Tweet
Buried in with today’s news was this story about one of our secret wars, this time in Somalia. It appears that now we’re using African proxies to fight Al Shabab there.
Richard Rouget, a gun for hire over two decades of bloody African conflict, is the unlikely face of the American campaign against militants in Somalia.
A husky former French Army officer, Mr. Rouget, 51, commanded a group of foreign fighters during Ivory Coast’s civil war in 2003, was convicted by a South African court of selling his military services and did a stint in the presidential guard of the Comoros Islands, an archipelago plagued by political tumult and coup attempts.
Now Mr. Rouget works for Bancroft Global Development, an American private security company that the State Department has indirectly financed to train African troops who have fought a pitched urban battle in the ruins of this city against the Shabab, the Somali militant group allied with Al Qaeda.
The company plays a vital part in the conflict now raging inside Somalia, a country that has been effectively ungoverned and mired in chaos for years. The fight against the Shabab, a group that United States officials fear could someday carry out strikes against the West, has mostly been outsourced to African soldiers and private companies out of reluctance to send American troops back into a country they hastily exited nearly two decades ago.
Note the word “someday” in that last paragraph. This describes the potential aspirational wishes of Al Shabab to wage terrorist attacks outside their own continent. Al Shabab was implicated in a recent bomb attack in Uganda. But implicit in the statement is the belief that Al Shabab could not attack the West currently. And yet we’re paying a mercenary company to train African mercenaries to fight Al Shabab on their turf. And we’re paying a fair bit of money for the privilege.
The article also mentions the building in Mogadishu that the CIA has used to undertake joint interrogations of Somali terror suspects. This was uncovered by Jeremy Scahill several weeks ago, where he recounted incidents of torture. So you have the proxy war, along with the proxy torture regime. And there are drones in the air in Somalia as well.
This is probably, if you can believe it, the least interventionist of our major covert wars happening right now, compared to Yemen and Pakistan. But it has every feature of a traditional war, from ground troops to interrogation to air support. Bancroft Global Development even has a fortified camp in Mogadishu, where it drove Al Shabab out in the past week.
We’re seeing the privatization of war, waged by corporate brands rather than nations. In this case, the US reimburses the African nations (Uganda and Burundi) sending troops into Somalia, but it might as well be a direct proxy. The precedent, as you can see, is extremely dangerous.
19 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What’s “secret” about the U.S. war in Somalia and it’s connection with famine? Anyone who’s been following this know there is nothing untransparent (although it’s complicated) about it. See multiple posts on Scott Horton interviews on antiwar.com. Best coverage I’ve been able to find.
This article in the NYT, read carefully, actually seemed to mention two distinct efforts in Somalia, Rouget’s and the CIA’s and wasn’t clear whether or not they were collaborating but gave the distinct impression they might not be. That said, it was very confusing and parts of it were downright heartbreaking.
I would like to see more reporting, but somehow doubt we will. I also hope that the people at the end of the article who are “chomping at the bit” for a bigger fight with drones, lose, and that the “monster” we’re creating is stopped, which means the CIA must leave. The CIA never does anything right anyway and there’s far too much at stake with 12 million people starving in the Horn of Africa for their fuck ups to even be around.
Al Shebab, BTW, is the younguns of Islamic Courts Union, which was the only stable govt that Somalia has had since the U.S. decided there were 3 (plus or minus) terriss in Somalia, first tried to overthrow them, then decided they were “our” guys.
U.S. reaction to Somalia is so gemischte and so f’uped and so tragic as to be one of the most unbelievable of all the U.S. f’uked wars of the 21stC.
Is there any doubt that these are Mercenary armies? Private armies sounds more acceptable, but is the nomenclature of hypocritical leaders and media. Privitizing war is the in up&coming thing because these wars are not in defense of America but the defense of corporate interests and prospects. (But the corps will still make our taxes pay for their protection.) Go to be a good job creating activity- and why would Americans object if, indeed, it exports our miscreants who like to kill and rape and plunder away from us?
“Whence is our miraculous intuition of our moral spotlessness?” Randolph Bourne
What I also note is that we’re engaging in war — a proxy war, but war nonetheless — not based on any actual state of belligerence between us and Somalia, but because at SOME POINT in the future they MIGHT cause a problem, so we have to spend a gazillion dollars killing them now.
It’s Chalmers Johnson’s “Sorrows of Empire” on steroids.
Hypocrisy is empire.
This is stupid beyond belief. Privatizing war–surprise, surprise–gives the private security company a vested interest in having the next war. Cutting off funds to your contractors is also very hazardous.
And how is it that State is contracting this and not Defense? That’s a damned dangerous precedent. And which part of State is doing the contracting?
U.S. actions in Somalia are so completely ill-conceived (giving benefit of doubt) that they hardly qualify as anything rational, thus NO relation to Sorrows, which at least makes the argument that empires act out of power motives. Seem more like hippopotamus caught in some net it can’t break out of.
Here are some of the antiwar.com links on Somalia.
Isn’t this doing the same thing we accused Gadafi of doing in Libya?
Soldier of fortune
He’s a man of war
Just can’t remember
What he’s fighting for
-Robbie Robertson
Because State provides the cover of diplomacy, humanitarian effort or nation building. Less likely to draw attention.
State has several Africa-centric procurement methods under its direct control that do not require the more visible full and open competition– ideal for these peacekeeping and stabilization efforts.
That’s exactly what I meant by “damned dangerous precedent”.
Draw attention from whom? Certainly not the Somalis.
History repeats usually. I thought we already learnt the long term effects of this kind of thing are not good from our 1980s involvement in Afghan-Soviet War during Pres. Reagan’s term and the long term effects our current administration is grappling to resolve.
I think if what is happening is that the African Union is being trained not to target civilians, that is good. If there is a covert war going on that is bad. One has to make sure what is happening first, and be careful to get a clear picture. Covert war should stop. But training to end violations shouldn’t because the African Union isn’t going to go anywhere soon.
What’s really needed immediately is a truce or cease fire. There are 12 million people at risk in the region. Their needs have to take precedence.
The article was way too all over the map to get a clear picture, but the CIA doesn’t need to be there in the middle of a famine. Why are they?
Hypocrisy is pretending to be what it is not. America is not yet or ever was a democracy. Langston Hughes said it clearly: Let America be America- the land that never was but should be.
Which makes the idea of American empire all the more vile-we can’t take care of our own country but we can fight to gain other lands and people?
The best (by far) of any coverage of Somalia is the blog africa comments. The commenter has been following Somalia for years, since well before this particular blog. There are usually weekly inclusive updates. If you want to understand what is going on in Somalia, africa comments is a must read.
I have written about the US use of African proxy soldiers here.
I think your analogy is particularly apt. Additionally, since this war is being waged by covert ops, mercenary corporations, and proxy soldiers, they are the ones driving US policy in the region. Policy becomes less and less accountable, or even known, to the President, the Congress, even to the Department of Defense, it is outside the control of the State Department, and almost completely unknown and unrelated to the American people.