to get any help they can get.

(Photo: me)

Related:
Kearsarge sails for Haiti
Brazil stages oil-protection exercise
Kearsarge series

In the wake of the Haskanita raid that killed 10 soldiers in late 2007, peacekeepers in Darfur were driven near the brink. These under-paid, and under-equipped troops were accused of failing in their mission. However, these proud soldiers insist that this was not the case.

In January, the A.U. peacekeeping force in Darfur, AMIS, officially became the United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). The African soldiers, in a special ceremony, took off their green A.U. berets and put on new blue U.N. berets, but kept their A.U. armbands. This was the beginning of the U.N.’s first “hybrid” peacekeeping force. Given a new mandate (authorizing the use of force to protect civilians from harm), and given a renewed since of mission, UNAMID set out to make a footprint.

UNAMID benefits from incredibly capable leadership. The force commander is Nigerian General Martin Luther Agwai, a veteran of Sierra Leone and a member of the American National Defense University’s hall of fame. Its DJSR is Major-General (Ret.) Henry Anyidoho of Ghana. Anyidoho has served in Lebanon, Liberia, Cambodia, and most notably as Deputy Force Commander to General Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda, where his troops helped protect Tutsis and Hutu moderates seeking shelter in U.N. compounds.

UNAMID, like most peacekeeping forces, includes both military and civilian police personnel. General Agwai’s basic plan to use UNPOL to help maintain order within the chaotic refugee centers and train Sudanese police, and to use his military personnel to conduct patrols and provide protection for refugees and aid workers. He would like to station some of his men in refugee camps full time to provide 24-hour security.

Unfortunately a continued lack of manpower, firepower, and equipment is making these goals hard to accomplish. One African officer wryly observed that as of now, UNAMID is little more than AMIS with blue helmets. Despite lip service to the need to support the mission in Sudan, few nations have stepped forward to send troops or equipment. A sadly ironic illustration of this is that many of the peacekeepers had to purchase paint themselves to turn their green A.U. helmets to blue U.N. ones.

However, despite these hardships, UNAMIDs military leaders and troops have taken the initiative, and are attempting to punch above their weight. They have begun conducting night patrols, despite the fact that most of their troops lack night vision goggles or flashlights. Relying on the headlights of there pickups, they are pressing on to bring hope to refugees huddled in the dark. Though they know that these operations have little tactical value, it sends a strong message to the warring factions, and to the people of Darfur.

One of UNAMID’s biggest challenges is the continued non-compliance and interference from all parties. Non-African troops are frequently blocked by Khartoum, most recently those from Thailand and Nepal. Also, UNAMID’s Chief of Staff, a respected British officer with peacekeeping experience in Bosnia was kicked out. UNAMID troops have also had to deal with skirmishes and harassment from Sudanese troops, rebels, and from roaming bandits who prey on aid convoys. The rebels, who have overtime fractured into countless factions, are almost impossible to hold negotiations with as they are constantly splitting and having internal disputes. Also of concern is Osama bin Laden’s call for a jihad against U.N. peacekeepers.

UNAMID’s wildcard is China. China has longstanding trade ties with Sudan, including arms shipments. China has in the past acted on Khartoum’s behalf, stymieing efforts for a peacekeeping force. However, China seems to be increasingly impatient with the bad press the Sudanese government has been attracting, and has slowly begun putting pressure on Sudan. The PLA has contributed engineers to the mission, which will help build new bases for incoming troops.

This strategy puts China into quite a debacle, that makes one think of events happening in another Horn of Africa country. However, China is in a unique position to utilize its ties to the to pressure the Sudanese government to let in troops that UNAMID desperately needs.

Many critics have already written off UNAMID as a failed mission, insisting that the peacekeepers have continued to fail. However, UNAMID is operating at less than 50% capacity and without helicopters. General Agwai responded to critics in a recently published op-ed in which he explains the challenges of peacekeeping and illustrates his case with numerous historical examples.

The conflict in Darfur continues to be an area of major debate. As celebrities continue to speak out on the issue and demand action, the efforts of soldiers and police on the ground now remain largely ignored and unsupported.

(Photo: U.N. Dispatch)

With David off to Chad to report on the refugee crisis, I thought I would help explain some of the origins of the current situation. A large portion of the refugees came from Sudan where (unless you’ve been living under a rock) everyone knows that a war is raging.

Sudan has been in almost constant civil war since the 1980s. By 2003, the Second Sudanese Civil War (fought between the Arab Muslim government in Khartoum and the separatist African Christians in the south) was beginning to wind down. However, as the war in the south was ending, a new one was beginning in the west. Rebels in the Darfur region began an uprising, accusing Khartoum of neglect. The Sudanese government struck back with overwhelming military force, and began hiring Arab nomads in Darfur to attack black African rebels. In 2004, a cease-fire was put in place, and the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was formed to monitor the peace agreement. (It should be noted, that most of these African militaries lack proper air assets, and needed a lift from someone who had them.)

AMIS was able to make a difference through activities like escorting women to collect firewood, and observers did an admirable job documenting the conflict. However, the accomplishments of the green helmeted troops were often overshadowed be the force’s shortcomings. From its inception, the force would suffer constant setbacks and hardships. There were periods of time were their pay was not received as a result of logistical problems. They were tasked with monitoring a region the size of Texas without the proper manpower or equipment to secure the region. Mobility and coordination were strained by a lack of air assets, as well as basic communication equipment like radios. Only the South African contingient was able to conduct regular night patrols as only they were properly supplied with night vision goggles.

Several deaths of A.U. peacekeepers throughout their time in the region began to reveal that they were not only ill-equipped to defend civilians and enforce the cease-fire, but often lacked the firepower to defend themselves. This lack of supply would tragic consequences, when roughly 1,000 attackers (the alignment of which is still unknown) overran the A.U. base in Haskanita, killing 10 peacekeepers. (Pictured.) After Sudanese security forces arrived, they were seen (and photographed) looting the base. This would be the turning point that would finally prompt the international community budge (slightly). The U.N. agreed to speed up the formation of a “hybrid force” to bolster efforts in Darfur. Meanwhile, thousands of displaced Darfuris sought refuge in Chad, only to find themselves in the crossfire of ANOTHER civil war, now prompting the deployment of an E.U. force to protect them from banditry and violence.

(Photo: Reuters)

Central America is dominated economically, militarily and socially by the United States, which has historically used its leverage to great effect, having actually invaded many of these countries at one time or another. The latest and greatest issue for the region is DR-CAFTA, a free trade bill which virtually eliminates tariffs on trade between the U.S. and Central America (and the Dominican Republic). While it sounds simple, free trade is a contentious issue on all sides. Free trade itself won’t be discussed here, it’s just too much (go here for the rough guide), but rest assured that it’s given rise to a enormous backlash against free trade, multinational corporations and unbridled capitalism in general and the biggest supporter of all these policies, the United States.

Now, there have long been movements opposing such capitalism in Central America, but (much to the surprise of many Americans, who took for granted that the whole thing was settled with the demise of the U.S.S.R.) what was a strong grassroots movement is now gaining power: the best example in the region is Nicaragua’s election of Daniel Ortega, a former Sandanista leader who stands strongly against U.S. policies. Ortega has oriented Nicaragua’s foreign policy towards cooperation with ideological allies like Venezuela and Cuba, and argued for caps on free trade. Although this has scared the Hell out of some people, the Nicaraguan economy does not seem to be suffering greatly because of it.

In the Caribbean there are big happenings. Fidel Castro, who has led Cuba for damn near 50 years, has resigned from power and installed his brother Raul. Raul has staunch Communist credentials, having served as Defense Minister for years upon years. (Cuban soldiers pictured.) But now that he’s in charge, Raul seems to be loosening things up a bit economically. Cubans are now allowed to freely buy cell phones and computers, own their own homes and run small businesses. It’s open to debate how far the reforms will go and whether they indicate a real transformation to a capitalist economy – while the experts are divided, everybody is keeping a close eye on the situation.

The U.S., much to the annoyance of other nations, has had a strict economic and travel embargo on Cuba since Fidel took power, which, though designed to hasten Castro’s fall from power, has been largely ineffective. There has been some support for lifting the ban, but the political clout of exiled Cubans in the U.S. means any policy change will be a long and bitter process.

Leonel Fernandez has just been reelected as President of the Dominican Republic. Despite rampant corruption, the Dominican Republic ranked 2nd highest in satisfaction with government, with 49 percent of the population approving of their democracy, which, frankly, is surprising given the recent history of massive corruption and astounding mismanagement there. The Dominican Republic also displays above average levels of approval for their elected officials and political parties (~45 percent and 30 percent, respectively), well above the Latin American average of 20 percent (Latinobarometro 2007 results).

(Photo: Galerie Photos)

The Mexican military of gets about .5% of the GDP, putting them on relative par with such, ahem, heavily notoriously militarized, violent nations as The Bahamas, Moldova and Gambia. The budget, about $4 billion in 2006, has recently received a $500 million boost from the Merida Initiative, which is mainly to be dedicated to reconnaissance and interdiction equipment. The result is a slow upgrade from their weird hodgepodge of outdated systems into a relative modernity. This is not to insult the Mexican military, but seriously, nobody really uses T-33s anymore.

Recent purchases of weapons and associated systems from Israel, Germany and the U.S. will likely result in a real upgrade in capability. However, in a country like Mexico, which has major problems with inequality (Gini coefficient of .54) where citizens have little faith in their governmental institutions, with a history of forceful intervention in domestic affairs (pdf!), military modernization can be controversial. Recent proposals to buy Russian Su-27s for the Navy, for instance, were rejected.

Mexico, surrounded by weak military powers and bordering a world superpower, has long been oriented towards domestic operations, which are now, under significant pressure from the U.S., anti-drug in nature. President Felipe Calderon ordered the military to intervene directly in northern Mexico, superseding and sometimes directly replacing heavily corrupt or ineffective police forces and putting emphasis on national counter-drug operations — despite these measures the military has been generally ineffective in increasing security. This is not unexpected given the level of corruption within the military.

Indeed, Los Zetas, as one of the more notorious drug hit squads are known, is composed partially of deserters from Mexican special forces units. Men in Mexican Army uniforms have been seen (pictured) and fired upon escorting drug shipments over the U.S. border. That said, they are trying. The Army can now be seen all over northern Mexico, backed by heavy weapons, helicopters and surveillance aircraft (from the U.S. as well). While corruption almost certainly means that these resources are being used selectively against a limited range of targets, they are there. The strength of the drug cartels and level of support (and terror) they inspire likely mean that the status quo will not change drastically, but their effectiveness remains to be (publicly) seen.

Mexico enjoys a close relationship with the U.S., with high levels of trade and culture exchange. This closeness brings great rewards to both countries, but also creates problems. In Mexico’s case, many of these problems have to do with the fact that it sits next to the U.S. So, what are some of the major problems, and why should they concern us?

1) Drugs: The U.S. is by far the world’s largest market for drugs, and despite billions of dollars poured into efforts (pictured) to stop them from coming in, the smugglers don’t seem to have many export problems. The vast majority of cocaine and crack is smuggled over land across the border. While I find the U.S. “War on Drugs” to be tragic and ridiculous, the fact is that drugs can be dangerous, and the flood from Mexico creates serious public health and law enforcement issues all over the country. Readers from the Southwest probably have some interesting stories about it.

2) Gangs: Many of these problems come from the drug gangs themselves. They are, for the most part, tightly organized, well financed, and heavily armed. The Mexican government is fairly corrupt at all levels, but the local police take that particular cake. The consequence of this is that drug gangs, despite the efforts of Mexico City, operate in a law enforcement vacuum, intimidating and killing rival gang members, police, reporters and innocents, and few people try to stop them. They are so imbued into the local culture that narcocorridos, songs about drug dealers, are a popular favorite in the region; many people pray to the patron saint of the trade.

3) Oil: Yes, oil. Lots of it. The U.S. imports huge quantities of the stuff from Mexico, and it’s a hot issue on the Mexican political scene these days. The Mexican state oil company, PEMEX, works with old equipment and technology and has serious problems with funding and payment, say nothing of the complex political environment. This issue is ongoing.

Next, Zach will tell us about the Mexican military and how it factors in all these problems. Check back later.

(Photo: A.P.)